I don't know how YouTube's detection will work, but if it were based solely on watermarks, there would be many false negatives, but there shouldn't be false positives.
It seems they have been A/B testing killing search operators (like "site:" or "inurl:") for a while. They randomly stop working and switching to private mode, or the other way around, makes them work again.
Yes and also stable isn't the only maintained branch of Chromium, there's also extended stable (currently 146.x). LTS exists too (144.x), but I believe it's meant only for ChromeOS.
For context, the author of the linked post, Sam James, is a Gentoo developer.
Anyway, this is a disaster. It was extremely irresponsible to share the exploit with the world before the distributions shipped the fix. Who knows how many shared hosting providers were hacked with this.
It's also worrying that it seems there's no communication between the kernel security team and distribution maintainers. One would hope that the former would notify the latter, but apparently it's the responsibility of whoever finds the vulnerability.
It seems there was some kind of confusion during the disclosure process, because the vendors aren't treating this vulnerability as serious and it remains unpatched in many distros.
The key to successful poisoning attacks is to introduce brand new information that doesn't directly contradict other training data. It's much easier to convince the LLMs that you're the king of a fictional Mapupu kingdom than the president of the United States.
So this means that for bad actors it's more efficient to manufacture brand new fake stories instead of trying to distort the real ones. Don't produce fake articles absolving yourself of a crime, instead produce fake articles accusing your opponent of 100 different things. Then people will fact-check the accusations using LLMs, and since all the sources mentioning those accusations are controlled by you, the LLMs will confirm them.
> Is WinUI3 a flash-in-the-pan system like their other UI attempts, or is it decent and stable?
If you stay in the happy path, it's decent, better than it used to be. Microsoft does seem committed to it, they're slowly converting Windows apps to WinUI 3.
That said, the team is clearly understaffed; there are long-standing unresolved bugs, just search for "memory leak" on their GitHub issue tracker. Also, native, non-.NET support is definitely an afterthought, it's barely documented and the tooling is super awkward. But at least, unlike WPF, it exists.
>avif is just better for typical web image quality,
What does "typical web image quality" even mean? I see lots of benchmarks with very low BPPs, like 0.5 or even lower, and that's where video-based image codecs shine.
However, I just visited CNN.com and these are the BPPs of the first 10 images my browser loaded: 1.40, 2.29, 1.88, 18.03 (PNG "CNN headlines" logo), 1.19, 2.01, 2.21, 2.32, 1.14, 2.45.
I believe people are underestimating the BPP values that are actually used on the web. I'm not saying that low-BPP images don't exist, but clearly it isn't hard to find examples of higher-quality images in the wild.
Unfortunately, LLMs empower "contributors" who can't be bothered to put in any effort and who don't care about the negative impact of their actions on the maintainers.
The open-source community, generally speaking, is a high-trust society and I'm afraid that LLM abuse may turn it into a low-trust society. The end result will be worse than the status quo for everyone involved.
>IMO you can't tweak the TikTok/YouTube shorts format and make it a societal good all of a sudden, especially with exclusively AI content.
I agree. At best, short videos can be entertainment that destroys your attention span. Anything more is impossible. Even if there were no bad actors producing the content, you can't condense valuable information into this format.