bpcrd

Joined 5 years ago

Karma
135
Submissions
33
Member since
Sep 8
Feel free to reach out! ben at realitydefender dot com
View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 1 year ago
We won multiple awards including RSA: https://www.rsaconference.com/library/press-release/reality-...

And we’ve published peer-reviewed research at top AI conferences E.g. CVPR, NeurIPS, ECCV, AAAI, Interspeech which are available at https://www.realitydefender.com/research

Comment · 1 year ago
Comment · 1 year ago
I completely agree! Please see the bottom of our post where we offer free access in two ways:

1) Email up to 50 files to [email protected], we’ll scan them for you, no setup required

2) 1-click add to Zoom/Teams (via Appstore) to try detection live in your own calls immediately

Comment · 1 year ago
This is something for us to consider in the near future!
Comment · 1 year ago
See my other response on this, but this is something we are actively protecting against.
Comment · 1 year ago
This is something we're constantly updating, upgrading, iterating, and improving on. Every. Single. Day.

Whether it's introducing new models, deprecating old ones, or improving existing ones, there is an element of both staying current but also looking ahead at research. Many of the new models generating hyperreal content we catch on day one because they're based on existing technology and/or research.

Comment · 1 year ago
It is in fact something we support with our enterprise clients and will roll out at a later date via Public API. Including the free tier.
Comment · 1 year ago
Noted. Our marketing team only uses 640x480 CRTs and works exclusively in IE6, so will flag to them via Yahoo Messenger.
Comment · 1 year ago
We'd rather not tip our hand on any/all techniques used to discern actual users from bad actors and those seeking to reverse engineer, but suffice to say we do have are methods (and plenty of them).
Comment · 1 year ago
As noted elsewhere, we give confidence scores between 1-99%. We also use many different models for each modality for a more robust and complete answer with each scan, and each model has its own confidence score.
Comment · 1 year ago
I understand this is in jest, but unfortunately AI generation tools more or less stopped the six-finger issue a couple of years ago. We are decidedly not a model used for the express detection of finger abnormalities, but a multi-model and multimodal detection platform — driven by our Public API (which you can try for free right now, btw) — which uses many different techniques to differentiate between content that is likely manipulated and likely not manipulated.

That said, neat gag.

Comment · 1 year ago
Thank you. As an inference-based detection platform, our models go into every scan with the assumption that all files are both not the original/ground truth AND the files have been likely transcoded. We never say something is 0% or 100% fake because we don’t have that ground truth. That said, our award-winning models are able to say, with a confidence score of 1-99% — the higher being likely manipulated — which, in turn, is sent to the team using said detection to action as they will. Some use it as one of many signals to make an informed decision manually. Others have chosen to moderate or label accordingly. There are experts who’ve been called to testify on matters like this one, and some of them work on these very models.

As for synthetic content that is undetectable to the naked eye or ear, we are already there.

Comment · 1 year ago
Thank you! We’ve been working on this since 2021 (and some of us a bit before that), and we’re reminded every day that we are ultimately working something that helps people on the macro and micro level. We want a world free of the malevolent uses of deepfakes for ourselves, our loved ones, and everyone beyond, and feel all should be privy to such protection.
Comment · 1 year ago
I understand the appeal of hashing-based provenance techniques, though they’ve faced some significant challenges in practice that render them ineffective at best. While many model developers have explored these approaches with good intentions, we’ve seen that they can be easily circumvented or manipulated, particularly by sophisticated bad actors who may not follow voluntary standards.

We recognize that no detection solution is 100% accurate. There will be occasional false positives and negatives. That said, our independently verified an internal testing shows we’ve achieved the lowest error rates currently available for addressing deepfake detection.

I’d respectfully suggest that dismissing AI detection entirely might be premature, especially without hands-on evaluation. If you’re interested, I’d be happy to arrange a test environment where you could evaluate our solution’s performance firsthand and see how it might fit your specific use case.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton