Jack Dorsey once again singing “but baby I’ve changed!”
hard pass from me.
Loops: “Am I a joke to you?”
Everyone else: “Who said that?”
Errrr…
Pretty sure that PS5 classic controller didn’t come out 2013-2017. At least I hope it didn’t lol.
Also what the fuck is this haha:
Enforcing that ban is going to be difficult.
They’re gonna use AI to detect the use of AI.
Well the AI-based AI detector isn’t actively making creative people’s work disappear into a sea of gen-AI “art” at least.
There’s good and bad use cases for AI, I consider this a better use case than generating art. Now the question is whether or not it’s feasible to detect AI this way.
Indeed.
I have an Immich instance running on my home server that backs up my and my wife’s photos. It’s like an open source Google Photos.
One of its features is an local AI model that recognises faces and tags names on them, as well as doing stuff like recognising when a picture is of a landscape, food, etc.
Likewise, Firefox has a really good offline translation feature that runs locally and is open source.
AI doesn’t have to be bad. Big tech and venture capital is just choosing to make it so.
Not if I use AI to hide my use of AI first!
They are going to implement an AI detector detector detector.
It’s detectors all the way down.
But of course, as a tortoise, you would know that.
Did I seduce you a lot with my hard, polished shell? You can speak freely, nobody will ever know!
No, it was your intense, Gowron-like stare that truly drilled into my heart.
Glory to seduction! Glory to the empire!
Trace busta busta?
This one
But then they’ll implement an AI detector detector deflector.
Spoken like a true AI.
Fun fact, this loop is kinda how one of the generative ML algorithms works. This algorithm is called Generative Adversarial Networks or GAN.
You have a so-called Generator neural network G that generates something (usually images) from random noise and a Discriminator neural network D that can take images (or whatever you’re generating) as input and outputs whether this is real or fake (not actually in a binary way, but as a continuous value). D is trained on images from G, which should be classified as fake, and real images from a dataset that should be classified as real. G is trained to generate images from random noise vectors that fool D into thinking they’re real. D is, like most neural networks, essentially just a mathematical function so you can just compute how to adjust the generated image to make it appear more real using derivatives.
In the perfect case these 2 networks battle until they reach peak performance. In practice you usually need to do some extra shit to prevent the whole situation from crashing and burning. What often happens, for instance, is that D becomes so good that it doesn’t provide any useful feedback anymore. It sees the generated images as 100% fake, meaning there’s no longer an obvious way to alter the generated image to make it seem more real.
Sorry for the infodump :3
Ouroboros
Seems that way:
Just the threat of being able to summarily remove AI content and hand out account discipline will cut down drastically on AI and practically eliminate the really low effort ‘slop’, it’s not perfect but it’s damn useful.
It’s also going to make it really easy to take down the content you don’t like, just accuse it of being AI and watch the witch hunting roll in. I’ve seen plenty of examples of traditional artists getting accused of using AI in other forums, I don’t imagine this will be any different.
I got accused of being an AI for writing a comment reply to someone which was merely informative, empathic and polite!
People already mass report to abuse existing AI moderation tools. It’s already starting to be accounted for and I can’t imagine it so much as slowing down implementing an anti AI rule if I’m being honest.
The ban doesn’t need a 100% perfect AI screening protocol to be a success.
Just the fact that AI is banned might appeal to a wide demographic. If the ban is actually enforced, even in just 25% of the most blatant cases, it might be just the push a new platform needs to take off.
Just because something might be hard means we should give up before even trying?
Only if we let it be. There’s no technical reason why the origin of a video couldn’t have a signature generated by the capture device, or legally requiring AI models to do the same for any content they generate. Anything without an origin sticker is assumed to be garbage by default. Obviously there would need to be some way to make captures either anonymous or not at the user’s choice, and nation states can evade these things with sufficient effort like they always do, but we could cut a lot of slop out by doing some simple stuff like that.
deleted by creator
while a phone signing a video to show that it was captured with the camera is possible, it will be easy too to fake the signature. all it would take would be a hacked device to steal the private key. and even if apple/google/samsung have perfectly secure systems to sign the origin of the video, there would be ton of cheaper phones that would likely won’t.
Sure pal, sure. That’s what all said, no AI, and look now.
Can’t wait whe they will offer him 1bilion or scare him to death to put AI on it.To get the perfect selfie please pull your tongue back in your mouth. Good, now close you mouth. Perfect, now lower your phone thirty degree. Great, now lower it thirty degrees more. Almost there! Now lower thirty more degrees and put it the fuck away in your pocket.
