Reality is losing the deepfake war

Support for this show comes from Vanta. Vanta uses AI in automation to get you compliant fast. Simplify your audit process and unblock deals so you can prove to customers that you take security seriously. You can think of Vanta as you're always on AI-powered security expert who scales with you. That's why top startups like Cursor, Linear and Replet use Vanta to get and stay secure. Get started at Vanta.com/vox. That's v-a-n-t-a.com/vox. Vanta.com/vox. This week on the gray area we're talking about what unites us. We've kind of created a society now where really the monoculture is just football and tailor swift. Those are really the only things that are like that now and I'm not being sarcastic. It really is the case. So what does that say about American culture? Listen to the gray area with me, Sean Elling. New episodes available everywhere. Hello and welcome to the Coder. I'm Neil Apital, editor and chief of the Virgin. The Coder is my show about big ideas and other problems. Today we're going to talk about reality and whether we can label photos and videos to protect our shared understanding of the world around us. No, really. We're going to go there. It's a deep one. To do this, I'm going to bring on Virge reporter Jess Weitherbitt who covers creative tools like Photoshop and Canva for us. It's a space that's been totally upended by generative AI in a huge variety of ways with an equally huge number of responses from artists, creatives and the people who consume all of that art and creative out in the world. Now if you've been listening to Dakota or my other show The Virge Cast or even just reading the Virge for these past few years, you'll know that we've been talking about how the photos and videos taken by our phones are getting more and more processed and AI generated for years now. And now in 2026, we're in the middle of a full on reality crisis. As fake and manipulated, ultra believable images and videos blood onto social platforms at scale and without regard for responsibility or norms or even basic decency. The White House is sharing AI-manipulated images of people getting arrested and defiantly saying it simply won't stop when asked about it. We are just totally off the deep end now. Whenever we cover the stuff, I get the same question from a lot of different parts of our audience. Why isn't there a system to help people tell the real photos and videos apart from the fake ones? Some people even propose systems to us. And as it happens, Jess has actually spent a lot of time covering a few of these systems that exist in the real world. The most promising is something called C2PA. Her view is it's so far. These systems have been almost entirely failures. In this episode, we're going to focus on C2PA since it's the one that has the most momentum. It's a labeling initiative spearheaded by Adobe with buy-in from some of the biggest players in the industry, including Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI. But C2PA, which is also sometimes referred to as content credentials, has some pretty serious flaws. First, it was designed as more of a photography metadata standard, not an AI detection system. In second, it's really been only half-heartedly adopted by a handful, but not nearly all of the players you would need to make it work across the Internet ecosystem. Where the point now, where Adam Messeri, who runs Instagram, is publicly posting that the default should shift, and that you should not trust images or videos the way that you maybe could before. Think about that for one second. That's a huge pivotal shift in how society evaluates photos and videos. And it's an idea I'm sure we're going to come back to a lot this year. But we have to start with the idea that we can solve this problem with metadata and labels that we can label our way into a shared reality. And why that idea might simply never work. Okay, Virgil Porter, Jess Weatherhead, on C2PA, and the effort to label our way into reality. Here we go. Jess Weatherhead, welcome to the coder. Hi. I want to just set this stage. Several years ago, I said to Jess, boy, these creator tools are criminally undercovered. Adobe is a company. It's criminally undercovered. Go figure out what's going on with Photoshop and Premiere and the creator economy, because there's something that's interesting. And fast forward, here you are under coder today. And we're going to talk about whether you can label your way into consensus reality. I just think it's important to say that's a weird turn of events. Yeah. I keep liking the situation to the Jurassic Park memo, whereas people taught so long about whether they could. They didn't actually stop to think about whether they should be doing this. And now we're in the mess that we're in. So the problem, broadly, is that there's an enormous amount of AI generated content on the internet. Much of it is just depicts things are flatly not real. An important subset of that is there's a lot of content that depicts modifications to things that actually happened. So our sense that we can just look at a video or a picture and sort of implicitly trust that it's true is fraying if not completely gone. And we will come to that because that's an important turn here. But that's the sort of state of play. In the background, the tech industry has been working on a handful of solutions to this problem, most of which involve labeling things at the point of creation, right? At the moment you take a photo or the moment you generate an image, you're going to label it somehow. The most important one of those is called C2 PA. So can you just quickly explain what that stands for, what it is and where it comes from? So this is a metadata standard effectively that was kickstarted by a David interesting enough Twitter as well back in the day. You can see where the logic lies. It was supposed to be that everywhere a little bit of content goes online. This embedded metadata would follow. So what C2 PA does is at the point that you you take a picture on a camera, you upload that image into Photoshop. All of these instances would be recorded in the metadata of that file to say exactly when it was taken, what has happened to it, what tools we used to manipulate it. And then as a two-pot process, all of that information could then hypothetically be read by online platforms where you would see that information. So as consumers, as internet users, we wouldn't have to do anything. We would be able to in this imaginary reality, go on Instagram or X and look at a photo and there would be a lovely little button there that just says, this is AI generated or this is real or some sort of authentication. That has obviously