Yes. But if you live in the future, you have to wait for dozens of dozens of intermediate to do so! Great!

Flash was a security nightmare all round, not counting the security flaws. It was just designed without any security features. It was also terribly inefficient at its core job, that was supposedly vector animation. It filled a gap in a time where browser and standards where not that advanced.

Over time, Flash issues where never resolved, but the bloatness of the software kept increasing. Along the way, HTML got better specs, JavaScript got vast improvement, especially in everyone adhering to roughly the same standard (thanks microsoft for finally caving in…), and so the flash interpreter was highly redundant with the browser itself.

For a while flash editors could export in HTML5 and you'd get roughly the same result, but with a fraction of the resources requirements, so naturally there was little incentive to keep the flash player around.

I'm not sure if "killing flash" could be attributed to their author, or to the loss of interest.

Also note that alternative flash players exists to still play older swf files, and some sites uses them alongside with plain video conversion for flash animations that weren't dynamic.

I'll tell you if I can find some new files for testing.

Even JPEG isn't always back compatible either. I loaded an image into my software which uses some ancient library internally, and it swapped the blue and red channels.

Now if anyone don't mind explaining, PNG vs JXL?

Jxl train choo choo

I did check some of the references.

What I dont understand is why you would perceive this content as more trustworthy if I didn't say it's AI.

Nobody should trust blindly some anonymous comment on a forum. I have to check what the AI blurbs out but you can just gobble the comment of some stranger without exercising yourself some critical thinking?

As long as I'm transparent on the source and especially since I did check some of it to be sure it's not some kind of hallucination...

There shouldn't be any difference of trust between some random comment on a social network and what some AI model thinks on a subject.

Also it's not like this is some important topic with societal implications. It's just a technical question that I had (and still doesn't) that doesn't mandate researching. None of my work depends on that lib. So before my comment there was no information on compatibility. Now there is but you have to look at it critically and decide if you want to verify or trust it.

That's why I regret this kind of stubborn downvoting where people just assume the worse instead of checking the actual data.

Sometime I really wonder if I'm the only one supposed to check my data? Aren't everybody here capable of verifying the AI output if they think it's worth the time and effort?

Basically, downvoting here is choosing "no information" rather than "information I have to verify because it's AI generated".

Edit: Also I could have just summarized the AI output myself and not mention AI. What then? Would you have checked the accuracy of that data? Critical thinking is not something you use "sometimes" or just "on some comments".

Haha dont worry, just curious. Your answer is good!

You realize that if we wanted to see an AI LLM response, we'd ask an AI LLM ourselves.
What you're doing is akin to :

Hey guys, I've asked google if the new png is backward compatible, and here are the first links it gave me, hope this helps : [list 200 links]

JXL is badly supported but it does offer lossless encoding in a more flexible and much more efficient way than png does

Basically jxl could theoretically replace png, jpg, and also exr.

If you prefer to know nothing about PNG compatibility rather than something that might be true about PNG. That's fine but definitely not my approach.

Also, as I said to another commenter. Critical thinking is not some tool you decide to use on some comments and not others. An AI answer on some topics is actually more likely to be correct than an answer by a human being. And it's not some stuff I was told by an AI guru it's what researchers are evaluating in many universities. Ask an human to complete various tasks and then ask the AI model and compare scientifically the data. And it turns out there is task where the AI outperforms the human pretty much all the time.

YET on this particular task the assumption is that it's bullshit and it's just downvoted. Now I would have posted the same data myself and for some reason I would not see a single downvote. The same data represented differently completely change the likelihood of it being accurate. Even though at the end of the day you shouldn't trust blindly neither a comment from an human or an AI output.

Honestly, I'm saddened to see people already rejecting completely the technology instead of trying to understand what it's good at and what it's bad at and most importantly experiencing it themselves.

I wanted to know what was generative AI worth so I read about it and tried it locally with open source software. Now I know how to spot images that are AI generated, I know what's difficult for this tech and what is not. I think that's a much healthier attitude than blindly rejecting any and all AI outputs.

Ooh, that was the coaster company, I remember them.

I'm not sure you can turn an hdr image into a regular one just by snipping it down to 8 bits per channel and discarding the rest.

I mean it would work but I'm not certain you'll get the best results.

Interestingly, I downloaded GNOME's pride month wallpaper to see what it looked like, and the files were JXL. Never seen them in the wild before that

it would work

And that's probably enough. I don't know enough about HDR to know if it would look anything like the artist imagined, but as long as it's close enough, it's fine if it's not optimal. Having things completely break is far less than ideal.

You'd probably get some colours that end up being quite off target. But you'll get an image to display. So in the end it depends on how much "not optimal" you're ready to accept.

I understand that. It's the downvoting of the clearly marked as AI LLM response. Is it detrimental to the conversation here to have that? Is it better to share nothing rather than this LLM output?

Was this thread better without it?

Is complete ignorance of the PNG compatibility preferable to reading this AI output and pondering how true is it?

[list 200 links]

Now I think this conversation is getting just rude for no reason.
I think the AI output was definitely not the "I'm lucky" result of a Google search and the fact that you choose that metaphor is in bad faith.

Was this thread better without it?

Yes.

I, and I assume most people, go into the comments on Lemmy to interact with other people. If I wanted to fucking chit-chat with an LLM (why you'd want to do that, I can't fathom), I'd go do that. We all have access to LLMs if we wish to have bullshit with a veneer of eloquency spouted at us.

Right, and it depends on what "quite off target" means. Are we talking about greens becoming purples? Or dark greens becoming bright greens? If the image is still mostly recognizable, just with poor saturation or contrast or whatever, I think it's acceptable for older software.

Are you really asking why advertising that "the following comment may be hallucinated" nets you more downvotes than just omitting that fact?

You're literally telling people "hey, this is a low effort comment" and acting flabbergasted that it gets you downvotes.

Is it pronounced png or png?