subb

Definitely not _only_ knowledge.

I suspect a lot of people but especially nerdy folks might mix up knowledge and intelligence, because they've been told "you know so much stuff, you are very smart!"

And so when they interact with a bot that knows everything, they associate it with smart.

Plus we anthropomorphise a lot.

Is Wikipedia "smart"?

There's a spectrum of human involvement in producing a thing, and art is possibly the last thing I want to see automate.

In the end, art is about human connection. There's a difference between an print of some generated AI slop found online, a painting made in a Chinese factory for a big store, and the scribble your friend made when they went through depression.

You can make a game with all three process. They are not the same.

Unfortunately, it seems like we will not reach any agreement here.

The problem is that we mix up physical and perception, including in our language. If you look at the physical stuff, there's nothing in this specific range of EM radiation that is different from UV or IR light (or further). The physical stuff is not unique, our reading is. Therefore, color is not a physical thing.

And so when I say "color" I only mean it to be the construction that we make out of the physical thing.

We project back these construction outside of us (e.g. the apple is red), but we must no fool ourselves that the projection is the thing, especially when we try to be more precise about what is happening.

This is why I'm saying a 3D model of color (brain thing) is very far from modelling color (brain thing) at all. But! It's not purely physical either, otherwise it would just be a spectral band or something. So this is pseudo-perceptual. It's the physical stuff, tailored for the very first bits of anatomy that we have to read this physical stuff. It's stimuli encoding.

If you build a color model, it's therefore always perceptual, and needs to be evaluated against what you are trying to model - perception. You create a model to predict things. RGB and all the other models based on three values in a vaccum will always fail at predicting color (brain!) when the stimuli's surround is more complex.

Yes exactly. I'm intentionally using "color" as a perceptual thing, not as a physical thing. If we are talking about a color model, then it needs to model perception. As such, RGB, as a predictor of perception, can often fail because it doesn't account for much more than what hits the retina, not what happens after. For one, it lacks spatial context - placing the same RGB value with a different surround will feel different, like in the example above. But if you had a real color (as-in, perceptual) picker in Photoshop, you would get a different value.

It's excellent at compressing the visible part of the EM spectrum, however. This is what I meant by stimuli encoding.

They are very useful to encode stimuli, but stimuli is "not yet" color. When you have an image that is not just a patch of RGB value, a lot of things will influence what color you will compute based on the exact same RGB.

Akiyoshi's color constancy demonstrations are good examples of this. The RGB model (and any three-values "perceptual" model) fails to predict the perceived color here. You are seeing different colors but the RGB values are the same.

https://www.psy.ritsumei.ac.jp/akitaoka/marie-eyecolorconsta...

Except color is a construction of your eye-brain derived from stimuli, surround, memories, etc.

It's definitely not something you can plug into a three-value model. Those are good stimuli encoding space, however.

The distinction between brain-color and physical-color is what screws everyone up.

Maybe that's a language issue, because purple and violet are color names around here.

And as such, they are both a construct of the brain, as any other colors, like... white.

What we label as "violet wavelength" is only a narrow projection of our experience outward. Case in point, we don't have such colorful (eh) names for other EM wavelength.

I say narrow because you could take this pure laser and change th surrounding and you will inevitably perceive it differently, even though the power and wavelength are the same.

No, they are all constructed, including blue.

If I shine some wavelength to your eyeball and you say "it looks blue", but then I change the surrounding and now it looks white, I don't think you would conclude that the original wavelength is blue.

We have a many examples like this, which prescribe that vision is not at all an accurate wavelength measurement device.

The waves aren't inherently special, your retina is.

What if we were sensitive to the 200 to 500nm range? What would be blue, violet and red then?

Our eyes and brain are the one constructing what we perceive as color. It doesn't exists outside of us.

Here's good article on the subject: https://anthonywaichulis.com/regarding-perception-photograph...

You did send a specific wavelength to your retina, but that wasn't violet. Because violet is a construct by your brain.

Color is not a property of wavelength. There's nothing special about photons wiggling in the 380 to 750nm range.