proven a lot more difficult in reality than on paper. Tell me about the actual label, you said it's metadata. I think a lot of people have a lot of experience with metadata. You know, we are all children of the MP3 revolution. Metadata can be stripped, it can be altered. What protects the C2 PA metadata from just being changed? They argue that it's quite time proof, but it's a little bit of an action to speak louder than words, kind of situation, unfortunately, because while they say it's time proof, this thing is supposed to be able to resist being screenshot, for example, by the way. But then OpenAI, who is actually one of the steering community members behind this standard, openly says it's incredibly easy to strip to the point that online platforms might actually do that accidentally. So the theory is there's plenty behind it to make it robust, make it hard to remove, but in practice, that doesn't the case. It can be removed. Militiously or not? Are there competitors to C2 PA? Well, it's a little bit of a confusing landscape, because I think one of the few kind of like textures that I would say they shouldn't actively be competition. And from what I've seen, from what I've spoken to with all these different providers, there isn't competition between them, as much as they're all working towards the same goal. Google Synth ID is similar. It's technically a watermarking system, also, than a metadata system, but they work on kind of a similar premise that stuff will be embedded into something you take that you'll then be able to assess later to see how genuine it is. Like the technicalities behind that are difficult to explain in a shortened context, but they do operate on different levels, which means technically they could work together. A lot of these systems can work together. You've got inference based systems as well, which is what they will look at an image or a video or a piece of music, and they will pick up telltale signs that apparently it may have been manipulated by AI, and they will give you a rating. They can never really say yes or no, but they'll give you a likelihood rating. None of it will stand on its own to be like a one-true solution. They're not necessarily competing to be the one that everyone uses, and that's almost kind of the mess that CTPA is now in. It's been lauded as being grandstanded as they say. This will save us, whereas it was never designed to do that, and it certainly isn't equipped to. Who runs it? Is it just a group of people? Is it a bunch of engineers? Is it simply Adobe? Who's in charge? It's a coalition. The most prominent name you'll see is Adobe, because they're the one that shout about it. The most they've kind of one of the founding members of the Content Authenticity Initiative, which helped to develop the standard, but you've got big names that are part of the steering committee behind it, which are supposed to be the groups involved with helping other people to adopt it, which is the important thing, because otherwise it doesn't work. In part of this process, if you're not using it, CTPA falls over. Open AI is part of that Microsoft Qualcomm Google. All of these huge names are all involved with that, and are supposedly helping too. They're very careful not to say develop it, but to promote its adoption and to encourage other people. In regards to who's actually working on it. Why are they careful not to say they're developing it? There isn't any kind of confirmation I can find where it's got something like Sam Altman saying. We've found this floor in CTPA and therefore we're helping to address any kind of falls and pitfalls it may have. It's always just, anytime I see it mentioned, it's whenever a new AI feature has been rolled out, and there's a convenient little disclaimer slapped on the bottom. Kind of a, yay, we did it. Look, it's fine. A new AI thing, but we have this totally core system that we use that's supposed to make everything better. They don't actively say what they're doing to improve the situation just that they're using it, and just that they're encouraging everyone else to be using it too. One of the most important piece of the puzzle here is labeling the content at Capture. We've all seen cell phone videos of protests and government actions and horrific government actions, and I think Google has C2PA in the pixel line of phones. So video that comes off a pixel phone or photos that come off a pixel phone have some embedded metadata that says it's real. Apple notably doesn't. Have they made any mention of C2PA or any of these other standards that would authenticate the photos or videos coming off an iPhone? That seems like an important player in this entire ecosystem. They haven't officially or on record. I have sources that say apparently they were involved in conversations to at least join, but nothing public-facing at the minute. There has been no confirmation that they are actually joining the CIA initiative or even kind of adopting Google SynthID technology. They're kind of very carefully skirting on the sidelines. For some reason it's a little bit unclear as to whether they're kind of letting their caution about AI generally kind of like stem into this at this point, because as far as I'm concerned there is not going to be a one-true solution, so I don't really know what Apple is waiting for, and they could be making a difference, but no. They haven't been making any kind of decorations about what we should be using to label AI. That's so interesting to me. I love a standards war, and we've covered many standards wars, and the politics of tech standards are usually ferocious, and they're usually ferocious because whoever controls the standard generally stands to make the most money. Or whoever can drive the standard and an extended standard can make a lot of money. Apple has played that game maybe better than anybody. They have driven a lot of the USB standard. They were behind USB-C. They drove a lot of Bluetooth standard. They extended that standard for AirPods. I can't see how you make money with C2PA, and it seems like Apple is just letting everyone else figure it out, and then they will turn it on. Yet it feels like the responsibility to be the most important camera maker in the world is to drive the standard, so people trust the images and videos that come off the cameras. Does that dynamic come out anywhere in your reporting or your conversations with people about the standard? But it's not really there to make money. It's there to protect reality. The money making like side of things never really comes into the conversation. It's always that people are very quick to assure me that things are progressing. There's never any kind of a