And I'm not sure it's even useful to solve. The presence/absence of a digital signature will never be the deciding factor in whether people accept/reject an image as authentic.
replyYeah this is what I don't get why are people even spending time on this.
replyIs this picture real or AI is a real problem it is worth money to solve.
replyWhat I'm getting at is that metadata that claims that a photo is "real" won't necessarily convince people that it is, and the lack of that metadata doesn't mean anything at all. About the only real use I've seen for C2PA is to confirm that an image bearing that metadata is AI-generated - and that marker is easily lost through editing or retransmission.
replyWhy? An image should never be proof of anything, by itself.
replyA desperate attempt to preempt regulation.
replyA desperate attempt to establish their version of regulatory capture and not have to pay licensing fees to the other guy
reply[dead]
replyAnd in 2026, I don't think it's too big of a stretch to imagine that there are going to be people in power that can add + remove the metadata to whatever image they want, at will, to tell whatever story they want to create. Sadly.
replyThere were similar fears about the webtrust CA system, but AFAIK there's no known incidents where a government strongarmed a CA into misissuing a MITM certificate, and then it was used in MITM attacks. The closest is some misissued certificates seemingly due to incompetence but weren't used in attacks.
replyAnd there are unicorns living at the end of the rainbow.
reply> Even then, you could attack it from the next level up, with some fancy optics and a display, or something like that.
replyThe analog hole is alive and well:)
And at that level, it’s a matter of definition anyway. What is “AI generated”? A photo of a screen showing an AI picture is still a photo. If that’s “AI” then what about a photo of an AI generated billboard? Or a photo of a bus with an AI graphic on the side?
reply