Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9271032" data-attributes="member: 18">Yes, but that merits further consideration, because &quot;innocent until proven guilty&quot; exists as a principle not generally throughout our laws, but rather specifically for serious crimes, which the state accuses you of (not individuals) and where you face life-altering punishments. It's notable that when the consequences are less than life-altering, the principle becomes drastically less relevant for most people.Also the level of proof required varies hugely throughout society and different rules and laws and so on. Civil cases for example require the balance of probabilities, i.e. 50.1%, whereas criminal cases require a far higher standard.Here we benefit from the nature of digital art technology, which creates files which themselves are a history, telling us how this piece of art came to be. That's built into their fundamental functionality. It's not difficult to prove how a piece of art was created. It doesn't require specialist knowledge, either - even a layman can quickly be shown how the history of a digital art file works - if you can operate a computer or a phone you can understand it. Unless the allegation is very complex, as soon as the history appears, the allegation can be thrown out.I think this mostly needs to be solved &quot;industry side&quot;. But capitalist industries are inherently lazy and unprincipled, and seek to do the least possible work and spend the least possible money, so that means pressure needs to be applied to them. They need new standards of due diligence re: art, at the very least extracting signed &quot;I swear this isn't AI-generated&quot; statements from people supplying art.If we suddenly all stop applying pressure right now, though, the industry is not going to adopt those, they're going to go &quot;Oh no-one really cares so we won't do anything about this due diligence-wise, we'll just assume it's all fine and say that's because we're good people who naturally assume the best, not doing the old 'I see no ships'!&quot;. Just a coincidence this is also the attitude that saves us the most time and money, of course.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9271032, member: 18"] Yes, but that merits further consideration, because "innocent until proven guilty" exists as a principle not generally throughout our laws, but rather specifically for serious crimes, which the state accuses you of (not individuals) and where you face life-altering punishments. It's notable that when the consequences are less than life-altering, the principle becomes drastically less relevant for most people. Also the level of proof required varies hugely throughout society and different rules and laws and so on. Civil cases for example require the balance of probabilities, i.e. 50.1%, whereas criminal cases require a far higher standard. Here we benefit from the nature of digital art technology, which creates files which themselves are a history, telling us how this piece of art came to be. That's built into their fundamental functionality. It's not difficult to prove how a piece of art was created. It doesn't require specialist knowledge, either - even a layman can quickly be shown how the history of a digital art file works - if you can operate a computer or a phone you can understand it. Unless the allegation is very complex, as soon as the history appears, the allegation can be thrown out. I think this mostly needs to be solved "industry side". But capitalist industries are inherently lazy and unprincipled, and seek to do the least possible work and spend the least possible money, so that means pressure needs to be applied to them. They need new standards of due diligence re: art, at the very least extracting signed "I swear this isn't AI-generated" statements from people supplying art. If we suddenly all stop applying pressure right now, though, the industry is not going to adopt those, they're going to go "Oh no-one really cares so we won't do anything about this due diligence-wise, we'll just assume it's all fine and say that's because we're good people who naturally assume the best, not doing the old 'I see no ships'!". Just a coincidence this is also the attitude that saves us the most time and money, of course. [/QUOTE]

Verification