• Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    Okay. I have that. Now what?

    ETA: also, you can prove a negative, it’s just often much harder. Since the person above said it doesn’t work, the positive claim is theirs to justify. Whether it’s hard or not is not my problem.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Okay. I have that. Now what?

      Then you have your evidence, and your previous post is nonsensical.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        That’s not how evidence works. If the original person has evidence that the software doesn’t work, then we need to look at both sets of evidence and adjust our view accordingly.

        It could very well be that the software works 90% of the time, but there could exist some outlying examples where it doesn’t. And if they have those examples, I want to know about them.

    • _cryptagion [he/him]@anarchist.nexus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Last time I checked out Glaze, around the time it was announced, they refused to release any of their test data, and wouldn’t let people test images they had glazed. Idk why people wouldn’t find it super sus behavior, but either way it’s made moot by the fact that social media compresses images and ruins the glazing anyway, so it’s not really something people creating models worry about. When an artist shares their work, they’re nice enough to deglaze it for us.