Put all these creepy bastards on a publicly viewable list.
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
380 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
81120 readers
3873 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Didn't they already do that in their public posts or whatever? They don't care.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Won't work and if it does work, the resulting image has little to nothing to do with the original.
Source: I opened a badly taken .raw file a few thousand times and I know what focal length means, come at me.
Do you have a good way to remember which way fast and slow f. stops go? I always have to trail and error when adjusting camera settings to go the right direction or especially listening to someone talk about aperture.
Wider open you let in more light, and want faster shutter speed, more closed you get less light and want a longer shutter speed.
And f stops work backwards. Think of it as percent of sensor covered. The bigger the number the more covered it is and the smaller the hole/aperture.
So Wide open = low coverage = small f stop -> lots of light -> "fast" shutter speed. And then the other way around. I think you finally worded it in a way it can stick in my brain! I like thinking about the f value as how much you're covering the lens.
To add more specifics here for you, note that the f-stop is usually shown as a fraction, like f/2.8, f/4.0, etc.
So first of all, since the number is on the bottom of the fraction, there's where you get smaller numbers = more light.
It's also shown as a fraction because it's a ratio, between your lens's focal length (not focal distance to the subject) and the diameter of the aperture.
So if I'm taking a telephoto shot with my 70-200 @ 200 with the aperture wide open at f/2.8, that means the aperture should appear as 200/2.8 = 71.4mm. And that seems right to me! If you're the subject looking into the lens the opening looks huge.
I like trying to simplify stuff to basic language and I am happy it was helpful
load more comments
(3 replies)
I am so glad I no longer interact with that dumpster fire of a social network. It's like the Elon takeover and the monetization program brought out every weirdo in the world out of the woodwork
unblur the face with 1000% accuracy
They have no idea how this models work :D
Though it is 2026. Who's to say Elon didn't feed the unredacted files into grok while out of his face on ket 🙃
It feels like being back on the playground
"nuh uh, my laser is 1000% more powerful"
"oh yea, mine is ~~googleplex~~ googolplex percent more powerful"
load more comments
(6 replies)
It’s the same energy as “don’t hallucinate and just say if you don’t know the answer”
and don't forget "make no mistakes" :D
load more comments
(1 replies)
People are so fucking sick.
Are these people fucking stupid? AI can't remove something hardcoded to the image. The only way for it to "remove" it is by placing a different image over it, but since it has no idea what's underneath, it would literally just be making up a new image that has nothing to do with the content of the original. Jfc, people are morons. I'm disappointed the article doesn't explicitly state that either.
The black boxes would be impossible, but there are some types of blur that keep enough of the original data they can be undone. There was a pedofile that used a swirl to cover his face in pictures and investigators were able to unswirl the images and identify him.
With how the rest of it has gone it wouldn't surprise me if someone was incompetent enough to use a reversible one, although I have doubts Grok would do it properly.
Edit: this technique only works for video, but maybe if there are several pictures of the same person all blurred it could be used there too?
Several years ago, authorities were searching the world for a guy who had been going around the world, molesting children, photographing them, and distributing them on the Internet. He was often in the photos, but he had chosen to use some sort of swirl blur on his face to hide it. The authorities just "unswirled" it, and there was his face, in all those photos of abused children.
They caught him soon after.
They couldn't do that from one photo though, they'd need several examples all believed to be the same guy. A swirl like that preserves some of the information and you can reverse it, but the lost data is lost. Do that for several photos and you can get enough preserved bits to piece something together.
Same idea for some other kinds of blurs or mosaics. Black boxes, not so much - you e got no data to work with, so anything you tried to reconstruct would be more or less entirely fantasy.
A swirl is a distortion that is non-destructive. Am anonymity blur averages out pixels over a wide area in a repetitive manner, which destroys information. Would it be possible to reverse? Maybe a little bit. Maybe one pixel out of every %, but there wouldn't be any way to prove the accuracy of that pixel and there would be massive gaps in information.
Swirl is destfuctive like almost everything in raster graphics with recompressing, but unswirling it back makes a good approximation in somehow reduced quality. If the program or a code of effect is known, e.g. they did it in Photoshop, you just drag a slider to the opposite side. Coming to think of it, it could be a nice puzzle in an adventure game or one another kind of captcha.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah, but this type of machine learning and diffusion models used in image genAI are almost completely disjoint
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
They think that the AI is smart enough to deduce from the pixels around it what the original face must have looked like, even though there's actually no reason why there should be a strict causal relationship between those things.
load more comments
(12 replies)
late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein
I'm so done with all the whitewashing. "Sex offender" sounds like I behaved wrong in consensual sex. What this prick was is a pedophile. A child rapist. A kid-abuser and -rapist. But surely no "late financier" or whatever else media chose over the facts.
Also a slaver and child abductor.
And, it seems, murderer
Oh right, my bad 😐
How do these AI models generate nude imagery of children without having been trained with data containing illegal images of nude children?
The datasets they are trained on do in fact include CSAM. These datasets are so huge that it easily slips through the cracks. It's usually removed whenever it's found, but I don't know how this actually affects the AI models that have already been trained on that data — to my knowledge, it's not possible to selectively "untrain" models, and they would need to be retrained from scratch. Plus I occasionally see it crop up in the news about how new CSAM keeps being found in the training data.
It's one of the many, many problems with generative AI
Can't ask them to sort that out. Are you anti-ai? That's a crime! /s
load more comments
(16 replies)
Sounds about right for x users
I doubt any of these people are accessing X over Tor. Their accounts and IPs are known.
In a sane world, they'd be prosecuted.
In MAGAMERICA, they are protected by the Spirit of Epstein
load more comments
(1 replies)
Some liberal on BlueSky tried to use genAI to unmask ICE agents.
view more: next ›