I understand that. It’s the downvoting of the clearly marked as AI LLM response. Is it detrimental to the conversation here to have that? Is it better to share nothing rather than this LLM output?

Was this thread better without it?

Is complete ignorance of the PNG compatibility preferable to reading this AI output and pondering how true is it?

[list 200 links]

Now I think this conversation is getting just rude for no reason. I think the AI output was definitely not the “I’m lucky” result of a Google search and the fact that you choose that metaphor is in bad faith.

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.

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”.

Edit: Also I could have just summarized the AI output myself and not mention AI. What then? Would you have checked the accuracy of that data? Critical thinking is not something you use “sometimes” or just “on some comments”.

To be clear… If you have already signed, thank you but do not sign again.

(I know that’s not what you wanted to say, I just want to make sure it’s not misunderstood).

As you can see it’s irrelevant apparently. If it’s AI generated it will be downvoted.

I’m probably gonna be massively downvoted for saying the forbidden word but I asked AI to do a summary with references of the forward and backward compatibility of PNG’s new version:

!

Based on recent search results, the new PNG specification (Third Edition) and its reference library (libpng) maintain strong backward compatibility while introducing modern features. Here’s a detailed compatibility analysis:

🔄 1. Backward Compatibility (Viewing Old PNGs with New Lib)

• Full Support: The new libpng (1.6.49+) and PNG Third Edition fully support legacy PNG files. Existing PNGs (conforming to the 2003/2004 spec) will render correctly without changes .
• Implementation Stability: Libpng’s API evolution (e.g., hiding png_struct/png_info internals since 1.5.0) ensures older apps using png_get_*/png_set_* functions remain compatible. Direct struct access, deprecated since 1.4.x, may break in libpng 2.0.x (C99-only) .
• Security Enhancements: Critical vulnerabilities (e.g., CVE-2019-7317 in png_image_free()) were patched in libpng 1.6.37+, making the new lib safer for decoding old files .

⚠️ 2. Forward Compatibility (Viewing New PNGs with Old Lib)

• Basic Support: Older libpng versions (pre-1.6.37) can decode new PNGs if they avoid new features. Core chunks like IHDR or IDAT remain unchanged .
• New Feature Limitations:
  • HDR Imagery: Requires libpng 1.6.45+ and apps supporting the mDCv chunk. Older libs ignore HDR data, falling back to SDR, which may cause color inaccuracies .
  • APNG Animation: Officially standardized in PNG Third Edition. Older libs (e.g., <1.6) treat APNG as static images, showing only the first frame .
  • EXIF Metadata: New eXIf chunks are ignored by legacy decoders, losing metadata like GPS or copyright info .
• Security Risks: Older libs (e.g., ≤1.6.36) contain unpatched vulnerabilities (e.g., CVE-2015-8126). Parsing malicious new PNGs could exploit these flaws .

📊 Compatibility Summary

🔧 3. Implementation and Industry Adoption

• Broad Support: Major browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox), OSs (iOS, macOS), and tools (Photoshop, DaVinci Resolve) already support the new spec .
• Progressive Enhancement: New features like HDR use optional chunks, ensuring graceful degradation in older software .
• Future-Proofing: Work on PNG Fourth Edition (HDR/SDR interoperability) and Fifth Edition (better compression) is underway .

💎 Conclusion

• Upgrade Recommended: New libpng (1.6.49+) ensures security and full compatibility with legacy files.
• Test Workflows: Verify critical tools handle new features (e.g., APNG animation in browsers).
• Fallbacks for Old Systems: For environments stuck with outdated libs, convert new PNGs to legacy format (e.g., strip HDR/APNG) .

For developers: Use png_get_valid(png_ptr, info_ptr, PNG_INFO_mDCv) to check HDR support and provide fallbacks .

!<

Shouldn’t be too difficult to fix for the devs. At least until the griefers invent a new strategy.

The game is young though it’s not like it’s surprising or unusual that there is bug and exploits still active.

Also Andy Yen :

https://x.com/andyyen/status/1864436449942110660

I know it’s quite irrelevant but I’m still very very cautious about proton since this comment. If at the head of the proton foundation you have a Trumpist it doesn’t bod well for the future.

CEO of proton think Trump of all things is what we need to combat the big tech. Trump, elected with a bunch of his big tech billionaires.

What a bunch of cowards.

They clearly are afraid of doing one too many fact checking and offending one of Trump’s minions.

I’m tempted to try it out as an avid Rocket League player.

I’m just not sure there is something in Rematch that I cannot already get somehow in Rocket League.

How grindy is the game?

I have multiple friends that told me that Conan exile was quite grindy and that they are not convinced by Dune because of that.

It’s too bad because I think they would appreciate the game but are too concerned by the fact that it would take a lot of time to get good stuff.

Well good luck to you guys in the US. This AI government will be extremely dangerous. An all knowing advertisement algorithm reaching deep in government data with an unsafe LLM on top? Ouch.

I looked at the article below the one OP shared.

A trending article was about a restaurant owner in France that put a fine for people who don’t come with the same number of people as their reservation. Fascinating, such wow.

Link to the mentioned story:

https://www.occrp.org/en/investigation/telegram-the-fsb-and-the-man-in-the-middle

I would say the link is bit more tenuous than you would present it. A Russian guy works for telegram with one of his businesses. Other businesses he owns are suspected of working with FSB.

To be sure, Telegram is most likely not very trustworthy but I thought that the fact they developed their own crypto would be suspicious enough so that people wouldn’t use it for sensitive information. Still it has not be confirmed that Telegram’s infrastructure is run by FSB.

I assume this is just a joke… Because with the relationship Telegram has with the Russian government this would be quite unlikely.

Perhaps it would have been smarter to prevent these predatory behaviors from social networks in the first place. Because it is probably constitutionally more sound to ban some behaviors rather than outright ban social networks altogether.

Hmm we may have for a long time considered alternatives to the American cloud and tools but we still are extremely reliant on it in all administrations in France. As I recall 70% of our online government services are on American clouds. We also are almost exclusively using Microsoft windows and office for the desktop workstations.

I’m pessimistic in the sense that Europe has tried to offer an European cloud before. It was a spectacular failure that just costs us a lot of money so that businesses here could just take the money and then pretend they couldn’t make it work.

We definitely had a real shot in Europe to be sovereign. We just missed it. It’s never too late but it’s so prohibitively expensive to switch out of Microsoft ecosystem that many governments entities will rather fork out money to Microsoft.

I’m sure the conclusion of this will be “AI bad” like usual when in reality a complete idiot with no understanding of AI was leading the project.

AI will replace part of our jobs whether people like it or not. But the CEO of the business is a moron so he did his special move and replaced people instead of tasks.

It all relates to the density of energy in fuel.

Fossil fuel is so energy dense you can get away with pretty much any way to distribute/dispense.

what infrastructure are you left with? Trucks?

Trucks and most importantly thousands of strategically located gas stations. Even if you distribute a different kind and less dense energy I would argue it still makes sense to have spread out stations all over the place.

If we want to keep using our existing roads and highways we will need those stations even if they distribute something entirely different.

The idea of shipping liquid fuel in trucks and dispensing it out of hoses at special fuel stores is just silly.

I don’t necessarily disagree with that but I hope you see that this type of infrastructure is exactly what we currently have and have proven to work.

It wouldn’t be that stupid to reuse an existing infrastructure that is already built. The issue with our current fuel infrastructure is that it is moving fossil fuel.