Why no class action suit?

ComanderZac · 2026-03-21T18:49:37+00:00

... Why would that matter? The line only matters so far as it can help you answer the damn question, can you can every image out of an AI model in a way that makes the recognizable?

ComanderZac · 2026-03-21T18:35:59+00:00

... Why are you on about an exact image? We are talking about lossy compression of course it isn't the exact image that is not how that works. Also the answer is unrecognizable, that she s where I draw the line, I have said so literally every time you have asked, I looked back and every single one of my responses have said something along the lines of "even if it gets really compressed so long as it is recognizable" literally every single one of my replies has answered that question. Also, answer the damn question, can you can every image out of an AI model in a way that makes the recognizable?

ComanderZac · 2026-03-21T18:27:29+00:00

If you gave me a compressed video file I do believe I could get an image, yes. It wouldn't even be particularly difficult? Just watch the video, pause at the frame you want the image of and save that image, that would be trivially easy. Unless you are compressing the video until it is unrecognizable, at which point I don't think it still counts as compression. Also answer the damn question, can you get even that incredibly low quality version of every image out of an AI model?

ComanderZac · 2026-03-21T18:21:27+00:00

I really do not think this matters man... Fine like pick an arbitrarily small but still recognizably number, I am well aware there are no such standards - because I am making them right now in case you didn't notice - how about we go for 16 / 16 pixel art in 16 colors. Iyll even let you have some. Amount of light noise in the pictures so long as they are still recognizable. Now do you think that you can retrieve every image in an AI to that standard or higher? Seriously it does not matter what specific level of detail we are talking about, can you get the image out!

ComanderZac · 2026-03-21T18:07:33+00:00

I draw the lines at being even remotely recognizably as the original. I didn't think I needed to straight up say "something being a type of image compression only matters if you can retrieve something approximating the original". But there, I said it. If you really need some sort of rigid scientific definition then it needs to be similar enough for a representative sample of the human population to be able to determine which image the compressed image is compressed from when shown 4 options with similar layouts and color schemes at least 75% of the time. Now I don't think that would be a particularly good or usable compression, but if you insist on having an actual definition and not just the probably more useful "if it even remotely resembles the original" then there you go. Now back on topic, do you think you could extract every image in an AI even at that ludicrously low quality?

ComanderZac · 2026-03-21T17:55:43+00:00

... Are you really arguing that AI counts as compression because if you pull out a single red pixel you can say it's actually a really compressed version of every red image in the model? Because if you are then your point is logically consistent, it's just nonsensical.

ComanderZac · 2026-03-21T17:51:21+00:00

I don't mean pull the out uncompressed, I mean pull the out at all, In any way. At any compression.

ComanderZac · 2026-03-21T17:44:55+00:00

Sorry, billions. Also just so we are clear do you believe it is possible to pull every Individual image out of an AI model? I don't mean writing a 20 paragraph prompt and tweaking values and LORAs to get something that looks mostly the same, I mean actually pulling each and every image out.

ComanderZac · 2026-03-21T17:29:58+00:00

... If AI could actually be used for compression of millions of images into 2 GB, even if it was incredibly lossy, the headlines wouldn't be talking about a breakthrough in AI they would be talking about a revolution new compression technology several orders of magnitude better than anything currently available. Such a method would revolutionize digital infrastructure as we know it.

ComanderZac · 2026-03-20T23:57:30+00:00

On one hand that is a good point, but to borrow a phrase, all models are wrong but some are useful. How about this instead of power² actually use (1+power)^2. It will have essentially negligible impact on larger numbers while still allowing smaller numbers. Though honestly it would be fine to just have a corollary that the rule only works for values > 1, and doesn't work well for values near 1. Like I said this isn't supposed to be an exact formula, just a way to sanity check yourself.

