A rooted phone could not, but anyone with a bottle of acid and a microscope could. Or as I’ve said, a nice optics setup and a high quality projector.

My point being that trusting the camera chip does not help much. But, of course, it would block the easiest software attacks like we have seen so far.

That would be my guess as well.

I’m not a researcher in this field, so I don’t have anything substantial to suggest. My opinion is that it is unsolvable.

No matter what you try, sufficiently powerful entities will be able to modify the sensor to sign images of anything they want to pass as real (or just use a very high quality projector)

It might be better that we are all always weary of an image being AI at this point.

This is a terrible idea. So of course it already exists https://c2pa.org/

It’s already being exploited https://www.da.vidbuchanan.co.uk/blog/android-c2pa.html

We need a solution but that’s not it.

If you like magit, https://github.com/0WD0/majutsu is already quite good.

I think google hides an additional mark in their own edits so the tool can perform an actual check in this case.

They would not detect any AI edit from other providers.

There are tools to remove these hidden “signatures” E.g. https://github.com/wiltodelta/remove-ai-watermarks

I’m not commenting on the ethics.

electrons actually loop around in a closed DC circuit in the speed of light

On average, electrons “move forward” much much slower than that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity

But even the whole “electrical signal” is slower than the speed of light:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_factor#Typical_velocity_factors

Not how I understand it, but I’m not a lawyer. The user that uses the script to generate the code can copyright the output and oop can copyright their script (and the output they themself generate). If it worked like you said, it would be trivial to write a script that generates all possible code by enumerating possible programs, then because the script will eventually generate your code, it’s already copyrighted. This appear absurd to me.

Relevant: https://www.vice.com/en/article/musicians-algorithmically-generate-every-possible-melody-release-them-to-public-domain/

If the script copies chunks of code under the copyright of the original script writer, I typically see for those parts that the original owner keeps copyright of those chunks and usually license it in some way to the user. But the code from the user input part is still copyrightable by the user. And that’s that last part that is most interesting for the copyright of AI works. I’m curious how the law will settle on that.

I’m open to counterarguments.