Introduce integrations with AIPI for automated content scanning #644
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Beyley
requested changes
Aug 24, 2024
Co-authored-by: Beyley Thomas <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: jvyden <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Beyley Thomas <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: jvyden <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Rough port from DO code to integrate AI image scanning into Refresh. This should help reduce the photo endpoint abuse we've been seeing from DT, while using the same existing infrastructure that works incredibly well.
This does not scan every uploaded texture as this would increase server load significantly. It will only scan under certain circumstances:
This also brings in the option to automatically restrict users who upload images with banned tags if configured. This will be left off on production while I gauge if this is going to false-flag for normal non-abuse activity.
Oh, this also introduces support for a staff-only webhook. This could be used for a non-persisted audit log if we wanted to use that as a solution for #565.