When AI art has no author: Study finds generated images often can’t be traced to

A new method for surgically removing training examples from a model reveals that as datasets grow, the link between what a model learns and what it produces dissolves.

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I've been working on creating an AI-generated image detector and everything so called &quot;state-of-the-art&quot; in academic studies failed

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I've been working on a system that generates AI UGC videos that look like a real person filmed them on their iPhone.</p> <p>Posted some samples

<table> <tr><td> <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/1wvr7e3/1996_can_a_computer_produce_art_itll_never_work/"> <img alt="1996: Can a Computer Produce Art? |

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>I ran 90 research queries through 8 AI models simultaneously. 86% of findings were unique to one provider... not rephrasing, literally different

&#32; submitted by &#32; <a href="https://www.reddit.com/user/Just-Grocery-2229"> /u/Just-Grocery-2229 </a> <br /> <span><a

<!-- SC_OFF --><div class="md"><p>Researchers at Stanford just published a way around this. AsymFlow doesn’t ask you to abandon your latent model or train a pixel model from

<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49770847">Comments</a>