• @PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      510 months ago

      It almost certainly has some gan-like pieces.

      Gans are part of the NN toolbox, like cnns and rnns and such.

      Basically all commercial algorithms (not just nns, everything) are what I like to call “hybrid” methods, which means keep throwing different tools at it until things work well enough.

      • stevedidWHAT
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        The findings were for GAN models, not GAN like components though.

        • @PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          110 months ago

          It doesn’t matter. Even the training process makes it pretty much impossible to tell these things apart.

          And if we do find a way to distinguish, we’ll immediately incorporate that into the model design in a GAN like manner, and we’ll soon be unable to distinguish again.

          • stevedidWHAT
            link
            fedilink
            English
            010 months ago

            Which is why hardcoded fingerprints/identifications are required to identify the individual as a speaker rather than as an AI vs Human. Which is what we’re ultimately agreeing on here outside of the pedantics of the article and scientific findings:

            Trying to find the model who is supposed to be human as an AI is counter intuitive. They’re direct opposites if one works, both can’t be exist in this implementation.

            The hard part will obviously be making sure that such a “fingerprint” wouldn’t be removable which will take some wild math and out of the box thinking I’m sure.

            Tough problem!

    • bioemerl
      link
      fedilink
      210 months ago

      It’s not even about diffusion models. Adversarial networks are basically obsolete