|
Perestroika posted:*Its image search is kinda funny cause it seems like the moment your search has even one risque word in it it's just rows and rows of porn results. My German friend was describing an animal he saw while hiking and I tried to image search "eurasian beaver" to show him a pic to compare and.... I didn't get a single non-porn result.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
I would look at Kagi through this lens: they’re definitely recording everything you search through them, because of course they are. When the inevitable enshittification happens, are you comfortable with them having however many years of your searches and that profile squirreled away? If yes and you can afford the subscription, Kagi is probably a good choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 19:53
|
|
|
You can believe what Kagi says about privacy or not I guess. I find the value to be more than worth it, and for now have no reason to believe they're actively lying to users.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 20:30
|
|
|
I don’t really give a poo poo about privacy, I just want better results
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
Ruffian Price posted:Stop using Google remains the best advice for a decade and counting. DDG has a !rtings bang that should cover a wide variety of appliance types, they even maintain separate lists for people committed to a vacuum cleaner brand
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 21:12
|
|
|
withoutclass posted:You can believe what Kagi says about privacy or not I guess. I find the value to be more than worth it, and for now have no reason to believe they're actively lying to users. It tends to be when companies get bought out or bring in a new CEO that the priorities change and people leave and enshittification begins. Which yeah could still happen but that’s always going to be true. You have to trust someone eventually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 23:02
|
|
|
i just always wonder what happens when a lot of these concepts hit the iron wall of "ok how do you make enough money to pay enough people to fight the bots" like ello was never going to have a good time, it could never afford success
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 23:23
|
|
|
Aren't people always saying "if you're not paying then you're the product" and simultaneously "just let me pay a monthly fee for this service" and now there is one and surprise people still complain?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 23:34
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Aren't people always saying "if you're not paying then you're the product" and simultaneously "just let me pay a monthly fee for this service" and now there is one and surprise people still complain? You can pay and still be the product. See twitter for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 23:45
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:You can pay and still be the product. See twitter for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 23:46
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:You can pay and still be the product. See twitter for example. Well, in case of paying for Twitter it's more being the mark.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2024 23:49
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:i just always wonder what happens when a lot of these concepts hit the iron wall of "ok how do you make enough money to pay enough people to fight the bots" Breaking into the search market in tyool 2024 basically requires gazillions of dollars to burn. It is so hard to get a foothold period, let alone deal with the day-to-day of scaling operations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2024 03:22
|
|
|
yeah that's part of the mess that is the modern day internet we went from an open experimental marketplace of pages and companies to entrenched vertical monopolies that dominate all traffic
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2024 03:25
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:yeah that's part of the mess that is the modern day internet To add to that, there's such a massive market in manipulating the algorithm, by hook or by crook, that even if you decided to spend a fortune to altruistically make a fantastic new search engine, you'd still be hosed unless you were willing to invest in an unfeasibly large human review of all results. If you are relying on an algorithm, it can and will be exploited.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2024 04:17
|
|
|
quote:Washington’s Lottery forced to pull site after creating AI porn of lotto user https://mynorthwest.com/3956403/rantz-washingtons-lottery-ai-porn-user/ I have no words Jesus loving Christ.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2024 15:00
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:https://mynorthwest.com/3956403/rantz-washingtons-lottery-ai-porn-user/ lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2024 15:29
|
|
|
Ai is stupid enough for this to be true, but don't trust Jason Rantz.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2024 15:56
|
|
|
loving brilliant. How’s that ai safety act that was just signed coming along?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2024 14:09
|
|
|
Welp, we can't enhance anymore  quote:A Washington state judge overseeing a triple murder case barred the use of video enhanced by artificial intelligence as evidence in a ruling that experts said may be the first-of-its-kind in a United States criminal court. This decision spells doom to CSI, NCIS and every other reality cop show 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 18:13
|
|
|
I liked the reverse of that in an early Law & Order Organized Crime episode. The cops needed to see if a factory had a bunch of stolen Covid vaccines, the tech turned up tons and tons of pictures and videos showing the vaccines inside the factory. “Jet, how did you get all this? You didn’t enhance the video, did you? How did you even get this video? If I have to explain this to a judge…” “what? No. This is all from the employees social media pages. It’s all public.” Someone in the writers’ room paid attention for once.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 18:20