Congratulations, you now have the perfect selfie.
Love this
Why would anyone touch any garbage this guy produces?!
Lemmy hates everything and everyone it seems.
We like our negativity here - it’s still okay to disagree and be positive though!
That being said, Dorsey was fine selling his last media company to the highest-bidding fascist. Chances are he‘ll do it again.
Personally, I won’t use any social media that isn’t billionaire-proof.
Jack Dorsey more than deserves the hate and I’m happy to discuss it with you.
Valid criticism isn’t baseless hate. And, is better to be skeptical than blindly complacent.
Honestly, I don’t really trust any cryptobro, I see them on similar level as AI-bros
Banned for now…
deleted by creator
Loops ftw
What’s Loops?
Vine, but federated!
But does it ban AI content?
That would be based on the server’s policies, same as Lemmy or Mastodon.
I’d trust a federated environment a billion times more than anything Jack Dorsey is doing
Yeah, will never understand why these big billionaires keep taking these “we are for the people” stances, but are still trying to spin up these same ol for-profit, centralized products. If they really cared, they’d use that money to help nonprofits or decentralized services and stay out of the damn way.
It’s because it’s profitable, that’s why they do it. As long as they don’t Elon Musk, most people either don’t know who these people are or don’t care. And if they do go fill EM, then most people still don’t care and it’s still profitable.
Yeah, they want money and clout
More tiktok than vine, really
You’re not wrong, but an arbitrary maximum video length is the least of my problems with a Dorsey product
TikTok but without users.
A Fediverse platform for short form video, made by the guy who makes Pixelfed
Not really just short form, it’s more of a take on video feeds rather than just the limited length quickcontent Vine was famous about.
Obviously the focus is still on short(ish) content format, but I see more and more people transition to longer videos to deliver content. On YT/Facebook most videos I see nowadays are 10min or above.
TIL. Thanks friend.
Another walled garden that will fracture the system even more and give even more credit to the open social web.
Except it’s not a walled garden, it’s built on nostr.
It is on nostr, I don’t like the protocol very much but it is decentralised
Is it decentralized like the fediverse or ‘decentralized’ in theory like bluesky?
Yes.
No
Maybe?
I don’t know, can you repeat the question?
You’re not the boss of me now!
He’s on third.
Bluesky is decentralized, its just decentralized in a different way than Fediverse apps. A lot of fediverse people assume all decentralization would look like ActivityPub, so they just say its fake decentralization rather than learning how it works. (I know because I used to do the same, then I realized how little I understood it from this great blog post, and have since learned a lot more about it.)
There is already alternative infrastructure available (i.e. Blacksky and a variety of other applications hosted using ATProto (you can see a few here: https://bsky.social/about).
You can use any of these apps while maintaining full control of your own data by running your own PDS, or using any community maintained PDS. If you already have an account on the Bluesky PDS, you can migrate it, retaining all of your data. If you dont feel like migrating yet, you can also just export your rotation key, which would allow you to maintain control of your account even in the event that the Bluesky PDS does become evil or something.
Speaking of ATProto, sprk.so is a similar upcoming app, although I think its going to be more similar to TikTok than Vine.
Nostr is part of the fediverse, as is blueksy’s ATProto. Neither Mastodon/LEmmy (ActivityPub) nor Bluesky (ATproto) are decentralized. They are poly-centric, and calling Bluesky poly-centric is still a little bit of a fib. NOSTR is truly decentralized. Here on Lemmy if the admin of piefed.world gets mad at the admin of lemmy.ca we couldnt’ communicate anymore unless one of us got a new account. On NOSTR if the relay owner no longer wanted my content, you can connect to a different relay that does. (For example)
It is actually decentralised as far as I can tell, although I would like to point out that bluesky is also decentralised, while bsky.app has dominant market share, nothing stops anyone from hosting their own, completely independent, instance. Some have already done so.
And even with the large majority using bsky.app, the true decentralized nature of Bluesky is anyone can host the data server that contains the data for their account. Even if you keep using bsky.app as your frontend, your data can be kept on a self hosted PDS.
