FaceDeer

Indeed. Although it’s painful to see these things happening at such crucial junctures to such crucial individuals, overall it’s a good thing that corruption is being rooted out. The process of rooting out corruption will of course expose a bunch of corruption in the process, but better that it be exposed than to let it continue to fester.

It would have been lovely to flip a magical switch the moment Ukraine left Russia’s orbit that made corruption go away, but that switch doesn’t exist. Corruption probes and prosecutions are what will cause the change to happen.

Everything is amazing and nobody is happy.

It works because the .png and .jpg extensions are associated on your system with programs that, by coincidence, are also able to handle webp images and that check the binary content of the file to figure out what format they are when they’re handling them.

If there’s a program associated with .png on a system that doesn’t know how to handle webp, or that trusts the file extension when deciding how to decode the contents of the file, it will fail on these renamed files. This isn’t a reliable way to “fix” these sorts of things.

So it’s basically “nobody wants to use it because nobody is using it.”

I actually rather like it, and at this point many of the tools I use have caught up so I don’t mind it any more myself.

Yes, they are. Not sure why you are bringing that up.

I am bringing it up because the setting Google is presenting only describes using AI on your data, not training AI on your data.

Yes, exactly. Training an AI is a completely different process from prompting it, it takes orders of magnitude more work and can’t be done on a model that’s currently in use.

Yes, but the point is that granting Google permission to manage your data by AI is a very different thing from training the AI on your data. You can do all the things you describe without also having the AI train on the data, indeed it’s a hard bit of extra work to train the AI on the data as well.

If the setting isn’t specifically saying that it’s to let them train AI on your data then I’m inclined to believe that’s not what it’s for. They’re very different processes, both technically and legally. I think there’s just some click-baiting going on here with the scary “they’re training on your data!” Accusation, it seems to be baseless.

Understand that basically ANYTHING that “uses AI” is using you for training data.

No, that’s not necessarily the case. A lot of people don’t understand how AI training and AI inference work, they are two completely separate processes. Doing one does not entail doing the other, in fact a lot of research is being done right now trying to make it possible to do both because it would be really handy to be able to do them together and it can’t really be done like that yet.

And if you read any of the EULAs

Go ahead and do so, they will have separate sections specifically about the use of data for training. Data privacy is regulated by a lot of laws, even in the United States, and corporate users are extremely picky about that sort of stuff.

If the checkbox you’re checking in the settings isn’t explicitly saying “this is to give permission to use your data for training” then it probably isn’t doing that. There might be a separate one somewhere, it might just be a blanket thing covered in the EULA, but “tricking” the user like that wouldn’t make any sense. It doesn’t save them any legal hassle to do it like that.

I’m not seeing where any of this gives Google permission to train AI using your data. As far as I can see it’s all about using AI to manage your data, which is a completely different thing. The word “training” appears to originate in Dave Jones’ tweet, not in any of the Google pages being quoted. Is there any confirmation that this is actually happening, and not just a social media panic?

When you watch a movie with computer-generated special effects, are you happy watching a lie?

If 97% of listeners can’t tell the difference then I’m not sure the point of quibbling the definition.

Unless you enjoy music regardless of whether it’s AI generated, in which case the future’s going to have way more options.

Isn’t this what all those artists were insisting they wanted? AI replacing rote labor instead of their “creative” jobs like producing advertising and concept art?

Isn’t something that you don’t respond to, sure. And here in social media you’re surrounded by like-minded people. But perhaps AI is more popular with the general public than you think?