Meta's "Video Seal": Because nothing says "trustworthy" like a digital chastity belt. Imperceptible, they claim, yet robust enough to survive the gauntlet of internet mangling - sounds like the perfect tool to invisibly track content, not just watermark it.
I think it's reasonable to assume that any large social media company is already tracking video similarity in reuploads/edits. The remix and reused audio features are already baked in. Reverse image search screen caps of tiktok/reel pretty often return the source/original
I want to have a way to detect if content is AI generated. You might want to run that model on your own creations to ensure you get the credit for them and that no one can steal them.
Like all tools it can be used for good and evil. It could be installed directly in cameras to sign videos. And people with the power to turn it off could make AI fake videos that much more believable.
I would make the argument that these AI safety initiatives yield messaging that muddles and confuses the public on the simple fact that they should not, under any circumstances, use a video or image as proof or assume its veracity. When I tell someone this it is common for them to come back with something like "aren't they working on things to detect if a video is fake?" I think this idea, that video content can still be trusted and that {COMPANY} is being responsible is the real goal of the money pumped into these watermarking techniques. These techniques will not actually help people, images and video will continue to be used for disinformation. The only thing that can stymie that is a broad cultural shift to default to distrust of photographs and video footage, to treat it all like you might a painting or animated cartoon depicting an event; maybe an accurate portrayal, but just as easily totally fabricated. The responsible thing for companies to do would be to spread messaging indicative of this fact, but they would rather engage in safety theater and score some points while keeping users dumb and easily fooled.
"they should not, under any circumstances, use a video or image as proof or assume its veracity"
This is just silly. Courts never assume the validity of evidence. It is actually assumed to be invalid unless it can be proved to have not been tampered with. Photos have been able to be edited for over 100 years but they are still used as evidence. The person who took the photo will sign an affidavit and or testify in court that it is real. And AI videos are going to be easily detectable for a long time.
I'm talking about your average person, not the court system. I'm asserting that culturally we need to shift to acknowledging that photos are not proof, rather than pretending that some fancy counter-model or watermarking will somehow allow us to maintain an already-misplaced trust in the veracity of images.
Why? They're both acts of violence that people gloated over. He's not saying "killing this guy is just as bad as lynching innocent black people". He's saying America likes killing, whether it's someone you think should be killed or not.
There's still a pretty big difference between violence against random innocents and violent "revenge" against a powerful force. I'm sure people would also be thrilled if an insurance bigwig got sent to prison, or tarred and feathered, or humiliated in some other way.
He isn't comparing them. He's using the casual and festive nature of many lynchings as support for his argument that America has long embraced extrajudicial killing.
Lynchings were not always reserved for blacks nor were they solely conducted by whites. It's also not an American thing, it is human nature and exactly why we have a legal system. There were some racially motivated lynchings of course but to reduce it to that is misleading. Approximately 40% of lynching victims were not black.
"The Claremont Review of Books is the proof that conservatism is a living and civilising force in American intellectual life, and a powerful challenge to the dominance of the academic left."
