371–380 of 467 posts
My goodness, this has nothing to do with AI problems. I don't understand that people still buy an OS from a company that actively hates it's customers. The amount of things they pull should not even be succesful on a OS you get paid FOR to use.
Do you really think this is a problem confined to those who buy the OS they use?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a bunch of smaller editors that don't have such problems, like paint.net for example. It's an arbitrary "limit" (accidental even) stemming purely from bad quality implementation of basic features, not from how basic that feature set is.
I like the original commenter’s compromise. > It seems like they could have left it as a pure “paint” app and added the fancy stuff to some new image editor or something. Apple Text Edit vs Pages.
My goodness, this has nothing to do with AI problems. I don't understand that people still buy an OS from a company that actively hates it's customers. The amount of things they pull should not even be succesful on a OS you get paid FOR to use.
Not that I love Microsoft, but they would get a lot of heat if they let anybody generate harmful content as well. They can't win on that topic. Now I would not want to appear to defend the mess they've created out of windows, that's not the point.
Nonsense. They let anyone draw any pic they like.
Injecting hidden GUIDs into local files without explicit user consent is a massive privacy overreach. It makes you wonder what other local tools are silently tagging user generated content.
The question is whether LLM providers are going to do this. Anthropic currently says they don’t, but it’s impossible to verify: > Watermarking carries no identifying information and can’t be traced to a specific person, organization, or chat; https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-text-watermark
Injecting hidden GUIDs into local files without explicit user consent is a massive privacy overreach. It makes you wonder what other local tools are silently tagging user generated content.
The question is whether LLM providers are going to do this. Anthropic currently says they don’t, but it’s impossible to verify: > Watermarking carries no identifying information and can’t be traced to a specific person, organization, or chat; https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-text-watermark
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can this also be weaponized? Get an innocuous image from someone you don't like, grab their GUID, add it to another image, sent it to the thin skinned politician in power.
No, because the GU in GUID stands for globally unique. Adding it to a second image would cause a detectable collision. Also, C2PA, another technology mentioned in the article, means tampering is easily detected.
So? Still the weapon worked.
Injecting hidden GUIDs into local files without explicit user consent is a massive privacy overreach. It makes you wonder what other local tools are silently tagging user generated content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> every image you create *with the help of AI*. Does in fact make a difference.
While it does make a difference, their willingness to quietly integrate watermarking features into what people saw as simple apps for doing simple tasks is unnerving. It only takes a small change for them to start baking your identifiable information into all images they edit, or some government politely asking them to do that. I wonder if in ten years we'll have a horrifying world where everything that leaves a mach…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cost is that you can never play Minecraft again
It might be small cost in retrospect.