Drewelite

Yeah sometimes you can tell people were waiting for a negative article to justify their personal opinion. Even if it's a low effort slightly misleading article people are just too excited to say they were right to actually look deeper than the surface level 😮‍💨

I've been trying Arc browser that has a bunch of AI shoved in it and.... It's actually kinda nice. I think Firefox COULD possibly not fuck this up. Before you down vote me, I too believe that Firefox would be better off focusing on the core browser experience. And I really hope they have a good solution to AI being all cloud based right now. Like having a lightweight local model. This is why I was glad Arc was trying it, not Firefox.

When you think about scammers that send fishing emails and stuff, it's similar. Should we be surprised when we click on sketchy links and get scammed? No. Should we stay on top of reporting the issue and ensuring that more people aren't scammed? Yes.

Just make sure all information is correct. How hard can it be?

Well so is his father, who seemed a little more open minded.

Thank you, lol. This is what people end up with when they think of the first solution that comes to mind. Often just something that makes life harder for everyone EXCEPT bad actors. This just creates hoops for people following the rules to jump though while giving the impression the problem was solved, when it's not.

True but most people are in that middle group of users. I thought my mom would always be below it, so I set her up with Ubuntu and showed her how to open the web browser. But it wasn't long before her siblings were suggesting she install a mahjong app to play with them, or goofy camera filters for their video calls. After being reasonably sure they weren't spyware, I still had to break the bad news to her: "Sorry mom, Windows only."

She's currently running a refurbished ThinkPad with Windows 10 pro.

Well blogs and new sites used to just show you the content. Now they show you this.

I think it does, because photos have always been an inaccurate representation of what a person sees. You zoom in on my face in a picture and you see a bunch of pixels. That's not what my face looks like, I'm not made of tiny boxes. If I AI upscale it, it looks a lot closer. My argument here is simply: the statement that an AI dependent image is inherently less representative of reality, is not necessarily true.

Do you think night vision produces a 'fake' image? Maybe you do, but my point is, that's your opinion. You might think that accurate representation of the light level is more important than accurate representation of the objects in front of the lens. But someone else might not. Same way a colorized photo can give a more accurate representation of reality with false information.

An AI edited photo might not necessarily be less representative of whatever is in the photo. Imagine an image taken in a very dark room, then an AI enhancement makes it look like the lights are on. You can actually get a much better idea of what's in the room, but a less good idea of what the lighting was like. So it comes down to opinion, which one is more representative of reality? Because no photo since the beginning of time has been completely representative of what humans actually see with their eyes. It's always been a trade-off of: what do we change to give humans the image they want with the technology we have.

I think the reality is that there is no reality, there is only perception. Composition does add to remove things from the photo. Light, both the amount and its wavelength, is a thing. Whether the lens picks up the pores on a person's face is a thing. Whether The background seems close or far as a thing. But I agree that camera makers would tow any philosophical line to help them drive profits.