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Welp, we can't enhance anymore Potential con: racist cops using this to get civilian phone camera evidence dismissed, as they all use proprietary computational photography wizardry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Potential con: racist cops using this to get civilian phone camera evidence dismissed, as they all use proprietary computational photography wizardry. Proprietary code can be examined by experts under seal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 20:25
|
|
|
or they just say their own body cams are fake. we should all return to analog media.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2024 21:08
|
|
|
Require cops to strap 25kg of analogue recording equipment to their chest rig, including deployable tripod.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 06:13
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 07:55
|
|
|
Where does this leave lossy compression? AI or not, it's still an approximation of the pixels that were there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 08:02
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:Where does this leave lossy compression? AI or not, it's still an approximation of the pixels that were there. Lossy compression removes information, it doesn't make up new information
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 08:32
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Lossy compression removes information, it doesn't make up new information depending on the specifics of the compression algorithm and the input you can end up with some, uh, interesting results Oneiros fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Apr 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 08:51
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:Lossy compression removes information, it doesn't make up new information
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 09:07
|
|
|
Topaz Labs' video suite is also pretty tame poo poo compared to the video generators currently in the news, it's just stabilization/denoising models that are in every action camera and smartphone nowadays, extrapolating detail from motion vectors, as an offline processor. If it can't be used for evidence (and that's 100% right - it shouldn't), there's a precedent here to doubt all candid phone capture
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 09:13
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:When you zoom close enough and get to pixel scale, it sorta does. A macroblock containing an approximation of the uncompressed pixels that once made up that block is, arguably, "new" information generated using an irreversible algorithm. Cmon that's a reach. The argument on modern phones cameras stands though. The newest pixels and samsungs 'enhance' photos by default. It might not be quite as much as that example in the court case but i think it's going to come up at some point.' Mega Comrade fucked around with this message at 09:21 on Apr 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 09:17
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Cmon that's a reach. It's likely that there's been a few people convicted with evidence based on low quality, compressed surveillance footage, where faces may end up being the size of a few macroblocks. I don't think it's that much a reach, depending on the circumstances. The point was that it's a spectrum of modification and while compression is at the lower impact end of the scale, it's on the scale. Particularly when adding motion vectors to the mix, which are entirely newly generated and can radically change an image. SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 09:25 on Apr 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 09:21
|
|
|
All evidence is on a scale though. Bringing up examples that no court is going to wring hands about is silly. Blowing up film prints would also technically fulfill your argument but that's been standard practise for long time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 09:27
|
|
|
If you blow up a film you're just making the information that is already there more visible. It doesn't add anything. And you have too much faith in the legal system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 09:31
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:
What? What are you even on about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 09:35
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Bringing up examples that no court is going to wring hands about is silly. Prosecutors have gotten convictions based on on thin evidence and bunk science in the past. There's likely been many cases where there was circumstantial evidence that hinged on some CCTV footage, the circumstantial evidence may not be enough to get a conviction but add the CCTV footage and convince the jurors that the jumble of pixels was the defendant and they get a win. I don't think it's unlikely that innocent people have been burned by something like this, though I'm not insinuating it's something that would happen often. When you lossy compress something, it's permanently, irrevocably modified and the greater the compression, the more modified it is. It's not dissimilar to AI stuff, which everyone wants to put in a separate category but is, in a lot of ways, another kind of compression or at least borrows many of it's concepts, something the anti-generative AI crowd has been using as a talking point for a while. SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Apr 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 09:44
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:If you blow up a film you're just making the information that is already there more visible. It doesn't add anything. With what film you're using and what chemicals to develop them, you can create vastly different outcomes of the same shot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 09:56
|
|
|
BabyFur Denny posted:With what film you're using and what chemicals to develop them, you can create vastly different outcomes of the same shot. The distribution of the crystals aren't changed by the development process and the inherently high resolution of film makes pixel-level (or crystal I guess) differences less likely to matter in practice anyway. SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Apr 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 10:04
|
|
|
Just wait until the courts find out about how human memory works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 12:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
Have you ever seen what poor quality old-school CCTV tape video looks like? The stuff I recall seeing on TV alerts makes modem era JPEGs look pristine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2024 12:53
|
|