conversation about incentive to motivate other people to do so. So yeah, Apple doesn't sound to really gain anything financially from this other than maybe the reassurance that people know that if they're taking a picture with their iPhone, it could help contribute to some sense of establishing what is still real and what isn't. But then that's a whole other kind of worms because if if iPhones is doing it, then all the platforms that we see those pictures also have to be doing it. Otherwise, I'm just kind of verifying that this is real to my own eyes as me, the person that uses my iPhone. I think it's just Apple may be aware that all the solutions that we currently have available are inherently flawed. So throwing your lot in as one of the biggest names in this industry and one that could arguably do the most different, you're kind of almost exacerbating the situation that Google and Open AI are now in, which is that they keep loading this as a solution and it doesn't fucking work. It just it like it, I think Apple needs to be able to stand on its laurels about something and nothing is going to offer them that at the minute. I want to come back to how specifically it doesn't work in one second. Let me just say focus on the rest of the players on the sort of content creation side of the ecosystem. There's Apple, there's Google, which uses it in the Pixel phones. It's not in Android proper, right? So if you have a Samsung phone, you don't get C2PA when you take a picture of the Samsung phone. What about the other camera makers? Do Nikon and Sony and Fuji, are they all using the system? A lot of them have joined. They've released new camera models that have got the system embedded, the problem that they're having now is in order for this to work, you don't just have to do it on your new cameras because every photographer in the world worth this all isn't going to go out every year and buy a brand new camera because of this technology. It would be inherently useful, but that's just not going to happen. So back dating existing cameras are where the problem is going to be. We've spoken to a lot of different companies. As you said, like Sony has been involved with this like all of them, Nikon, the only company willing to speak to us about it was like her and even they were very vague on how internally this is progressing. They just keep saying that it's part of the solution. It's part of the step that they're going to be taking, but these cameras aren't being back dated at the minute. If you have an established model, it's 50/50. It's whether it's even possible to update it with the ability to log these metadata credentials in from that point. There are other sources of trust in the photography ecosystem. The big photo agencies require the photographers who work there to sign contracts that say they want alter images. They want edit images in ways that fiddle with reality. Those photographers could use the cameras that don't have the system upload their photos to getty or AFP or shutter stock. And then those companies could embed the metadata. So you can trust us. Are any of them participating in that way? We know that shutter stock is a member of the minute. The system that you're describing would probably be the best approach that we have to making this beneficial at least for us as people that see things online and want to be able to trust whether protest images or horrific things that we're seeing online are actually real to have a trusted middleman as it were. But that system itself hasn't been established. We do know that shutter stock is involved. They are part of the the CTA committee or they have general membership. So they are on board with using the standard, but they're not actively part of the process. Behind how it's going to be adopted at a further stage. So unless we can also get the other big players involved for stock imagery, then who knows whether it's going to go but shutter stock actually implementing it as a middleman system would be probably most beneficial way to go. I was thinking about this in terms of the stuff that is made, the stuff that is distributed and the stuff that is consumed. It seems like at least at the moment of creation there is some adoption. Adobe is saying okay in Photoshop we're going to let you edit photos and we're going to write the metadata to the images and pass them along. A handful of phone makers, Google at least nits phones are saying we're going to write the metadata. We're going to have synth ID, opening eyes, putting the system into Sora 2 videos which you wrote about. On the creation side there's some amount of okay we're going to label the stuff. We're going to add the metadata. The distribution side seems to be where the message right. Nobody's respecting the stuff as it travels across the internet. Talk about that. You wrote about Sora 2 videos and they exploded across the internet. This is when it should have not been controversial to put labels everywhere saying this is AI generated content and yet it didn't happen. Why didn't that happen anywhere? It generally exposes the biggest fault that this system have and every system like it to its credit. I would always argue I don't want to defend CTP because it's doing a bad job. It wasn't ever designed to do it on this scale. It wasn't designed to apply to everything. In this example, yes platforms need to be adopting it to read that metadata, providing they're not the ones ripping it out during the process of supposedly scanning for it but unless this is absolutely everywhere, it's just not going to go. The problem that we're saying is as much as they can credit and saying it's going to be really robust, it's going to be really efficient. We can embed this at any other stage. There are still flaws with how it's being interpreted even if it is scanned. So that's a big thing. It's not necessarily that platforms aren't picking up the metadata or us ripping it out so that they have no idea what to do with it when they actually have it and at the point of uploading any images, there are social media platforms linked in like Instagram threads. They're all supposed to be using this standard and there is a chance that when you upload any kind of image or video to the platform, any metadata that was involved in that is just going to be stripped out regardless. So unless they can all come to an agreement, every platform, literally every platform that we we access and use online can come to an agreement that they are going to be scanning for very very specific details, they're going to be adjusting their upload processes, they're going to be adjusting how they communicate to their users. There needs to be that uniform, total uniform