It still can’t function without an appview so PDS is not decentralized, but stuff like blacksky is. Hence people being reachableon some appviews and not others now, because of different moderation decisions.
it’s already the case that the distinction between what’s “AI” and what isn’t is a subjective, aesthetic difference and not a technical one
Detecting it is difficult but what actually is or isn’t AI should be pretty cut and dry. Either nothing completely generated, or no footage edited using generative ai (depending on how strict you want to be with your ban)
what about when the neural networks that power the DSP modules in all modern cell phones cameras? does a neural network filter that generates a 3D mesh or rather imposes a 3D projection, eg putting dog ears on yourself or Memojis, count? what if i record a real video and have Gemini/Veo/whatever edit the white balance? i don’t think it’s as cut and dry as most people think
most people, unfortunately, don’t seem to think when they see the letters ‘A’ and ‘I’… these people probably would burn sage at the sight of the identity matrix lol.
i think you’re probably wasting your breath here but you seem like you might be cool, so if you’re interested in discussing ML at all reach out fs!
Every single one of those I’d put under the second category. It’d be hard to detect but it’s certainly not subjective. It just depends on how it’s written.
but what are the criteria? just because you think you have a handle on it doesn’t mean everyone else does or even shares your conclusion. and there’s no metric here i can measure, to for example block it from my platform.
The criteria is whatever you put in the “no ai” policy on the site. Whether that be ‘you can’t post videos wholly generated from a prompt’ to ‘you can’t post anything that uses any form of neural net in the production chain’ to something in between. You can specify what types are and are not included and blanket ban/allow everything else. It can definitely be defined in the user agreement, the part that’s actually hard would be detection/enforcement.
my point is that it’s hard to program someone’s subjective, if written in whatever form of legalese, point of view into a detection system, especially when those same detection systems can be used to great effect to train systems to bypass them. any such detection system would likely be an “AI” in the same way the ones they ban are and would be similarly prone to mistakes and to reflecting the values of the company (read: Jack Dorsey) rather than enforcing any objective ethical boundary.
Every single comment I said that detecting them would be the hard part, I’ve been talking about defining the type of content that is allowed/banned not the part where they actually have to filter it.
hard to detect
certainly not subjective
just depends on how it’s written
i’m fucking dead you have to be taking the piss lmfao
Whether AI art is good is subjective, it will change based on the whims of who you ask and cannot be defined. Whether something is AI generated depends on what definition you use but given a definition it either fits it or it doesn’t. It’s not subjective it’s just a little broad. As far as it being hard to detect that has no bearing on whether it is or isn’t AI.
Whether something is AI generated depends on what definition you use
I am so sorry, I don’t mean to be terse, but; We must speak a different English because this is the actual fucking dictionary definition of “subjective” :
4 a(1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal subjective judgments (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background a subjective account of the incident b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli subjective sensations c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes a subjective symptom of disease compare objective sense 2cTHEREFORE, ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING:
Whether something is AI generated [or not, sic] depends on what definition you use…
MIGHT BE…
Whether something is AI generated or not is subjective.
Regardless,
Yeah I’m basically ignoring the part of implementing it as a separate issue from defining it, which is the part I’m saying is objective. Given a definition of what type of content they want to ban you should be able to figure out whether something you’re going to post is allowed or not, that’s why I’m saying it’s not subjective.
You summed up the problem with your own semantic definitions and viewpoints earlier pretty well. What you’re basically saying is there could exist a model that defines and filters AI content based on a subjective definition of genAI, which no shit sherlock - that’s fucking trivial and can be said about anything. There could exist a model that subjectively defines unicorns and filters them out of all content too. Doesn’t mean it’s actually useful to anybody or that there’s any practical reason to build it, though.
You’re just talking past @chrash0@lemmy.world who’s trying to point out to you that actually defining what constitutes genAI content is the hard part. You’re being obtuse and intentionally ignoring it by focusing on the implementation itself being easy.
Of course filtering things by a definition you’ve set is trivial. Out of all infinite possible definitions that we can choose, how do we make the right assumptions to choose the most optimal one, though? Do you see the issue and why you’re being kind of fucking stupid, man?
I don’t agree that having multiple definitions for something makes it subjective, what it makes it is vague. If you provide one one of those definitions to someone and ask them if something meets it (and for the sake of argument they have full knowledge of how it was created) they should always be able to come to the same conclusion. As I understand it, and the definitions you provided, what makes something subjective is whether it will be unique to the person evaluating it. If my definition of good art is it makes ME feel something, somebody else could look at the same thing I do and come to a different conclusion. You couldn’t build a model that filters out bad art based on that subjective definition. All I’ve been trying to say is that whether something is AI is something that is definable but apparently I’m being too fucking stupid to make that clear.
