Background information
What you can do with Adobe’s new AI features in Lightroom
by Samuel Buchmann
Why automated AI detectors don’t work
4.6.2024
Translation: Katherine Martin
There should be transparency around whether an image, article or video has been created using artificial intelligence (AI). The thing is, transparency’s not all that easy to achieve. While Instagram is the most recent example of this, it’s just one of a series of spectacular failures.
While the company’s efforts are commendable, there’s just one tiny problem – it doesn’t work. There have been numerous reports of Instagram labelling genuine photos that definitely weren’t generated with an AI tool, angering the photographers who took them.
Plus, Photoshop uses AI technology, for example when retouching or removing noise. Adobe is part of C2PA, an organisation dedicated to transparency around creative content. I suspect Photoshop indicates when a photo has been edited using AI in the metadata for transparency reasons.
But using AI-powered techniques doesn’t mean a conventionally shot photo is «made with AI». Far from it. Airbrushing a bothersome blemish out of a photo is totally different to generating an image from scratch using Midjourney, Dall-E or Stable Diffusion.
Watermarks are the wrong way to identify AI
Content credentials, a type of encrypted digital watermark, are used to prove the authenticity of photos and make each step in the editing process transparent. This includes AI-powered edits. The goal? To fully document the creative process.
This kind of encrypted metadata allows creative professionals to prove they’ve done what they’ve done. However, it doesn’t work the other way around. You can’t use watermarks to prove that a photo isn’t real.
The whole idea is based on the fact that creators themselves are interested in transparency. It’s not suited to exposing trickery. But that’s exactly what Meta wants to do.
So if using watermarks to detect AI doesn’t work, what will? One common method is using AI-powered AI detectors, but this has never worked.
Using AI to detect AI doesn’t work
These detectors use the same methods as generative AI. Both are based on machine learning – pattern recognition based on large volumes of text as training material. Detectors examine the extent to which a text deviates from the style of a known AI such as ChatGPT. This, however, is how a circular problem arises. ChatGPT and the like imitate a human’s writing style and are trained on the basis of text written by humans.
There may be such a thing as a typical ChatGPT style, but that’s just the default setting. A setting that can also be changed. These generators – be they for text, images, or music – are still very flexible in style. They can imitate genres or even individuals.
The details of this might be different for images than for texts. However, the fundamental problem remains. An AI designed to reliably detect AI would have to be much more advanced than – or at least work in a completely different way to – the AI tool it’s checking. But there’s the rub. Pattern detection and pattern generation are rooted in the same technology.
As long as nothing fundamental about that changes, we’ll continue to see this annoying mislabelling issue.
Header image: Meta-Newsroom
David Lee
Senior Editor
David.Lee@digitecgalaxus.chMy interest in IT and writing landed me in tech journalism early on (2000). I want to know how we can use technology without being used. Outside of the office, I’m a keen musician who makes up for lacking talent with excessive enthusiasm.
Background information
Interesting facts about products, behind-the-scenes looks at manufacturers and deep-dives on interesting people.
Show all
