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.

And probably also tell it to some lawmakers. But start with me.

Just calling someone Schwachkopf doesn’t get prosecutors to investigate further.

But I can not see how the legal framework could be better. Insults are illegal. Prosecution needs to look into all reported cases.

The guy was sentenced for distributing forbidden Nazi materials.

The initial insult investigation was dropped, because of it being insignificant.

I really don’t see the problem.

And if you (or the first comment author) had read the article, then you would immediately have identified the problem with the comment.

Apparently, they did not use that control in the last 26 years.

Total trade with Ukraine in 2024: $2.9bn

https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/russia...

So, Ukraine will get an exemption, too, right? Because their trade is even a mooter point, right? Right?!

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.

https://innocenceproject.org/misapplication-of-forensic-scie...

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.

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).

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.

Dan Luu did cool experiments with input lag (https://danluu.com/input-lag/).