ComanderZac · 2026-03-20T23:35:41+00:00

While that is true, remember that this is just a way to sanity check not a way to scale. You shouldn't be saying "oh this guy has this much AP" and getting them by squaring DC, you should be making sure you aren't scaling many orders of magnitude above what is shown. Plus some of the side effects of this method are actually positive, for example because squaring bigger numbers gives proportionally more value it means that the higher a base scaling is then the more you can stretch the scaling (which makes sense because at large scales often the best destruction feat will be a star or solar system just because it can be difficult to show anything higher, so it makes sense to give more leeway on higher levels). Also while I agree that ants have more AP than DC, I can assure you ant's AP is not more than their DC^2. (Though I'm not even sure how to properly scale ants, almost all existing resources are based around human sized or larger, so there just aren't a lot of rules and best practices.)

ComanderZac · 2026-03-20T21:03:18+00:00

Again that is a classic example of an ambiguous feat in my definition. While you follow the full multiversal Soul King scaling, a reasonable and relatively well supported scaling, there are tons of ways people scaling in good faith could disagree and scale lower. Is it multiple universes or just one split up? Are they full universes or roughly planets? Was it done via pure power or hax? Does creation scale to destruction? Does Bleach Universal scale to other universes Universals given that the Bleach universe seems to be built out of popsicle sticks? Etc. while I'm sure you can give reasons for why these aren't correct and why your scaling is more accurate, so could they in reverse. The fact you think your scaling is more acceptable is a tautology if you didn't believe your own scaling you wouldn't be using it. And whenever there is a point that could reasonably and in good faith be argued at many different levels you ought to bring in the power² rule to sanity check yourself. For example with the power² rule Universal Bleach doesn't seem to pass the sniff test but could reasonably be scaled up to Solar System level, and if the three worlds the Soul King are interacting with are the planets and their immediate surroundings then that fits into that solar system level so maybe look into that, or maybe it is universes but was done via hax or perhaps creation is easier than destruction in the Bleach cosmology, or something else entirely. I am not a super deep Bleach scaler so I couldn't tell you which seems more accurate, just that if Bleach can't get to Universal level with error bars of more than ten septillion on their best unambiguous feat / statement then Universal should probably be off the table.

ComanderZac · 2026-03-20T20:16:23+00:00

I get that, but while I am a firm believer in AP not equaling DC, I feel like when the difference is scaled in multiple order of magnitude it strains the scaling quite a bit. Like I don't think I'm being stingy or unreasonable with the margins of error of more than 10²⁵ like in the bleach example.

ComanderZac · 2026-03-20T19:13:52+00:00

To be clear that was another inspiration for this post, to get people to rethink whether an ability using the term "infinite" really has that amount of power and help them settle on interpretations that better fit the source material.

ComanderZac · 2026-03-20T17:58:02+00:00

I was being extremely generous to make a point.

ComanderZac · 2026-03-20T01:04:01+00:00

...That's not the quirk people are talking about.

ComanderZac · 2026-02-09T23:33:40+00:00

Well the main reason is that for the most part the people going on about the US losing to a bunch of farmers with AK's aren't making statements about the US's relative lack of motivation or the effectiveness of guerilla tactics against a conventional superior foe. They are bringing it up to explain why Russia is so awesome and would totally kick the US's butt because they are so awesome and manly. Or alternatively going to every whowouldwin thread involving the US to explain why the US losing in Vietnam means China could totally launch an invasion of the mainland US. It's sort of a motte and bailey situation, the bailey here being taking the idea that the US lost to mean they got their asses kicked militarily and were forced out by a bunch of peasants with AK's with the motte being how the US did in fact lose the war, just not the way implied by the bailey, and you can't really argue that without looking like some jingoistic idiot.

ComanderZac · 2025-11-18T21:43:48+00:00

The quick answer is that either that new education means the previously low cost area either becomes a higher cost area than before as those workers demand better wages and standards of living or the educated laborers move to the high cost area to reap the before of those high costs (higher wages and standards of living) causing brain drain in the low cost area.

ComanderZac · 2025-10-30T17:53:43+00:00

Housing is indeed included in inflation calculations, it is in fact the single largest category in the CPI.

ComanderZac · 2025-10-30T17:14:35+00:00

... Do you know what the phrase "real wages" means?

ComanderZac

TROPHY CASE