conformity for a system like this to actually make a difference, not even just to work and we're clearly not even going to see that. One of the conversations I had actually was when I was grilling anti-person who is head of content credentials at Adobe, which is another like that's their word for implementing CTPA data. I commented on the fact that the GROC mess we've had recently. Twitter was a founding member of this and then when Elon purchased the platform, it disappeared off and by the sounds of it, they've been trying to entice X to get back involved, but that's just not going anywhere and X, like however we we see it's used based at the minute, has millions of people using it and that is a portion of the internet that is never going to benefit from their system because it has no interest in adopting it. So you're never going to be able to address that. We have to take a quick break, we'll be right back. Support for this show comes from LinkedIn. For small businesses, every hire matters, but the time and resources required to hire right are limited. Luckily, LinkedIn Hiring Pro is built for that reality. It's your hiring partner designed to help you hire with confidence by servicing only the right candidates without turning hiring into another full-time job. Posting a job isn't always the hard part. It's finding, connecting with, and screening the right candidates. Hiring Pro streamlines the entire process from drafting your job to short-listing candidates and conducting AI-powered interviews for initial screenings. Conversational interface lets you describe what you need and plain language, no recruiter jargon needed. Nearly 60% of hires find a candidate to interview within a week. With Hiring Pro, you spend less time searching and more time connecting with the right talent. Hire right the first time. Post your first job and get $100 off towards your job post at linkedin.com/partner. That's linkedin.com/partner, terms and conditions apply. This week on net worth and chill, I'm talking about what happens after you've mastered the basics. How to build wealth that actually lasts for generations. With the top 1% holding nearly a third of the nation's wealth and 98% of them being men, breaking into generational wealth isn't just about getting rich, it's about changing who gets to stay rich. Plus, I'm explaining the great wealth transfer $124 trillion about to change hands over the next 25 years and what it means for you. I'm answering your questions about calculating your net worth, whether you should rent your buy to build wealth, and how to pass your retirement accounts to your kids without losing them to probate court. Whether you're just getting started or already maxing out your 401k, this episode will show you how to think bigger than just making money today. Listen wherever you get your podcasts or watch on youtube.com/yourrichbf. Support for the show comes from Shopify. Starting a new business, it could be a lonely endeavor, especially in the beginning. And when you're starting out, it's more important than ever to make sure you have the right tools at hand. Shopify is the commerce platform that millions of businesses around the world rely on to sell their products online. If you're asking yourself, what if people haven't heard about my brand? Shopify helps you find your customers with easy to run email and social media campaigns. And if you get stuck, Shopify is always around to share advice with their award-winning 24/7 customer support. Best yet, Shopify is your commerce expert with world-class expertise and everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns and beyond. It's time to turn those what-ifs into with Shopify today. You can sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at Shopify.com/decoder. Go to Shopify.com/decoder. That's Shopify.com/decoder. We're back with the Verge reporter Jess Weatherman. Before the break, Jess was explaining the origins of the C2PA standard and why attempts to label AI imagery have been moving so slowly among filmmakers, camera providers, and other parts of the photography ecosystem. This effort to label AI images and videos is also falling apart at the distribution level because not all of the major social media platforms agree on how to handle and display this metadata so they can share that information with the people looking at stuff on the platforms. So where exactly does that leave us? Well, the head of Instagram, Adam Sirrey, had some big ideas about all that that he published to the platform about a month ago. And I think his post tells us a lot about how the most influential social media executives see this problem evolving in the future and reckoning with what, if anything, they can actually do about it. I want to read you this quote from Adam Sirrey, who runs Instagram. On New Year's Eve, he just dropped a bomb and he put out a blog post in the form of a 20 carousel Instagram slideshow, which has its own PhD thesis of ideas about how information travels on the internet embedded within it, but he put out a 20 slide slide showing Instagram in it, he said quote, "For most of my life, I could safely assume photographs or videos were largely accurate captures of moments that happened. This is clearly no longer the case and it's going to take us years to adapt. We're going to move from assuming what we see is real by default to starting with skepticism. This is the end point, right? This is you can't trust your eyes, you can no longer trust a photo, you can't trust a video of any event is actually real and reality will start to crumble." And you can just look at events the United States over the past month. The reaction to ice killing, Alex Prety was what we all saw it and it's because there was lots of video of that event for multiple angles and everyone said, "Well, we can all see it." And the foundation of that is we can trust that video. And I'm looking at Adam Sirrey saying, "We're going to start with skepticism. We can no longer assume photos or videos are accurate captures of moments that happened. This is a turn. This is a point of the standard. Do you see Miss Erie saying this out loud about Instagram is the end point of this? Is this war just lost?" I would say so. I think we've kind of been waiting for tech to basically admit that I see them using stuff like CTPA almost kind of a meritless badge at this point because they're not endeavoring to push it to us. It's at most potential really. Even if it was never going to be the ultimate solution, it could have been at least some kind of benefit. And we know that they're not doing this because in the same message, like Miss Erie is describing it's like, "Oh, phone, it would be easier if we