When submitting a Wayspot Appeal, make sure to include as much of the following information as possible:
-
Wayspot Title: Vibrant Birds & Vines Mural
-
Location (lat/lon): -35.109860,138.528042
-
City: Adelaide
-
Country: Australia
-
Screenshot of the Rejection Email (do not include your personal information):
-
Additional Information (if any):
Photo of the Wayspot.
I had rejected this Wayspot in the review process and marked it as Abuse as the image submitted contains an AI watermark from twitters AI GROK which was used to create the fake art on the stobie pole.
The wayspot managed to slip through the review process and went to live so I’m hoping to see it removed.
Welcome to the forum @declandj05
That’s a good catch. I’m surprised other reviewers accepted it in the first place, given the watermark in the corner.
Hey @declandj05 ,
Welcome to the Wayfarer Community Forum.
We have removed this Wayspot and have taken appropriate action on the Wayfinder as well.
Best,
Is there a way that Wayfarer can be upgraded to do those watermark checks? I wouldn’t be surprised if eventually AI started implementing counterfeiting markers to automate systems identify them
There are options. Spotting the visible watermarks should be possible. There are processes to find “hidden data watermarks”.
Scopely have to decide whether doing this automatically is cost effective.
I use a website that checks for numerous flags to “consider” it AI. I get so many look ups a month free. I still wouldn’t trust it 100% but it’s a good way to check suspicions.
For Scopely this would be classed as commercial and they have to pay.
It would probably be more helpful if the AI companies came up with a single standard so it doesn’t need to use multiple tests/APIs
(off topic) This wouldn’t be in the interests of the AI companies, so they would have to be forced to do it. This will clearly never happen.
