Let them cry, I don't see anything changing unless they can somehow get China to agree. And I doubt China will drink any of that kool aid especially while they're being disadvantaged by export controls, so the ever-improving open weight models will continue to rain. This is something the US Big Tech oligarchs will NOT win.

> files serving multiple overlapping torrents

This sounds wildly complex, especially from a discovery perspective.

I don't see why it would be. It's transparent to other clients just like it is to the protocol. It cannot be more complex than alternatives by construction.

Arguably this should've been a thing since day 1 (and probably would've helped to prevent the buyout), but better late than never.

Hugging face seemed like buyout bait from day one.

The GitHub for models and AI. I remember.

When a business subsidizes for several years all its offerings, one can guess how it will end.

Which makes it more surprising that something like this didn't exist. I'm relieved it does though.

> makes the world a worse place

In what way?

Well, now instead of paying the photographers for the stock photos to use as headline pictures, people instead pay the AI firms for the stock pictures to use as headline pictures.

Which is "worse" by some metric, I'm sure.

The same could be said of commissioned paintings when photography became a thing. And yet here we are, and I doubt anyone - except maybe artists - would say the world is worse off.

Couldn’t wait more than 3 minutes for someone’s actual position before setting up that straw man to take down?

The actual position: "First, prove you're not an AI, and then we can discuss..." Yeah, no, I'll take myself being strangely prescient this morning.

The partial comment you’re quoting is

- not even a position

- not something you were remotely “prescient” about

Precisely. There is no need to wait for "the position" to be formulated since a) it won't be; b) it's mostly "AI is bad because, full stop" anyhow, not even a strawman.

> it's mostly "AI is bad because, full stop" anyhow

Ooh, the rare* double straw man. Since you look like you could use the exercise in intellectual honesty, I’ll pose the question directly: can you think of any reason that the ability for anyone to generate fake photographs indistinguishable from reality with no skill, time, or money required might make the world a worse place? Cause harm?

* I wish

And again, how is "AI or human" relevant to discussing? Given the potential of an indistinguishable discussion (which will eventually be the case). Although also eventually it's AI that will consistently provide the superior discussion experience, then... what? Those against AI actively seek out inferior experiences? Should be interesting.

I think the point is to be able to tell at a glance. People don't examine every image they look at.

I mean that is a conclusion that I agree with, but I’d also like to see if I can do better if given more time on a bigger screen.

We all been forced to help train Google's CAPTCHA for years for free, with no benefit. At least here you decide to opt-in or not, and it can potentially help you be more... discerning.

Now I'm worried Google adds this check to its captcha questions to improve it's own model: tell the ai image

Wait, did I miss something? Wasn't that the point the entire time?

Doesn't really work for me. It's just a site likely checking what the browser tells it any the system. Meanwhile I have a VPN blocking most connections and every Google app is either uninstalled or disabled.

> I need to log in to your app regularly to avoid being declared dead?

Technically, until we get to a point where we still have embedded "life signal" chips, there's no way to automatically detect that someone has died. Other than those who've actually seen a body, the best we have is "not seen - at Y - for a while".

> there's no company in the middle

Yet this seems dependent on Apple's ecosystem. That's a company in the middle.

Why it's not also available in the web running client-side?

Wow, still not there yet. After all these years.

Windows does actually have symlinks but I don't think I've ever seen anything actually use them, and I don't myself because it smells of interop issues with other windows apps.

Even to this day Windows has all kinds of problems around long file paths in its ecosystem.

> Even to this day Windows has all kinds of problems around long file paths in its ecosystem.

To this day I don't know if it's a Windows problem or a Python problem, because I never encountered this - and never realized this problem exists - except for some random Python code whose docs tell me to set some registry value because of "long paths issue".

It’s a Windows problem. There’s still, to this day, a 259-character limit on path length in the Win32 API unless the OS has been configured to support long paths and the application uses the correct subset of Windows APIs. For example if you use ‘CreateFileA’, you’re stuck with the limit no matter what.

There’s no problem with Python in general. The registry value LongPathsEnabled, which is probably the one you were asked to set, affects the entire Windows system.

However, there’s also an older workaround that allows programs to use “extended paths” even if that setting is off, by prefixing path strings with “\\?\”. So applications using that workaround can use long paths no matter how Windows is configured. But Python doesn’t use the workaround, it uses the modern APIs and if you want long paths, you need to configure the underlying Windows system to enable it.

Thanks for the explanation! This is indeed consistent with my observations.

But it brings me to two follow-up questions:

1) What is that registry switch even doing, if the problem can be solved with just setting it?

2) Why is Python not using the workaround like ~everyone else?

It’s not just a windows problem. File systems are an absolute disaster across all platforms. David Wheeler has a lovely article on the topic: https://dwheeler.com/essays/fixing-unix-linux-filenames.html

The 260 character limit is just a Windows problem. See my other comment in this subthread for a summary of the eldritch horror in question. The tl;dr is that backwards compatibility is a helluva drug.

The worst offenders I've found are powershell and .Net related stuff.

You can have all the right flags enabled, then unexpectedly you'll run some commandlet and get a path too long error.

Now if your on W11/W25 and the lastest PS it might all work, but W16 and PS versions between now and then had all kinds of things pop up.