In general it's not necessary to be this pendatic, but given the topic here, I think it's important to realize this. It takes a while because we are so good at projecting our internal experience outward.

Remember the blue / black dress?

Sidestepping what is defined as an "edge", quite a lot of work is done in the retina, including differential computation across cones - some "aggregator" cells will fire when it detect lines, movement, etc.

You can read on ganglion cells, bipolar cells and amacrine cells and see that a lot of preprocessing is done before even reaching the brain!

Consider that just after the cone cells, there are other cells doing some computation / aggregate of cone signals. Don't forget that color is a brain construct.

For those reasons (and others), there's often a strong disconnect between stimuli and perception, which means there's no such thing as a perceptual uniform color space.

Capitalism is generally good at the startup scale, to figure out who has the best ideas. Once we have collectively decided (or was forced into) a single or a few implementations, good job, you won! Now you are non-profit / state-owned company / worker coop.

Games are not the real world. When you play a game, you are look at an image. For the current topic, motion blur in games is like motion blur with a camera, not like when you turn your head.

It's photorealism, not realism.

Anyone permanently burned their retina yet?

Let me know when we have the tech to render the real sun's power on your TV screen.

Reproduction of reality is not the goal, because it's unachievable.

The information travelling down the optic nerve is already processed heavily by the retina. At a minimum, you have compression by differentiation, i.e. a bunch of rods and cones are bundled together by comparing their signal.

But I suppose your point is still possibly valid - just even more complex.

You cannot watch raw footage without some transformation unfortunately.

It's better to think of RAW as pure data, just like infrared telescope capture data needs transformation to be displayed on a screen.

Displaying raw as-is means clipping the data to some range, which is a transformation in itself (and a pretty bad one).

Mmm maybe. A bit annoying to backup regularly, but maybe by doing an hybrid approach like other have suggested here could help reduce the backup frequency/annoyance, i.e. duplicated two-factor key for important accounts, and the rest is stored in a password manager.

Now if only banks would implement proper two-factors...

I did a roundtrip to the password security rabbithole since the LastPass incident and my conclusion is there's virtually no way to have something truly safe - you can have a lot of layers to protect your accounts, but there's always a weak spot somewhere. Plus the more layers you add, the harder it is for you to use...

Sure you can have a yubikey for your 2FA, but then you need a backup in case you loose it or break it, and you need to store that backup somewhere (physically or virtually), and you need to trust / secure that location, or encrypt the data, but then you need another secret to decrypt it, and you need a backup of that too, and so on.

I don't see any way to break that Russian Doll effect. Any suggestions?

Maybe start by having a sustainable growth (or you know, no growth!) so you don't have to write a completely emotionless letter explaining why you have to lay off a whole village?

Engineers wants C++, scripters and artists wants Visual Scripting. Seems like an obvious choice to make everyone happy instead of trying to find a middle ground where nobody is?

Linear vs non-linear is a confusing terminology. Linearity is a relationship. Anyway, usually it means values are encoded in the sRGB color space (with sRGB primaries) without applying any "gamma" curve (also bad term).

Colors don't exist outside of your brain.

Because I believe a search engine for the internet should be nationalized, like the internet itself.

Google "solved" the internet search engine problem. Other competitors are just replicating it poorly. There's nothing good for the consumer here.

Most hand animations are done with keyframes, because mocapping hands is difficult. And with keyframes animation, much like modelling geometry traditionally vs photogrammetry, we can't produce the needed amount of details in animations for them to look real.

Moreover, we are extremely good at spotting something off with hands movement.

It's a love letter to past times, with little extras. It's made in partnership with Teenage Engineering, which created all sorts of little (and bigger) devices like this, mostly for audio. https://teenage.engineering/

Whether or not I use Signal is private info, which is separate from my phone number info. Signal is mixing the two as if it was the same.

A username kinda restore that, but it could be taken a step further and ask for a secret token when adding contacts. That way you know exactly who has you in their contact list, and this token could be revoked (equivalent of blocking the person).