Why is this being framed as 2 types of users, lovable pranksters and fraudsters? There's a whole spectrum between these 2.
Also I'd like to know if a "joke" is likely fake.
Also I'd like to know if a "joke" is likely fake.
Bur I don't even really think that's really relevant anyway, because whatever the density of "malicious" motivations is, the point here is that the fact that it only is an effort/motivation threshold that allows this technique to "block" malicious uses, and the motivation to overcome that threshold correlates directly with the stakes involved in the malicious use.
In other words, the more malicious the abuse is, the less effective this solution will be: the boundary of its usefulness will be wherever the line between pranksters and actual criminals happens to lie.
Your argument applies to any imperfect security technology -- aka practically all of them.
No, my idea of a criminal is someone who is motivated to commit crime, and I feel that we've already established in this thread that the approaches we're discussing are motivation gates far more than competence gates.
> Smart, dedicated, technical people can typically make more money legally.
Then who's been running all the botnets, writing cryptolocker malware, and running phishing scams for the past couple of decades?
We've always had script kiddies, and now we have people using AI itself to do malicious things. Technical skill has never been an obstacle for sufficiently motivated scammers.
> Your argument applies to any imperfect security technology -- aka practically all of them.
Ultimately, everything has weaknesses, and with enough effort, most measures can be circumvented. But how much effort is enough varies wildly between solutions.
There's a huge gulf between a "no trespassing" sign, on the one hand, and a concrete wall topped with barbed wire, on the other. The "no trespassing" sign only keeps out people willing to obey it; the concrete wall keeps out anyone who isn't willing and able to accept the time, effort, and risk necessary to climb over it or knock it down.
And the point is that using digital signatures to distinguish AI-generated media from hand-made media is much closer to the "no trespassing" side of things than it is to the wall. Maybe it's analogous to a gate with a latch you can open from the other side if you reach over in just the right spot.
And in this case we can clearly see that a solution that (a) does not substantially increase their costs -- and in fact, as I've pointed out above, only really filters by motivation, not by time, money or effort, and (b) doesn't target their potential benefits at all, is one that isn't likely to be effective.