I think Apple was going to implement something like this a few years ago before scrapping it.
I think Apple was going to implement something like this a few years ago before scrapping it.
A couple of years ago you could add some pixels to an image to change it's automatic classification from cat to ostrich. But the tech has improved and I think the race has now firmly been won by the side trying to de-obfuscate images, and only in rare scenarios can images actually be obfuscated efficiently and consistently.
The LLMs think one specific mystery plant in my garden hiding behind the hedge is velvetleaf; no, wild cotton; no, linden; no, hibiscus; no, mulberry; no, knotweed; no, paulownia; no, catalpa; no, hydrangea; no, grape vine; no, pokeweed.
Many of these claims were trivial for me to falsify with a quick image search, they don't look much like each other or my mystery plant. The things the AI "identified" were often simply not true of the photo.
Basically, even with current tech, you go straight back to false positives and false negatives: https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.06628
"But the call was coming from inside the house": https://www.robertkinglawfirm.com/mass-torts/grok-lawsuit/
Why would you NOT want this to exist? This seems the only method to not raise false positives.
Why? Because I don't want such pictures to be kept or archived by anyone. This isn't hard.