• nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        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.

        • oftenawake@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          I got accused of being an AI for writing a comment reply to someone which was merely informative, empathic and polite!

        • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          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.

    • Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 days ago

      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.

    • edryd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Just because something might be hard means we should give up before even trying?

    • osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        “Legally” doesn’t mean shit if it’s not enforceable. Besides, removing watermarks is trivial.

        There is no technically rigorous way to filter AI content, unfortunately.

      • kinsnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        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.