Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

They see your photos

theyseeyourphotos.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 240 posts

Re: They see your photos

#191

Post by throwaway984393 »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #171
makeitdouble wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the clarification. My family library is around 1Tb, the weakest device is an iPhone SE, and the most used access is through a web browser. Does on-device machine learning (provided you're syncing inter-device) work in that scenario ?

If I can interrupt.. Wow, 1TB of photos? This is just astonishing to me. What is the use of so many images? As an ex semi-pro photographer, one of the things I realized is that what makes photographs special to people, even family photographs, is the rarity of them. So I just cannot understand taking and holding on to this many images. I would find just managing the images would take away time and money from my famil…

[dead]

Re: They see your photos

#192

Post by kragen »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #132

If AI writing had a smell, this tool would smell as bad as a monkey chopping onions. They somehow spun 4 paragraphs out of a group vacation photo. Impressive on paper, yet half of the description was painfully obvious: >The image shows a lively nighttime scene, possibly a parade or street festival. In the foreground, a group of people wearing elaborate, colorful hats and red shirts are prominently featured. The backg…

The reason this is interesting is that five years ago, or even two years ago, producing such a "painfully obvious" description from such a photo with a computer was utterly impossible, and ten years ago it was unthinkable. The capability to do this automatically at scale for trivial cost has many nonobvious implications (for example for cloud photo storage and drone warfare), and it invalidates many widely held implicit beliefs. We are only beginning to dimly grasp how this will change the world.

Re: They see your photos

#193

Post by ryukoposting »

seu wrote: post #163

It seems to engage in the same kind of saying-a-lot-without-actually-saying-much that LLMs do these days. I uploaded several private images, and beyond a mediocre description of the scenes, it didn't provide much identifying information. e.g.: " The background features a mix of modern and older buildings characteristic of a European city, with a mix of architectural styles. "

Huh, my experience was quite different. I fed it this picture:

https://postimg.cc/yD4YZKFk

And it led with "The image shows the interior of Union Station in Chicago Illinois," even though I'm certain there's no location data in the photo.

There's some half-baked art critique at the end, but it got the exact place, and the Christmas tree, and the people sitting on the benches. It did miss the jazz ensemble off to the side.

Re: They see your photos

#194

Post by [deleted] »

rsync wrote: post #148

magick convert IMG_1111.HEIC -strip -quality 87 -shave 10x10 -resize 91% -attenuate 1.1 +noise Uniform out.jpg This will strip ALL exif metadata, change the quality, shave 10 pixels off each edge just because , resize to xx%, attenuate, and adds noise of type "Uniform". Some additional notes: - attenuate needs to come before the +noise switch in the command line - the worse the jpeg quality figure, the harder it is t…

[deleted]

Re: They see your photos

#197

Post by pornel »

rsync wrote: post #148

magick convert IMG_1111.HEIC -strip -quality 87 -shave 10x10 -resize 91% -attenuate 1.1 +noise Uniform out.jpg This will strip ALL exif metadata, change the quality, shave 10 pixels off each edge just because , resize to xx%, attenuate, and adds noise of type "Uniform". Some additional notes: - attenuate needs to come before the +noise switch in the command line - the worse the jpeg quality figure, the harder it is t…

It the image is watermarked, you can't remove it that way. Watermarks easily survive uniform noise higher than humans can tolerate. Watermark data is typically stored redundantly in multiple locations and channels, so uniform noise mostly averages itself out, and cropping won't do much. Watermarks often add signal in a different color model than RGB and in a heavily transformed domain of the image, so you're not adding noise along the "axis" of watermark's signal.

For similarity search, it also won't do much. Algorithms for this look for dozens of "landmarks", and then search for images that share a high percentage of them. The landmarks traditionally were high-contrast geometric features like corners, which wouldn't be affected by noise. Nowadays, landmarks can be whatever a neural network learns to pick when trained against typical deformations like compression and noise.

Re: They see your photos

#199

Post by bool3max »

vidyava wrote: post #182
throwaway81523 wrote: post #114

For all 4 of their sample photos and one that I uploaded, their thing failed to notice that there were humans in the pictures. It said the opposite, that there weren't any. I'm disappointed. The one I uploaded is one that I took some years ago, but I've forgotten the time and place, and I'd like to have had it tell me.

If you're using a browser with heavy anti-fingerprinting capabilities it will upload a randomized canvas image instead of the intended image, and you'll get a lot of descriptions of pictures of wavy lines and no people.

I find that hard to believe. Which browser intentionally tampers with images before they are uploaded, especially in such a destructive manner?

Re: They see your photos

#200

Post by yencabulator »

Click the photo with what appears the be a father and two children.

> Although there are no people present in this image, [...]

Clicked the photo with what seems to be an African-American couple in front of a tree.

> The photograph lacks any human presence.

Clicked the photo with a family sitting among flowers.

> There are no people present in this image.

Clicked the photo with two people silhouetted in front of a window seen from the inside.

> The photograph is a study in texture; there are no people or discernible activity in the image.

But yeah, sure, let's hand all critical decision-making to AI.

Post reply on HN