He discovered alt text.
I’d be game for that. I hate the fact that photos of me exist in this world.
New Math and vibe coding. Am I right? (insert canned laughter here).
Lmfao “tears of joy”
Precisely! We human people all know that tears definitely do not express joy.
Correct?
I know this is a joke but honestly if an engineer figured out how to make a Jpeg 600 bytes it would be impressive (obviously don’t destroy the original even if all worked right.)
something something information theory.
if an engineer figured out how to make a Jpeg 600 bytes it would be impressive
Why use many pixel when few pixel do trick?
If you zoom out really far, you can kinda see it…
That seems fundamentally impossible.
If you’re just doing plain black and white, no grey scale, even ignoring headers the most you can get out of that is 4800 pixels. Say maybe 120x40 or 75x64.
Add in headers to tell the machine where each pixel actually goes and you’re looking at way less.
Want greys or color in your image? Forget about it.
If you’re still thinking in pixels, then you’re already behind JPEG. There are other ways to compress visual data, such as in the form of its frequency spectrum, or with vector embeddings
Or in a tensor field consisting of billions of weighted parameters across several matrices which then get multiplied along specific embedded vectors, apparently…
To explain a bit more, most of the information in an image is actually stuff we would never notice. The very specific way a few of a pixels slightly deviate from a perfect gradient, for example.
The basic idea of a jpeg is to convert an image to a kind of frequency space, where each pixel corresponds to a specific wave-like pattern. It’s reversable, preserving the information. and fast conversion to do, thanks to FFT. Even without, it would only be quadratic time. Then, the algorithm crops it in that new space. (IIRC jpeg actually has a few extra features, as well)
Throw some angel investment cash at this guy already!
This is satire right? Right? Lmao.
Yes.
Sweet, glad we cleared that up 😉
Trying to find it funny, but in 2026 it’s way too close to the bone and just makes me sad.
Had Sam Altman personally vocalized this article in full sincerity, I would not have been surprised.
It’s what Apple and MS basically do by uploading all your images to iCloud and showing the name in your images folder.
Edit to ask: is this what the human brain does when retrieving a memory?
Yeah, like how they are destroying rare books.
I mean, you don’t get that back just by asking the content theft machine.
Yeah. I first thought it’s about jpeg, then i read ai and i wasnt sure if its worrying stupidity reporting or bad satire. Edit: i thought '92 i mean
The sad thing is that this has been possible for decades using convolutional autoencoders, but with LLMs we forgot that AI architectures other than transformers still exist.
Yeah, it’s really awful. With any luck, AI winter will follow AI summer, like usual, and the serious people can come out again. Although, aren’t CNNs more of a this century thing? I guess two decades is still decades…
IIRC autoencoders actually produce the same image to within our ability to notice, as well.
🤢
a typical jpeg of 20 Mb
Uh what. Literally should be the highest fucking possible quality from a $10K camera if it’s that big. My raw images aren’t even that big usually.
Its not typical, but you can get 20 Mb+ jpegs out of an entry level 18MP dlsr. Especially if there’s lots of color and at like 5500x3300 resolutions and created with 100% quality preset.
I checked my immich and I have some (and larger), but yeah, not exactly typical.I am not sure I’ve ever used the 100 quality setting on jpegs. Many years ago I experimented with that a lot and decided that anything over 90 was not different to my eye but the file size was much bigger, relatively speaking. So yeah I suppose if you did use 100, a 20 MB jpeg image is not hard to reach.
Raw images is where you go wrong. You need at least 10 mb of metadata tags to achieve professional levels of file sizes. How can you even look at a picture without having a full description of all your childhood memories that lead you to take this beautiful picture of yesterdays mac’'n’cheese dinner. This is why we need more data centers.
Lol I’m so lost what the joke is here
Highest quality jpg?
Here is another one, no compression:
- read image
- send a prompt “regenerate image, here is pixel-by-pixel description”
- enjoy the result
(sarcasm)
There is a future where AI can simply look up the DNA for any individual you specify and it can perfectly reconstruct what they look like, at any age.
You’re kind of describing forensic DNA phenotyping.
Whic is very much not precise, as explained in introduction to this article, for instance
You’re joking, right? There’s a reason genotype and phenotype aren’t synonyms.
Forensic DNA phenotyping is actually being used. Of course it’s not perfect, but it can give a direction.
Hadn’t heard of this before but I’m more than a little skeptical, especially if its being used for policing
"More recently, companies such as Parabon NanoLabs and Identitas have begun offering forensic DNA phenotyping services for U.S. and international law enforcement. However, the science behind the commercial services offered by Parabon NanoLabs has been criticized as it has not been subjected to scrutiny in peer-reviewed scientific publications. It has been suggested that it is not known "whether their ability to estimate a face’s appearance is better than chance, or if it’s an approximation based on what we know about ancestry” -DNA phenotyping wiki
There’s also a reason identical twins look alike.
Wow, Jack and Ross look so alike! How did he get his arm back, isn’t that after the accident?
Don’t know why you’re being downvoted, it’s a good point that shows that genetics is the main factor for your appearance
Maybe but there is more to the outcome than just genes. Certain ones can be activated of deactivated and that can be done by epigentics for example. Gene expression is a thing.
The AI would need way more information that just DNA to generate an image of the person.
But they could probably get 90% the way there with just DNA. I think that was the point.
No, they couldn’t, that’s what’s being said. If you have a huge state machine with billions of parameters, toggling a different subset can yield wildly different results.
But there are examples of twins who grew up apart and still look almost identical
Maybe if you mean things like two eyes, two hands, two feet, one nose, but not in any details
They said “perfectly”, not “90%”. You’re trying to move the goalposts.
I just re-read their post and yes you’re right, in which case I disagree with them. “Perfect” is not achievable by any means. Maybe accurate enough to be mistaken as a twin for the real person, but not perfect
Identical twins also share the same womb, so it’s not 100% genes.
Same womb, similar growing environment, etc.
But even then, they’re not perfectly identical. Very similar, but not the exact same.
I don’t think root comment was saying the AI would generate perfectly accurate images. I think 90% accuracy is doable, just from DNA
If you’re just talking about a strand of DNA with no epigenetic info I think 90% is being very optimistic.
Not unless it can predict all the contributing factors.
DNA isn’t the full story.
Maybe they got hit by a car, were a hobbyist boxer, or had surgery, for example.
That’s … redefining the word I would think.
