Trying to detect poisoned images is the wrong approach. Include them in the training set and the training process itself will eventually correct for it.
I think if you build more robust features
Diffusion approaches etc. do not involve any conscious "building" of features in the first place. The features are trained by training the net to match images with text features correctly, and then "just" repeatedly predict how to denoise an image to get closer to a match with the text features. If the input includes poisoned images, so what? It's no different than e.g. compression artifacts, or noise.
These tools all try to counter models trained without images using them in the training set with at most fine-tuning, but all they show is that models trained without having seen many images using that particular tool will struggle.
But in reality, the massive problem with this is that we'd expect any such tool that becomes widespread to be self-defeating, in that they become a source for images that will work their way into the models at a sufficient volume that the model will learn them. In doing so they will make the models more robust against noise and artifacts, and so make the job harder for the next generation of these tools.
In other words, these tools basically act like a manual adversarial training source, and in the long run the main benefit coming out of them will be that they'll prod and probe at failure modes of the models and help remove them.
I'm just very tickled at how much it backfired - Lewis turned outright anti-Catholic. If I'd been a religious man I might have tried to read something into that (but I'm not, so).
The funny thing is we can blame Tolkien for that. It was Tolkien who got Lewis to convert, though he became a protestant while Tolkien was a Catholic, and hilariously Tolkien found Lewis' use of Christian symbolism too overdone and lacking in subtlety.
I've never read the books, but I did enjoy the movies, and it's really disappointing. I have the DVDs, so I guess I could still watch those knowing it won't signal any continued demand the way streaming them would, but still.
Pica is eating things that are not food, but as pointed out in the article I linked, eating dog poo is providing a significant source of nutrition for foxes. In those circumstances, it by definition is not pica.
Pet dogs also eat poo on occasion, also without any underlying problem, so I really don't think there's any reason to think that far less domesticated species where it is well established would just stop. I'm sure you can reduce it, especially if it has a nicer food source, but still, an animal with far less history of domestication seems like a recipe for amplification of all the potential issues you don't want to deal with.
That is a reason for arguing that people don't always make smart choices. It is however not an argument for claiming how people vote does not show what their preference is at the time of voting, which is what is relevant here.
It's perfectly fine to argue you think it's stupid of people to want to read about Musk, but the votes clearly show they do in fact want to.
Rabies isn't much of a problem in the UK thankfully. But in general, yeah, Rabies is horrifying and it's good advice.
EDIT: For anyone anywhere where it's a risk: Be careful and make damn sure to seek advice if bitten, even if not obviously penetrating the skin and even if the animal is not obviously rabid (Reminder: Rabies is near 100% fatal with treatment if you don't get vaccinated soon enough after exposure). Do not fuck with Rabies.
I have pictures (maybe I'll post some, despite the ick factor) where this fox laid down to sleep right next to a pillow it had shit all over. And we're not talking pebbles, we're talking the runs and it was a nightmare to clean. It was tempting to burn the thing.... I also have to clean massive piles of fox poop off the decking on a regular basis.
Of course, one captive-bred will likely be better, but I absolutely agree with you they won't make great pets.
They are cute, but frankly, that is just about sufficient to let me tolerate them sleeping in the gazebo and thoroughly washing stuff afterward, but not nearly sufficient to make me consider one as a pet.
No, the antics of a tech company owner are not relevant to a technology sub.
The votes prove you wrong, no matter what your opinion on it is. You're free to disagree, but the notion that the people who make up this community are not the arbiters of what is and is not relevant to a community flies directly in the face of the very foundation Lemmy is built on.
How he picks his nose doesn't matter. How he runs a tech company and how he affects people working in tech does.
And the popular answer does equal the right answer when the question is "does this community think this question is relevant to this community?" The votes are literally this community telling you whether or not it thinks that is true.
Or, you know, seeing as you guys are the ones being downvoted into the negative, you could take your own advice and start your own Elon-free tech community. Nothing is stopping you.
I interviewed with them once, and they swore up and down that they were cleaning up and divesting of all the harmful stuff, and wanted me to trust they were all about health and a smoke-free future.
Thankfully they were so staggeringly full of bullshit during the interviews that I quickly realized it'd be an absolutely horrifically toxic (groan, yes, sorry) place to work irrespective of my other doubts, and I ended up telling them I didn't want to continue the process and that I was so unhappy with the assorted bullshit during the process that I didn't want to ever be approached by them again.
