Considering it named CVE-2019-7317, which was fixed in April 2019, it’s already hallucinating and not worth reading further into it.
Comment on PNG has been updated for the first time in 22 years — new spec supports HDR and animation
Artisian@lemmy.world 3 weeks agodownvoters: is it wrong?
kungen@feddit.nu 3 weeks ago
Tetsuo@jlai.lu 3 weeks ago
As you can see it’s irrelevant apparently. If it’s AI generated it will be downvoted.
null@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
It’s not irrelevant, it’s that you don’t actually know.
If you started your comment by saying “This is something I completely made up and may or may not be correct” and then posted the same thing, you should expect the same result.
Tetsuo@jlai.lu 3 weeks ago
I did check some of the references.
What I dont understand is why you would perceive this content as more trustworthy if I didn’t say it’s AI.
Nobody should trust blindly some anonymous comment on a forum. I have to check what the AI blurbs out but you can just gobble the comment of some stranger without exercising yourself some critical thinking?
As long as I’m transparent on the source and especially since I did check some of it to be sure it’s not some kind of hallucination…
There shouldn’t be any difference of trust between some random comment on a social network and what some AI model thinks on a subject.
Also it’s not like this is some important topic with societal implications. It’s just a technical question that I had (and still doesn’t) that doesn’t mandate researching. None of my work depends on that lib. So before my comment there was no information on compatibility. Now there is but you have to look at it critically and decide if you want to verify or trust it.
That’s why I regret this kind of stubborn downvoting where people just assume the worse instead of checking the actual data.
Sometime I really wonder if I’m the only one supposed to check my data? Aren’t everybody here capable of verifying the AI output if they think it’s worth the time and effort?
Basically, downvoting here is choosing “no information” rather than “information I have to verify because it’s AI generated”.
antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Also it’s not like this is some important topic with societal implications. It’s just a technical question that I had (and still doesn’t) that doesn’t mandate researching.
So why “research” it with AI in the first place, if you don’t care about the results and don’t even think it’s worth researching? This is legitimately absurd to read.
pticrix@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
You realize that if we wanted to see an AI response, we’d ask an AI ourselves. What you’re doing is akin to :
Hey guys, I’ve asked google if the new png is backward compatible, and here are the first links it gave me, hope this helps : [list 200 links]
null@slrpnk.net 3 weeks ago
Are you really asking why advertising that the following may be hallucinated nets you more downvotes than just omitting that fact?
hardware26@discuss.tchncs.de 3 weeks ago
I don’t know. If the poster couldn’t be bothered to fact-check, why would I? It is just safer to assume that it is misinformation.
Tetsuo@jlai.lu 3 weeks ago
If you prefer to know nothing about PNG compatibility rather than something that might be true about PNG. That’s fine but definitely not my approach.
Also, as I said to another commenter. Critical thinking is not some tool you decide to use on some comments and not others. An AI answer on some topics is actually more likely to be correct than an answer by a human being. And it’s not some stuff I was told by an AI guru it’s what researchers are evaluating in many universities. Ask an human to complete various tasks and then ask the AI model and compare scientifically the data. And it turns out there is task where the AI outperforms the human pretty much all the time.
YET on this particular task the assumption is that it’s bullshit and it’s just downvoted. Now I would have posted the same data myself and for some reason I would not see a single downvote. The same data represented differently completely change the likelihood of it being accurate. Even though at the end of the day you shouldn’t trust blindly neither a comment from an human or an AI output.
Honestly, I’m saddened to see people already rejecting completely the technology instead of trying to understand what it’s good at and what it’s bad at and most importantly experiencing it themselves.
I wanted to know what was generative AI worth so I read about it and tried it locally with open source software. Now I know how to spot images that are AI generated, I know what’s difficult for this tech and what is not. I think that’s a much healthier attitude than blindly rejecting any and all AI outputs.
AstaKask@lemmy.cafe 3 weeks ago
You put way too much trust in AI. AI is seldom right. It is however very good at sounding like it knows what it’s talking about. It’s like a conservative podcaster.