Kiran
@neuroswish
I don't understand the argument that crypto solves the problem of verifying real vs AI-generated content. how exactly does crypto help here? genuinely curious
9 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
phil
@phil
https://twitter.com/js_horne/status/1642719006325915648
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Kiran
@neuroswish
I get how the cryptography works but I don't get how this practically solves the core problems. anyone could just take any arbitrary image (like the AI Pope), sign it and say they created it. in the end it still feels like we'll rely on abstract social consensus to determine whether something's real
6 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
phil
@phil
It would be different if it came from the Pope's account. That's the use case.
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Sam Clearman
@samc
1. You don't need crypto to do that 2. How do you know which account is the pope's?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
phil
@phil
1) you do need cryptography 2) ENS + verification from another trusted domain pointing to it as the official account
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Sam Clearman
@samc
Only need for crypto is if you want the attestation to be immutable (otherwise a simple link will suffice)
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
phil
@phil
You need a digital signature to prove the authenticity of the post
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Sam Clearman
@samc
You can just verify that the content is posted at a url controlled by the pope (eg, thepope.com or twitter.com/thepope) The pope can delete the post, but how important is that? Anyway it's obvious how this would play out in a world without crypto & that it would be fine. Doesn't mean it's not a good crypto use case
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
