Not sure if you're aware so I'll mention it anyway, but as far as I know, downvotes in Beehaw communities don't federate to Beehaw (as in aren't applied here - you might see them on your instance though, not really sure). That being said, your comment does, so you've made a "pseudo-downvote" anyway.
The title is not mine and the paper the article is responding to was published last month, not two years ago as you claim. The only mention of Musk in the entire article is in this one sentence:
Unlike self-serving warnings from Open AI CEO Sam Altman or Elon Musk about the “existential risk” artificial general intelligence poses to humanity, Google’s research focuses on real harm that generative AI is currently causing and could get worse in the future.
Not sure what to make out of this article. The statistics are nice to know, but something like this seems poorly investigated:
AI overview answers in Google search that tell users to eat glue
Google's AI has a strength others lack: not only it allows users to rate an answer, but it can also use Google's search data to check whether people are laughing at or mocking its results.
The "fire breathing swans", the "glue on pizza", or the "gasoline flavored spaghetti", have disappeared from Google's AI.
Gemini now also uses a draft system where it reviews and refines its own initial answer several times, before presenting the final result.
We didn't even have AI when the Internet became flooded with faked images and videos, and those actually are incredibly hard to tell are fake. AI generated images still has very obvious tells that it's fake if you scrutinize them even a little bit. And video is so bad right now, you don't have to do anything but have functioning sight to notice it's not real.
generative AI makes it very easy for anyone to flood the internet with generated text, audio, images, and videos.
And? There's already way too much data online to read or watch all of it. We could just move to a "watermark" system where everyone takes credit for their contributions. Things without watermarks could just be dismissed, since they have as much authority as an anonymous comment.
AIs learn from existing images, they could just as well learn to reproduce a tattoo and link the pattern to a person's name. Recreating it from different angles, would require more training data, but ultimately would get there.
For public ones, depending on what people started getting, it'd really strain the AIs. You could go in like 1 or two ways, probably different people getting both.
Something very uniform but still unique, like a QR code kind of deal, AIs would hallucinate the crap out of that. Or abstractions, like people do to change the way the shape of their face to combat facial recognition.
For private ones, just don't ever get it photographed, any image showing that area without it would be probably fake.
Why would anyone pay for the service? Having a "name" is free, and that dumb worldcoin only works for people. It can't work for governments or businesses.
ActivityPub is actually a good way to authenticate things. If an organization vouches for something they can post it on their server and it can be viewed elsewhere.
ActivityPub is actually a good way to authenticate things. If an organization vouches for something they can post it on their server and it can be viewed elsewhere.
AP has some pretty big issues when it comes to moving servers, expiring and re-purchased domain names, and other such edge cases. Servers either blindly accept new keys after a certain time, or are vulnerable to enabling key ransoming after hacks (the reason HKPK went nowhere).
I think the idea of WorldCoin is to have a "wallet" linked to a single physical person, then you can sign any work with your key, that you got by proving you are a real person.
IMHO, the coin part is just a hype element to get people to sign up for the password part.
As for ActivityPub, I don't see how it helps with anything. An organization vouching for something, can already post it on their web, or if they want a distributed system, post it on IPFS.
Mid journey and the like have already been caught creating shutterstock watermarks in images. Future models might be able to fake specific watermarks well.
Not like that. A server name that can be authenticated. Like when you receive an email from your bank (in the metadata), you know it's legitimate. Each organization can set up their own server to host things they vouch for. With ActivityPub it can be viewed elsewhere with the guarantee that it's from a trusted source.
Sure, but so do a lot of other things that aren't as costly. If NFTs were the first secure way to authenticate things online we wouldn't have had online banking until very recently
True but trust is hard to establish in decentralized platforms like the fediverse. As far as I’m aware the only decentralized banking is unfortunately cryptocurrency.
We could just move to a "watermark" system where everyone takes credit for their contributions.
North Korea actually has this embedded in their government Linux distro and it works well as long as everyone who opens the file runs a supported OS. Not for AI, but to track who wrote what unpleasant documents, but still, it proves the idea can work.
On the other hand, how do you determine trust? I can generate a million plausible names and digital addresses on my computer. Half the images I see online are screenshots or screen recordings already (because "save as" isn't available on "modern" websites).
In theory, we can solve this by simply having digital stuff be signed, but setting up a web of trust will be difficult. Especially since most of the internet is semi-anonymous.
Funnily enough, the Fediverse already signs most data, so this scheme is already active unintentionally here on Lemmy! But for all I know, you're not really "Kevon Looney" and just a fake from another server.
That's just a normal weather app. Google's weather widget looks very close, and Samsung's isn't very different.
One or two overviews and a bunch of info blocks is all you'll get from the popular weather APIs, so it's hard to get creative. Maybe it could've added a map of sorts to make the weather stand out? But then you'd probably be copying some other weather app in the process.
Some apps have multiple pages, some have a map, some show different timespans of weather predictions with different data, some show photos of places, some allow selecting multiple places but show them differently, some show maritime weather, and so on.
There is a limited amount of creativity, but a properly "creative" AI, should not keep repeating the same design pattern over and over.
There is a limited amount of creativity, but a properly "creative" AI, should not keep repeating the same design pattern over and over.
It's generative AI, not magic. Repeating the patterns it was trained on is what it was designed to do, even if those patterns aren't always entirely obvious.
I think the model has been overfitted on its training set, but you can't expect the types of generative AI we have today to be creative.
I'm guessing it should've been trained on more pattens, and increase that temperature a bit.
To be somewhat creative, it should have a large training set, and an iterative approach to the output. From the looks of it, this one is just a single step LLM, picking design elements one by one.
I'm curious, what exactly is the problem with this? Does Apple have copyrights on the whole design or each individual visual element? Where would figma get in trouble if they left it working that way?
I'm not a lawyer, I could imagine that a copyright claim for a specific app design is viable.
But in this case, it might also just be a case of avoiding bad press and bad blood with Apple.
Could it be a fear of a software patent relating to the design? Back in the day Apple had one for swipe to unlock that prompted Android to use different patterns.
Yah. ALl of this makes me think it's crazy for a company like Figma to even try this. If the designs don't steal from well known brand, people will say they suck. If they do steal, they get booed as well. Losing proposition, it seems to me.
Sounds like the internet needs to have some rules established to keep things under control. Personally, I think 34 rules is a good number, at least at a minimum.
Looking at the logs if my Stable horde worker, more then half of requests made were to generate porn. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot regardless of if the filter worked as intended.
Hell yeah! Nothing good comes from their new model, nor the advertiser-friendly focus of SD3. They were good for pushing the open-source ecosystem forward, but clearly their Capitalist masters have come calling, and they're enshittifying.
I recognized the name AU10TIX, because I half-joked on Lemmy about a potential mass doxxing of Xitter's most vile users back in September when they announced the partnership. I assumed they'd be a target for ransomware/hackers, not that they'd just leave their admin creds out in the open.
404media.co
Hot