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

https://twitter.com/js_horne/status/1642719006325915648

Building /bright-moments - minting onchain art IRL | /purple #15 | FID 129 #magikarp

Rome, Metropolitan City of Rome Capital, Italy

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

It would be different if it came from the Pope's account. That's the use case.

1. You don't need crypto to do that
2. How do you know which account is the pope's?

Former algebraic combinatorist, ex-Scale, currently at SPC

1) you do need cryptography
2) ENS + verification from another trusted domain pointing to it as the official account

Only need for crypto is if you want the attestation to be immutable
(otherwise a simple link will suffice)

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

You need a digital signature to prove the authenticity of the post