could just tag real content. That's going to be so much more doable and that would be good and we'll circle those people." And it's like, "My guy, that's what you're doing." That is like CTPA is that. It's not specifically in AI tagging system. It's a "Where is this bin and who took this, who made this, what has happened to it?" So if we're going for authenticity, like, Miss Erie is just openly saying, "We're using this thing and it doesn't work, but imagine if it did, wouldn't that be great?" It's like, "That's deeply unhelpful." So yeah, it's his way of kind of like deeply unhelpfully musing into some system that we'll be able to, I don't know, regain some kind of trust, I guess, while also acknowledging that we're already there. I'm going to make you keep arguing with Adam and Siri. We've invited Adam on the show. We'll have him on and maybe we can add this debate with him in person, but for now, you're going to keep arguing with his blog post. He says, "platforms like Instagram will do good work identifying AI content, but it'll get worse over time as AI gets better. It'll be more practical to fingerprint real media than fake media." Labeling is only part of the solution, he says. We need to surface much more context about the accounts sharing content so people can make informed decisions. So he's saying, look, we'll start to sign all the images and everything, but actually you need to trust individual creators. And if you trust the creator, then that will solve the problem. And it seems like you're really skipping over the part where creators are often fooled by AI-generated content, like all the time. And I don't mean that to say like creators as a class of people. I mean, literally just everyone is fooled by AI content all the time. And so if you're trusting people to understand it and then share what they think is real and then you're trusting the consumers to trust the people, that also seems like a whirlwind of chaos. On top of that, and you've written about this as well, there's the notion that these labels make you mad at people, right? So that if you label a piece of content as AI-generated, the creator gets furious because it makes their work seem less important or less valuable, the audience is yell at the creators. And so there's been a real push to get rid of these labels entirely because they seem to make everyone mad. How does that dynamic work here? Does any of this have a way through? I mean, it doesn't. And the other kind of amazing thing is Instagram notice the hard way, Missouri should remember. Like one of the very first platform implementations they did of reading CTP was done by Facebook and Instagram a couple years ago where they were just slapping maybe the eye labels on to everything because that's what the metadata told them. The big problem here that we have isn't just communication, which is that that is the biggest part of it. How do you communicate a complex bucket of information to every person it's going to be on your platform and get them only the information that they need? If I'm a creator, it shouldn't have to matter if I was using AI or not, but if I'm a person trying to see if again, a photo is real. I would greatly benefit from just an easy button or label that verifies authenticity. Finding the balance for that has proven next to impossible because as you get people just get upset about it. But then how do you define how much AI and something is too much AI? You know, like Photoshop and all of Adobe's tools, they do embed these content credentials that all of this metadata will say when AI has been used, but AI is in so many tools and not necessarily in the generative way that we assume it's going to be like, I'm going to click on this, it's going to add something new to an image that was never there before and that's fine. There are very basic like editing features that video editors and photographers now use that will have some kind of information embedded into them to say that AI was involved in that process. And now when you've got creators on the other side of that, they might not know that what they are using is AI. We're at the point where, unless you can go through every platform, every kind of editing suite with the fine-toed carbon designate, what do we count as AI? This is a non-starter. Like he's already hit the point of, we can't communicate this to people effectively. Let's pause here for a second because I want to lay out some important context before we go any farther. If you're a verge reader, even listening to the verge cast, you know that we've been asking a very simple question for over five years now. What is a photo? It sounds simple, but it's actually quite complicated. Because after all, when you push the shutter button on a modern smartphone, you are not actually capturing a single moment in time, which is what most people think of a photo as. Modern phones actually take a lot of frames, both before and after the second you push the shutter button and then merge them into a single final photo. That's to do things like even out the shadows and highlights of a photo, to capture more texture, to accomplish things like night mode. And over the years, things have gotten even weirder. There was a mini scandal a few years ago where if you try to pick a photo of the moon with the Samsung phone, the phone actually just generated a picture of the moon. Super weird. And of course, Google Pixel phones have all kinds of Gemini-powered AI tools in them. To the point where Google now says the camera is there to help people capture memories, not moments in time. This is all a lot. And like I said, we've been talking about it for years here at the verge. I bring this up because generative AI is taking the what is a photo debate to its absolute limits. It's hard to even agree on how much AI editing makes something an AI edited photo, or whether any of these features should be considered AI in the first place. And if that's so hard, how can we possibly reach consensus on what's real and what we label is real? Camera makers have all mostly given up here. And now I think we're starting to see the major social media platforms do the same thing. I wanted to talk about this for a second here because obviously it's an obsession of mine. But also, I think laying it all out makes it obvious how very, very complicated it is. Which brings us back to Adamissary, Instagram, and the debate over AI labeling. I will give some credit to Instagram and Adamissary here in that they are at least trying and thinking about it and publicly thinking about it in a way that none of the other social networks seem to have given any shred of consideration to. TikTok, for example, is nowhere to be