top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 201 points 2 years ago (37 children)

I never understood how they were useful in the first place. But that's kind of beside the point. I assume this is referencing AI, but due to the fact that you've only posted one photo out of apparently four, I don't really have any idea what you're posting about.

  • source
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 250 points 2 years ago (27 children)

    The point of verification photos is to ensure that nsfw subreddits are only posting with consent. Many posts were just random nudes someone found, in which the subject was not ok with having them posted.

    The verification photos show an intention to upload to the sub. A former partner wanting to upload revenge porn would not have access to a verification photo. They often require the paper be crumpled to make it infeasible to photoshop.

    If an AI can generate a photorealistic verification picture, it cannot be used to verify anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 68 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    I didn't realize they originated with verifying nsfw content. I'd only ever seen them in otherwise text-based contexts. It seemed to me the person in the photo didn't necessarily represent the account owner just because they were holding up a piece of paper showing the username. But if you're matching the verification against other photos, that makes more sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 69 points 2 years ago

    It's been used way before the nsfw stuff and the advent of AI.

    Back in the days if you were doing an AMA with a celeb, the picture proof is the celeb telling us this is the account they are using. Doesn't need to be their account and was only useful for people with an identifiable face. If you were doing an AMA because you were some specialist or professional, giving your face and username doesn't do anything, you need to provide paperwork to the mods.

    This is a poor way to police fake nudes though, I wouldn't have trusted it even before AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    Was it really that hard to Photoshop enough to bypass mods that are not experts at photo forensic?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 156 points 2 years ago (7 children)
    load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 126 points 2 years ago (43 children)

    Due to having so many people trying to impersonate me on the internet, I've become somewhat of a expert on verification pictures.

    You can still easily tell that this is fake because if you look closely, the details, especially the background clutter, is utterly nonsensical.

    1. The object over her right shoulder (your left), for example, looks like if someone blended a webcam with a TV with a nightstand.
    2. Over her left shoulder (your right), her chair is only on that one side and it blends into the counter in the background.
    3. Is it a table lamp or a wall mounted light?
    4. The doorframe in background behind her head is not even aligned.
    5. Her clavicles are asymmetrical, never seen that on a real person.
    6. Her wispy hairstrands. Real hair don't appear out of thin air in loops.
  • source
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    The point isn't that you can spot it.

    The point is that the automated system can't spot it.

    Or are you telling me there is a person looking at every verification photo, and if they did they would thoroughly scan the photo for imperfections?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    The idea of using a picture upload for automated verification is completely unviable. A much more commonly used system would be something like telling you to perform a random gesture on camera on the spot, like "turn your head slowly" or "open your mouth slowly" which would be trivial for a human to perform but near impossible for AI generators.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 40 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Margot Robbie

    Due to having so many people trying to impersonate me on the internet

    Uh huh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (14 replies)
    [–] 121 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    I’m pretty sure we can just switch to a verification video chat which will buy us a year.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 93 points 2 years ago* (15 children)

    At some point the only way to verify someone will be to do what the Klingons did to rule out changelings: Cut them and see if they bleed.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • load more comments (13 replies)
    [–] 87 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Can confirm, I made some random korean dude on dall-e to send to Instagram after it threatened to close my fake account, and it passed.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 77 points 2 years ago (18 children)
  • [–] 63 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Ooooh an actually interesting use of ai: preserving anonymity

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 48 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

    Once again everyone on the internet is a cute girl if they want to be.

    Or a cute cat.

    Or Elvis.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 47 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    What am I looking at here?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I can finally realise my dream of commenting on r/blackpeopletwitter

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 37 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Very rapidly the basis of truth in any discussion is going to get eroded.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 35 points 2 years ago

    They were always useless

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 2 years ago (22 children)

    Isn't there a trick where you can ask someone to do a specific hand gesture to get photos verified. That'll still work especially because AI makes fingers look wonky

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 27 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    That’s why you need a video with movement. AI still can’t do video right.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    It's getting close, now you can provide a picture of someone and an animated skeleton, and it outputs the person moving according to the reference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 25 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Never trust your eyes or ears again in this modern digital hellscape! https://youtube.com/shorts/55hr7Tx_7So?si=db5hROJWYjdQRMTD

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 25 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    My discord friends had some easy ways to defeat this.

    You could require multiple photos; it's pretty hard to get AI to consistently generate photos that are 100% perfect. There would bound to be things wrong with trying to get AI to generate multiple photos of the same (non-celeb) person that would make it obvious it's fake.

    Another idea was to make it a short video instead of a still photo. For now, at least, AI absolutely sucks balls at making video.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 23 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    AI pictures are like reverse uncanny-valley: They feel right, but you will shit brix upon further inspection.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›