While generative AI (GenAI) offers countless possibilities for creative and productive tasks, artificially generated media can be misused for fraud, manipulation, scams, misinformation campaigns, and more. To mitigate the risks associated with maliciously generated media, forensic classifiers are employed to identify AI-generated content. However, current forensic classifiers are often not evaluated in practically relevant scenarios, such as the presence of an attacker or when real-world artifacts like social media degradations affect images. In this paper, we evaluate state-of-the-art AI-generated image (AIGI) detectors under different attack scenarios. We demonstrate that forensic classifiers can be effectively attacked in realistic settings, even when the attacker does not have access to the target model and post-processing occurs after the adversarial examples are created, which is standard on social media platforms. These attacks can significantly reduce detection accuracy to the extent that the risks of relying on detectors outweigh their benefits. Finally, we propose a simple defense mechanism to make CLIP-based detectors, which are currently the best-performing detectors, robust against these attacks.

Model stealing aims at inferring a victim model's functionality at a fraction of the original training cost. While the goal is clear, in practice the model's architecture, weight dimension, and original training data can not be determined exactly, leading to mutual uncertainty during stealing. In this work, we explicitly tackle this uncertainty by generating multiple possible networks and combining their predictions to improve the quality of the stolen model. For this, we compare five popular uncertainty quantification models in a model stealing task. Surprisingly, our results indicate that the considered models only lead to marginal improvements in terms of label agreement (i.e., fidelity) to the stolen model. To find the cause of this, we inspect the diversity of the model's prediction by looking at the prediction variance as a function of training iterations. We realize that during training, the models tend to have similar predictions, indicating that the network diversity we wanted to leverage using uncertainty quantification models is not (high) enough for improvements on the model stealing task.