found here. They are just going to distribute whatever they distribute without any of these labels. And it doesn't seem like they're part of the standard. X, I think we, X is absolutely just fully down the rabbit hole of distributing pure AI misinformation. YouTube seems like the outlier, right? Google runs synth ID. They're in C2PA. They're embedding the information literally at the point of capture and pixel phones. What is YouTube doing? Very similar approach to TikTok, actually, because weirdly enough TikTok is involved with this. They use the standard. They're not necessarily a steering member, but they are involved. And they have the similar approach where you will get an AI information label somewhere towards, depending on what format you're viewing on mobile or your TV, your computer, you'll get a little AI information label that you have to click in and ascertain the information you need from that. So their kind of problem is making sure it's robust enough because this doesn't appear consistently. There are AI videos all over YouTube that don't carry this and there's never a good explanation. Every time I've asked them, it's always just, you know, we're working on it. It's going to get there eventually, whatever. Or they ask for very specific examples and then run in and click those while I'm like, okay, but if this is falling through the net, how can you stand by this as a standard and you're interested in 3ds stuff and you're clearly using it to soothe concerns that people have, despite its ineffectiveness, they don't seem to be progressing any further than just presenting those labels, probably because of what happened to Instagram. And now we've just got the situation where what meta does seem to be standing on the sidelines going, well, we tried. So let's just see what someone else can do and maybe we'll adopt it from there. But YouTube doesn't really want to address this lot problem because so much of YouTube content that showed to new people is now sloped and it's proving to be quite profitable for them. Yeah, Google just had one of its best quarters ever. Neil Mohan, the CEO of YouTube, he's been on the show in the past. We will have him on the show again in the future. He announced that at the top of the year that the future of YouTube is AI. And they have features that they've announced along the lines of creators can have AI versions of themselves do the sponsored content so that the creators can do whatever that the creators actually want to do. And there's a part of me that completely understands that like, yes, my digital avatar should go make the ads so I can make the content that the audience is actually here for. And there's a part of me that says, oh, they're never going to label anything because the second they start labeling that is AI generated, which clearly will be they will devalue it. And there's something about that in the creative community with the audience that seems important. I know you've thought about this deeply. You've done some reporting here. What is it about the AI generated label that makes everything devalued that makes everybody so angry? I think it's people trying to put a value on creativity itself, right? If I was looking at luxury handbags and I see that they've not paid a creative team, this is a creative company that makes like wonderful products. It's based on the quality of all of the stuff that it sells you. If I find that you're not involving creative personnel in that to make an ad for me to want to buy your handbag, why would I want to buy it in the first place? And not everyone will have that perspective, but as someone that worked in the creative industry for a long time, you kind of see the work that goes into something even if it's something as laughable as a commercial. I love TV commercials because it's annoying as they are and as much as they're trying to get me to buy something, you can see the work that went into it that someone had to write that story, had to get behind the film cameras, had to make the effects and all that kind of stuff. So it feels like if you're taking a shortcut to remove all of that, then you're already cheapening the process yourself. Like that's what I feel and from the conversations I've had with other creatives, that seems to be the initial response of AI looks cheap because it's meant to be cheap. That's why it exists for efficiency and affordability. If you're coming across with trying to sell me something on that, it's probably not going to make the best first impression unless you make it utterly undetectable. And if you have a big made with AI or assisted with AI level on that, it's no longer undetectable because even if I can't see it, you've now just admitted that it's there. We need a second of the quick break. We'll be right back. We're back with Verge reporter Jess Weatherbet. You heard us talking about how AI labels are falling apart at the distribution level, the social media level, and how some tech executives, like Adam Assyria, the head of Instagram, are trying to wrap their heads around a world where we can't trust anything posted to social platforms. But now I want to shift the focus away from all these people who are ostensibly acting good faith towards some of the people who are accelerating the chaos on purpose, including the White House. That's a lot of mixed incentives for these platforms. And it occurs to me as we've been having this conversation, we've been kind of presuming a world in which everyone is a good faith actor and trying to make good experiences for people. And I think a lot of the executives of these companies would love to presume that that is the world in which they operate. And whether or not the label makes people mad and you want to turn it off or whether or not that you can trust the videos of significant government overreach and cause a protest that's still operating in a world of good faith. Right next to that is reality, the actual reality in which we live, where lots of people are bad faith actors who are very much incentivized to create misinformation, to create disinformation. And some of those bad faith actors at this moment in time are the United States government. So the White House publishes AI photos all the time, Department of Homeland Security, AI generated imagery, up down, left, right and center. You can just see it. AI manipulated photos of real people modified to look like they're trying is they're being arrested instead of what they actually looked like. This is a big deal. Right this is a war on reality from literally the most powerful government in the history of the world. Are the platforms ready for that at all? Because like here is the they're being faced with