It seems to me like the opposite solution is more robust. Rather than putting digital watermarks on AI-generated content, put them on human-generated content, and you can treat anything that doesn't have one as possibly AI-generated.
It's AI that's presenting the problem here, why burden uninvolved others to provide a solution?
Also, I still don't see how it's fair and reasonable to put this sort of burden on innocent others when they aren't the ones making the problem.
>Also, I still don't see how it's fair and reasonable to put this sort of burden on innocent others when they aren't the ones making the problem.
Reality is what it is. There's no point in arguing about what's fair or not fair, what matters is what solves the problem. If you were fighting your evil clone and I had to shoot the fake one, would you say "why should I have to prove I'm myself? My fake should just turn himself in", knowing you're risking getting shot because he'll do the exact same thing?
Sure, and this sort of approach makes sense for them. I'm thinking of everyone else. Not artists, but ordinary people doing ordinary things.
> what matters is what solves the problem.
True, and fair enough. But I don't think putting this burden on humans would actually solve this problem, because not enough humans can or will do this.
This is a problem only for people who publish content and want to make sure everyone knows it was they who made something, and for people who consume/use content and want to make sure that a given piece of content was made by a human.
Right, which includes an awful lot of ordinary people.
But if the proposal is intended only to cover the more visible people, that's fair enough for now. We still need a more general solution.
Also, many digital asset management pipelines are homebrew hacks built into bespoke CMSs and are terrible at maintaining metadata.
Wasting that on AI is the ideological equivalent of leaving ASCAP voicemails of my farts.