Yes, I think I am with you. That search should not have happened (and consequently was ruled unlawful by a court afterwards). But it should not have happened in the first place.
I hope (but do not know) that in the Schwachkopf-case, they just took the shortcut via insult instead of opening an investigation for the Nazi stuff.
But we don’t know that.
I believe, that we can express our opinions and discuss them without insulting people (in the legal sense).
And I hope, that prosecutors do not lightly investigate each Schwachkopf they find on the internet.
And for all the other cases, the courts need to be involved.
Regarding the Pinocchio thing: Local police said „that‘s probably insult“ and sent it to public prosecutors. Public prosecutors investigated and said „nope, free speech“.
> Bulgaria is unusual in that it pegged its currency, the lev, to the euro right from the beginning of monetary union in 1999, even before it joined the European Union in 2007.
Apparently, they did not use that control in the last 26 years.
There are only 144 Bytes in a PhotoDNA hash and they are used to identify the whole picture. This is definitely not enough data to identify a face reliably.
The proposed AI does not identify people and it will not report that it "found" the person in the training data. It does not know. And it won't tell you.
Assume twins, one is in the training data, one isn't. The one in the training data has a scar, the other one does not. We "invert" a picture of the twin without the scar and who is not in the training set. As you explained, the resulting image will have the twin from the data set including a highly detailed picture of the scar. And for some reason, that is a good thing.
You are attributing more to this AI than it conceivably can do. Even going as far as finding an excuse for putting false or unfounded data.
It is tremendously important to make clear: most (if not all) of current AI technology is not fit for forensic analysis beyond guiding humans in their own analysis.
Judges usually rely on experts in forensic science who, of course, are infallible and absolutely not influenced by what they read online during their day.
It is dangerous to push the narrative that GenAI can "put information back" where it was once removed. Especially dangerous, because most GenAI is built to put something there that is extremely believable. And while an innocent comment on HN might not play the biggest role, the linked project claims exactly what it can - by definition - not do ("a PhotoDNA hash can be used to produce thumbnail-quality reproductions of the original image") and it looks scientific, too.
You can certainly not produce inversions. The data that is left in the hash is not enough to produce anything vaguely photorealistic.
However, you can fill the gaps and generate photorealistic photos that fit to the extremely reduced information you get from the hash. You are generating believable (as defined by the training data) photos that fit the hash.
That’s a huge difference.
Statements like yours are extremely dangerous. Without proper understanding of what GenAI can and can not do, people start relying on things that are not there.
Imagine your photorealistic inversion AI putting a mole or a wrinkle in the face of somebody without any foundation in the actual hash. Just because it fits better to the trained data. Explain that to the judge, when the person with just the right facial features sits in front of them.
Putting second factor material in password managers is terrible advice. For reasons unknown to me, it might be the right solution for you. But in general, it defeats the two factor authentication purpose if you reduce the factors again to knowledge alone.
The whole point of tfa is, that the second factor is something you possess and not something you know (which is the first factor).
It makes perfect sense if you consider the right abstraction. TCP connections are streams. There are no packets on that abstraction level. You’re not supposed to care about packets. You’re not supposed to know how large a packet even is.
The default is an efficient stream of bytes that has some trade-off to latency. If you care about latency, then you can set a flag.
I guess parent is focusing on the point, that PDFs can render as perfectly human-readable documents, but can be completely non-machine readable at the same time.
… would 10 fingers not be a better argument for base 11?