It's not a fair take in the sense that replacing the backbone of lead solder plumbing and paint in 1960's wasn't a fair take, and plenty of us are still awaiting the lead-free replacements.
Foss alternatives generally handle this by either not changing the format too much or by making old versions available to download in perpetuity and then you can manually upgrade your decades old library at your leisure. I'm really glad they don't spend their already limited resources on trying to handle every possible old library file under the sun, as long as you've got incremental upgrades working you've got a path. And if you are not using it on timescales that would allow for incremental upgrades you are not the ICP anyway so they've made a good engineering decision.
Right, but do these incremental upgrades preserve the look of the image? Or do they just keep the library accessible?
For example, increasing exposure in poorly lit adds noise, so you might counteract with a noise removal filter. Later on, the developers come up with a better exposure boosting algorithms that takes more sensor characteristics into account, and produces less noise.
Ideally, you’ll get this new algorithm on all new photos, but not the old ones. It’s unreasonable to expect you to go through all images you already processed and decrease the effects of the noise removal filters.
Or maybe you liked the noise on those pictures, and now it’s gone, and you need to add it back.
It’s a very reasonable to expect your photos to look the same long term.
Yes, to parse logs afterwards and understand, it wasn't active defence from what I've heard? Definitely embarrassing for the closed vendors though (they've since added hugging face as a trusted vendor)
One of their learnings from the incident was that they should have a local (i.e. not hosted), open, and capable model on standby that can respond to future incidents swiftly.
It's worth adding that distillation is not a violation of whatever valid copyright interests a model maker may have (if any). The US Copyright Office has already said AI model-generated output by itself isn't copyrightable. Unless new regulations or laws are enacted, distillation will remain, at most, a customer violating a term of a provider's commercial ToS/EULA.
Let's also spare a moment for accessibility issues. For example, is it that wrong for a blind person to invoke a tool that describes a picture when there's no alt-text? Or something which describes/transcribes audio for the deaf?
Where do we draw the line between a personal-bot and a custom browser?
Could there be a proper committee/association which can have all good faith search engines (which work for the purpose of search rather than AI related) which could show their proper IP/networks and cloudflare could have an option which supports all search but not any AI botnets.
That being said, the issue with it right now is that Google uses the same crawler for both AI training and search, so this step puts a small pressure on google nonetheless to hopefully split them.
"Stealing" CPU cycles is exactly what PoW bot protection is doing. The whole point is to add cost to the bots so they decide it's too expensive and give up.
The only difference is the cycles are getting converted into heat now. They could be getting converted into monero instead. It's still heat but at least creator got some money for it.
If my phone is going to be locked down anyway, I'm choosing the platform that at least pairs with my AirPods properly and doesn't get me weird looks at social events.
Google is really stretching their goodwill with this one. The ability to sideload and debug my phone is the only marginal benefit to these janky Java relics. If that's gone, no reason not to switch to a wholely better platform.
If I don't get weird looks at the kinds of social events where everyone else has an iphone, then I have failed at life. I can think of no greater horror than to be seen as uninteresting.
is this some kind of tactical distraction from the other LG headlines this week?
I thought residential proxies are already banned from SmartTV apps by virtue of practically every APK under the sun being subject to the Google Play terms of service.
> I thought residential proxies are already banned from SmartTV apps by virtue of practically every APK under the sun being subject to the Google Play terms of service.
The platforms in question here are webOS and Tizen, neither of which are Android or use the Google Play Store.
LG webOS is not Android though, it's from the old Palm/HP devices of the early 2010s. And I'm pretty sure there are still tons of play store apps with these proxy SDKs in them, advertised/consented or not.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
reply