• lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      That’s nice, albeit I want to point out for anyone wondering that this is only conjectured and not guaranteed:

      One of the properties that π is conjectured to have is that it is normal, which is to say that its digits are all distributed evenly, with the implication that it is a disjunctive sequence, meaning that all possible finite sequences of digits will be present somewhere in it.

      There is no guarantee for any specific sequence to appear in π, but for short chunks chances are better (it’s not really a probability, but it’s simpler to say and I can’t explain in details anyway). That’s because (from wiki):

      It is widely believed that the (computable) numbers √2, π, and e are normal, but a proof remains elusive.

      • Axolotl@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        36 minutes ago

        Idk if it’s irony, but the real pronounce is probably /paɪ ɛf-ɛs/ (english)
        or /'pi fs/ in every other language that reads letters as they are written

    • Axolotl@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      33 minutes ago

      Before you consider using the project, I highly recommend you read and understand the last paragraph of the LICENSE file. If you are seriously considering using it, it will become important.

      This is so funny

      For whoever is wondering, the license is MIT

  • Shanmugha@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Here is another one, no compression:

    • read image
    • send a prompt “regenerate image, here is pixel-by-pixel description”
    • enjoy the result

    (sarcasm)

  • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 hours ago

    a typical jpeg of 20 Mb

    Uh what. Literally should be the highest fucking possible quality from a $10K camera if it’s that big. My raw images aren’t even that big usually.

    • bstix@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Raw images is where you go wrong. You need at least 10 mb of metadata tags to achieve professional levels of file sizes. How can you even look at a picture without having a full description of all your childhood memories that lead you to take this beautiful picture of yesterdays mac’'n’cheese dinner. This is why we need more data centers.

    • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Its not typical, but you can get 20 Mb+ jpegs out of an entry level 18MP dlsr. Especially if there’s lots of color and at like 5500x3300 resolutions and created with 100% quality preset.
      I checked my immich and I have some (and larger), but yeah, not exactly typical.

  • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    247
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Trying to find it funny, but in 2026 it’s way too close to the bone and just makes me sad.

    • jafra@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      Yeah. I first thought it’s about jpeg, then i read ai and i wasnt sure if its worrying stupidity reporting or bad satire. Edit: i thought '92 i mean

  • OldGrayDog@fedinsfw.app
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I’ve read that the Trump administration is hiring him to archive all of the Epstein files using that format.

  • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    141
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Amateur. I can compress entire seasons of a TV series to a few bytes. All I have to do is type its title in Netflix and then BAM, gigabytes of video come out.

  • ShellMonkey@piefed.socdojo.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    11 hours ago

    On a similar note, I saw a story a bit back of someone saving input tokens by feeding the bot an image of a wall of text rather than the text itself and having it read the image via OCR.

    Satire and reality are too hard too distinguish these days.

    • topperharlie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I mean, back in my days (👴) people sent a photo pasted into a word document, so things haven’t change that much…

  • chunes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    There is a future where AI can simply look up the DNA for any individual you specify and it can perfectly reconstruct what they look like, at any age.

        • hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Don’t know why you’re being downvoted, it’s a good point that shows that genetics is the main factor for your appearance

          • onlinepersona@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Maybe but there is more to the outcome than just genes. Certain ones can be activated of deactivated and that can be done by epigentics for example. Gene expression is a thing.

            The AI would need way more information that just DNA to generate an image of the person.

              • onlinepersona@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                18 minutes ago

                No, they couldn’t, that’s what’s being said. If you have a huge state machine with billions of parameters, toggling a different subset can yield wildly different results.

            • T156@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Same womb, similar growing environment, etc.

              But even then, they’re not perfectly identical. Very similar, but not the exact same.

              • hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                4 hours ago

                I don’t think root comment was saying the AI would generate perfectly accurate images. I think 90% accuracy is doable, just from DNA

                • BrainBow65@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 hour ago

                  If you’re just talking about a strand of DNA with no epigenetic info I think 90% is being very optimistic.

        • BrainBow65@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          Hadn’t heard of this before but I’m more than a little skeptical, especially if its being used for policing

          "More recently, companies such as Parabon NanoLabs and Identitas have begun offering forensic DNA phenotyping services for U.S. and international law enforcement. However, the science behind the commercial services offered by Parabon NanoLabs has been criticized as it has not been subjected to scrutiny in peer-reviewed scientific publications. It has been suggested that it is not known "whether their ability to estimate a face’s appearance is better than chance, or if it’s an approximation based on what we know about ancestry” -DNA phenotyping wiki

    • T156@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Not unless it can predict all the contributing factors.

      DNA isn’t the full story.

      Maybe they got hit by a car, were a hobbyist boxer, or had surgery, for example.