That's the very long way of saying I'm not the slightest bit surprised it turns out they are in fact still massive asshats, and I'm very happy I caught on early enough.
I think Hong Kong is the rare exception that's at least possible to reasonably argue, since the alternative was never independence but being ruled by someone granting even fewer freedoms.
You see similar issues with French ex-colonies, but since they weren’t as many they don’t appear as much in the news.
Or people aren't as aware of them. E.g. notably their mandates in Syria and Lebanon after World War 1 where they intentionally stirred divisions on the basis of a theory of wanting to keep it so France as a mediator was needed in order to keep them stable. And then they fucked off and left chaos behind.
1/4 yes, but also worth mentioning that today far more than 1/4 of the present-day population live in that quarter of the world that has a history of being under British rule in recent history.
Couple that with the UK population being far more likely to be proud of the empire, wish Britain still had an empire, and insist the colonies wee left better off for having been oppressed, the British Empire has a certain stench about it many of the others haven't, or haven't anymore because of either age, a greater willingness to admit it was a bad thing, or lack of scale.
Three things: Scale, recency and contrition or perceived lack thereof.
The British Empire is the largest empire there has ever been. At its greatest extent, in 1920, it covered about 1/4 of the entire world, long after having lost many holdings like the US. The second largest, the Mongol Empire, reached almost the same size, but hundreds of years earlier.
In the same time period as the British, the Russian empire covered <20% in 1895, but its proportion of colonial lands to their own was much smaller than for the British Empire and the proportion of the current world population living in those areas is also much smaller. The French colonial empire covered less than 1/10th of the world at its peak in 1920, and was by far the other largest recent holding of colonies geographically and culturally outside of the immediate sphere of the holding country.
Spain is rarely brought up, I think, in large part because the Spanish empire reached its peak in the early 1800's and so is "history". Belgium doesn't get discussed at much because 98% of their colonial holdings was Leopold II's personal ownership of the Congo Free State. And then we get to the last bit: Contritition.
Nobody goes around saying the massive scale of gross abuse that happened under Leopold II's rule of the Congo Free State was a good thing. Few people I've met ever defend France's atrocities in Vietnam. Even the defence of their ownership of Algeria, which was special enough to trigger an attempted coup against Charles de Gaulle when he wanted to let it have independence because many saw it as part of France itself, is relatively muted.
But there's still mainstream support for the British Empire in the UK. There are still people who insist the British Empire was awesome for the colonies that were exploited because they got English and rails and British legal systems and that somehow outweighs the mass murder and brutal exploitation and erasure of local cultures.
E.g. this survey from 2019, where 32% were proud of the British Empire, 37% were neutral, and only 19% considered it "more something to be ashamed of". 32% were proud of their country's history of colonialism and oppression. Critically this was significantly higher than for other colonial powers other than the Dutch. At the same time 33% thought it left the colonies better off vs. only 17% who thought they were worse off.
I'm not British, but I've lived in the UK for 23 years, and I've experienced this attitude firsthand from even relatively young British people (ok, so all of them have been Tories) - a refusal to accept that the fact that a substantial number of these former colonies had to take up arms to get rid of British rule might perhaps be a little bit of a hint that the colonial rule was resented and wrong.
No other modern empire has left behind such a substantial proportion of the world population living in countries that have either a historical identity tied up to rebelling against British rule, and/or have relatively recently rebelled against British rule, and/or still have substantial reminders, such as Commonwealth membership or the British monarch as their monarch. When a proportion of the British population then keeps insisting this was great, actually, there you have a big part of it.
Trying to detect poisoned images is the wrong approach. Include them in the training set and the training process itself will eventually correct for it.
Diffusion approaches etc. do not involve any conscious "building" of features in the first place. The features are trained by training the net to match images with text features correctly, and then "just" repeatedly predict how to denoise an image to get closer to a match with the text features. If the input includes poisoned images, so what? It's no different than e.g. compression artifacts, or noise.
These tools all try to counter models trained without images using them in the training set with at most fine-tuning, but all they show is that models trained without having seen many images using that particular tool will struggle.
But in reality, the massive problem with this is that we'd expect any such tool that becomes widespread to be self-defeating, in that they become a source for images that will work their way into the models at a sufficient volume that the model will learn them. In doing so they will make the models more robust against noise and artifacts, and so make the job harder for the next generation of these tools.
In other words, these tools basically act like a manual adversarial training source, and in the long run the main benefit coming out of them will be that they'll prod and probe at failure modes of the models and help remove them.