the problem. Right. This is the stuff you should label. No one should be mad at you for labeling this and they seem to be doing nothing. Why do you think that is? I think it's because it's the same process. Right. What we're talking about is a kind of a two-way street that is on the same road. You've got the people want to identify AI slop or maybe they don't, but people want to be able to like see what is and what is an AI. But then you've got the more insidious thing if we actually want to be able to tell what is real. But unfortunately benefits too many people to make that confusing now. But the solution is for both AI companies platforms that are profiting off of all of the stuff that they're showing how they're making it so much more efficient for content creators to slap stuff in front of you. Like we're in a position now where there's more online than we've ever seen ever because everything is being funneled out. Why would they want to harm that profit stream effectively by having to either slam on the brakes of development until they can figure out how they are going to effectively be able to call out when deep fakes are proven to be a problem when they're going to be able to like the methods of being put in front of it rather than setting up some kind of middle system like a shutter stock thing like we discussed earlier where all press images now have to come from one authority that has to verify the identity of everyone taking them like maybe that's the possibility but we are so far from that point and no one's to my knowledge no one's instigated setting something like that up so they're just kind of relying on everyone talking about this in good faith where again every conversation I've had with this is we're working on it it's a slow process we're going to get there eventually oh it was never designed to do all of the stuff anyway so it's very blasé and kind of low effort really it's kind of a we've joined an initiative what more do you want which is incredibly frustrating but that seems to be the reason that everything is kind of not developing because in order to develop any further in order to actually help us they would have to pause they would have to stop and think about it and they're too busy running out every other like tool and feature that they can think of doing because they have to they have to keep their share healthy they have to keep us as consumers happy while also saying ignore everything else that's going on in the background when I say there's mixed incentives here one of the things that really gets me is that the biggest companies investing in AI are also the biggest distributors of information of the people who run the social platforms so Google obviously has massive investments in AI they run YouTube meta has massive investments in AI to what end unclear but massive investments in AI they run Instagram and Facebook and what's happened the rest just down the line you can see okay Elon Musk is going to spend tons of money and xai and he runs Twitter and this is a big problem right if your business your money your free cash flow is generated by the time people are spending on your platforms and then you're plowing those profits back into AI you can't undercut the thing you're spending and the R&D money on by saying we're going to label it and make it seem bad are there any platforms that are doing it that are saying hey we're going to promise you that everything you see here is real because it seems like a competitive opportunity very small there's an artist platform right called Cara which says that they're so for supporting artists that they're not going to allow any AI generated artwork on the site but they haven't really clearly communicated how they are going to do that because saying it is one thing and doing it is another thing entirely there are a million reasons why we don't have a reliable detection method at the minute so if I in complete good faith pretend to be an artist that's just feeding AI generated images onto that platform there's very little they can really do about it so anyone that's making those statements saying yeah we're going to stand to merit and we're going to keep AI off of the platform how they can't there it like the systems for doing so the minute are being developed by AI providers as we've said or they're at least AI providers is deeply involved with a lot of these systems and there is no guarantee for any of it so we're still relying on how humans intercept this information to be able to tell people how much of what they can see is trustworthy that's still kind of putting the onus on us as people as well we can give you a mix-mash of information and then you decide whether it's reliable or not and we haven't operated on that way as a society for years people didn't read newspapers to make their own mind up about stuff they wanted information and facts and now they can't get that is there user demand for this this does seem like the incentive that will work if the enough people say hey I don't know if I can trust what I see you have to help me out here make make this better would that push the platforms into label and because it seems like the breakdown is at the platform level right the platforms are not doing enough to showcase even the data they have let alone demand more but it also seems like the users could simply say hey the comment section of every photo in the world now is just not arguing about whether or not this is AI can you help us out would that push them into improvement I would like to think it would push them into at least being more vocal about their involvement at the minute like we've got again this is two sided thing is the minute it's you can't tell if a photo is real but also like a less nefarious thing is like Pinterest is now unusable right as a creative if I want to use the platform Pinterest I cannot tell what is and what isn't AI I can but a lot of people won't be able to and there is so much demand for a filter before that website just to be able to go I don't want any of this please don't show me anything that's generated by AI and that hasn't happened yet they've done a lot of other stuff on that but like they're involved with the process behind developing these systems it's kind of more is the problem that they've they've set themselves an impossible task in order to use any of the systems that we've established so far you either need to be best friends with every AI provider on the planet which isn't going to happen because we've got nefarious third party things focus entirely on stuff like nudifying people or like a deep fake generation entirely this isn't kind of the opening eye or the the big name models but they