Just like https certificate authorities, the only way to fight all the AI slop will be “trusted” camera firmware that signs every image with a full chain of trust that the output was a real physical video taken will a real device at a real location.
Just like https certificate authorities, the only way to fight all the AI slop will be “trusted” camera firmware that signs every image with a full chain of trust that the output was a real physical video taken will a real device at a real location.
Okay, I will use such a camera then to film/photographs a huge monitor showing a manipulated/ai generated video/image then, near the location of the real event. The camera will then produce a signed and trusted video with fake information.
What is your next step then? Only verified and trusted people are allowed to use cameras?
And that is in addition to that Certificates and such can’t provide authenticity, we see that again and again with signed code/programs.
In most places (for example outdoors), it would be extremely obvious that you are filming a monitor.
If you had some sort of closed box setup to minimize external light sources and produce a realistic image, then it would be pretty impractical to carry that around. And perhaps illegal (in OP’s theoretical world)
I could do it in a large van, minibus or mobile home. There is a lot of space in those and having themself standing around is not so strange in most places. Or i could go underground, put my setup into the canalisation. Or i could just use a house/apartment/business unit close by. Oh and high quality displays can be quite small nowadays, so I could build a fake telescope lense looking device that I put over the lense of the camera, that looks not that strange in public too.
Most of these are very impractical for the average person. Nobody is constructing lenses just to fake some ai videos. Usually it’s good enough to just deter 99% of the population from the crime. If a bit of AI slop gets through that’s fine.
For important photo/videos, there will naturally be more scrutiny, and a camera signature won’t be enough. For example maybe the photographer would have to embed their identity in the photo. So if they are ever caught making ai photos, all their previous media is invalidated as well.
Who talks about average people? The whole trust and cert system is only needed to guard against criminal actors or other people/organization’s with ill intend. And such people are not average at all.
Embeding identity is problematic too, identity theft and stolen certificates are not that uncommon. This would create a whole new class of attacks.
Anybody could become a criminal if the crime is easy, undetectable, doesn’t seem that morally wrong, and provides some benefit. So to deter the crime you need to change one of those factors. In this case, raising the difficulty bar.
Do you like a dark dystopian future? Because a mindset like this is how you get a dark dystopian future.
No I’m quite against hardware based trackers. At least ones that cannot be modified (for example secure boot is fine if the factory keys can be replaced).
Which is why it’s important that we recognize just how powerful hardware trackers can be, and that the only way to fight this is at the population level. Publicly shame companies that try to introduce this tech, fight for privacy regulation, and don’t buy spyware devices.