exist and they're usually what's used to to do this kind of underground activity they're not going to be on board with it so you can't make bold promises about resolving the problem universally when there is no solution at hand at the minute when you talk to the industry when I hear from the industry it is the drumbeat that you've mentioned several times look it's going to get better it's going to be slow every standard is slow you have to give it time it sounds like you don't necessarily believe that right you think that this has already failed explain that do you think this has already failed yeah I would say this is failed I think this is failed for what has been presented to us because what ctpa was for and what companies have been using it for are two different things to me ctpa came about as a I will give it its credit because Adobe's done a lot of work from this right and the stuff it was meant to do was if you were a creator person your this system will help you prove that you made a thing and how you made a thing and that that has benefit I see that being used in that context every day but then a lot of other companies gone involved with that and said cool we're going to use this as our AI safeguard basically if we're using this system and it'll tell you it'll tell you when when you post it somewhere else whether it's got AI involvement that which means that we're the good guys because we're doing something and that's what I have problem with is because ctpa has never stood up and said we are going to fix this for you a lot of companies came on board and went well we're using this and this is going to fix it for you when it works and that's an impossible task it's just not going to happen if we're thinking about adopting this platform just as platform even this in conjunction with stuff like synth ID or inference method it's never going to be an ultimate solution so I would say like the resting the pressure on we have to have AI detection and labeling it's failed like it's dead in the water it's never going to get to to universal solution that doesn't mean it's not going to help if they can figure out a way to effectively communicate all of this metadata and robustly keep it in check make sure it's not being removed at every instance of being uploaded then yeah there'll be some platforms we'll be able to see if something was maybe generated by the aisle maybe it was like a verified creator badge something whatever Missouri is talking about where we're going to have to start verifying photographers through metadata and all of the other information but there is not going to be a point in the next yeah three five years where we sign on and go and I can now tell what's real and what's not because of ctpa that's never going to happen it does seem like these platforms maybe modernity as we experience it today have been built on you can trust the things that come off these phones right like you can just see it over and over and over again social movements rise and fall based on whether or not you can trust the things that phones generate and if you destabilize that you're going to have to build all kinds of other systems I'm not sure ctpa is it I'm sure we will hear from the ctpa folks I'm sure we will hear from Adam and from Neil and the other platform owners on decoder again we've invited everybody on what do you think the next turn here is because the pressure is not going to reliant what's the next thing that could happen from this to an event is probably going to be some kind of regulatory efforts there's going to be some kind of legal involvement because up until this point there have been murmurs of like how we're going to regulate stuff this like with the online safety act in the UK and everything now kind of pointing going hey AI is making a lot of deep fix the people that we don't like and we should probably talk about having rules in place for that but up until that point these companies have basically been enacting systems that are supposed to help us out of the goodness of their heart of the oh we've spotted that this is actually a concern and we're going to be doing this but they haven't been putting any real effort into doing so otherwise again we would have some kind of solution by now where we would see some sort of widespread results at the very least it would involve working together having widespread communications and that's supposed to be happening with the CAI with the initiative that everyone else is currently involved with there are no results we are not we are not seeing them we oh Instagram made it a bold effort over a year ago to stick labels on and then immediately ran back with its head between its legs that is the point of this so unless regulatory efforts actually come in so clamping down on these companies and saying okay we actually now have to dictate what your models are allowed to do and what they we're going to have repercussions for if we find out what your models are doing and not supposed to be doing like that is the next stage we have to have this as a conjunction I think that will be beneficial in terms of having that with labeling with metadata tagging stuff but alone like there is now never going to be a perfect solution to this well sadly Jess I always cut off decoder episodes when they veer into explaining the regulatory process the European Union that's just hard rule on the show but it does seem like that's going to happen and it seems like the the platforms themselves are going to have to react to how their users are behaving you're going to keep covering the stuff I find it fascinating how deep into this world you've gotten starting from hey we should pay more attention to these tools and now here we are on can you label reality into existence Jess thank you so much for being on decoder thank you i'd like to thank Jess weather bread for taking time to drive me on decoder today and thank you for listening i hope you enjoyed it if you'd like to let us know what you thought about this episode what you think a photo is or really anything else drop us a line you can email us at decoder at the verge.com we really do read all the emails or you can have me up directly on threads and blue sky we're also on youtube you can watch full episodes at decoder pod and we have a tiktok and an instagram they're at decoder pod as well they're a lot of fun if you like decoder please share with your friends and subscribe over your podcast decoder is a production of the verge and part of the voxing your podcast network shows produced by Kate Cox next at it's edited by Ursula Wright our editor world director is Kevin McShane the decoder music is my break master cylinder we'll see you next time