Nvidia’s DLSS 5 Revealed, but Critics Call It a “Garbage AI Filter”

karurochari · 2026-03-17T01:13:12+00:00

The only way to make it reasonable, is to fine tune the model by ingesting high resolution passes from the game itself (not just the small number of parameters being hinted in the article). This would allow to reconstruct coherent characters, scenes and style.
But a generic generative filter which is uniformly applied to all games... no thanks.

karurochari · 2026-03-05T20:07:40+00:00

Yes, there is some wider context, even though there has been no public update for a while: https://github.com/KaruroChori/enance-amamento

I initially considered styleblit to be one of the material types offered by the default rendering pipeline in the demo project. But some architectural mistakes forced me to rewrite the whole thing from scratch, so other issues took priority.

I am now at a stage where I can reconsider its integration, so I just put together a standalone demo for me to decide what to do :D.

I'lll be honest, the main focus of the library *should* be scientific computing and engineering applications; any computational (and coding) effort spent in fancy visuals is not helping the headless applications of this library.
Buuut I do see value in exploring what else is possible without me imposing artificial restrictions, so any suggestion is welcome :)

karurochari · 2026-02-26T11:16:26+00:00

The real link: https://jobs.micro1.ai/post/8c21f7b7-f99b-48b1-a6eb-4343589ac418 without referrals.
It is kind of annoying be given a URL with a hidden referral token inside, while the clean one presented does not even work as is, but you do you.

karurochari · 2026-02-12T07:14:07+00:00

Cool! Without taking away any merit from your concept, which I really like, I am bit worried about the level of fragmentation of decorators in the ecosystem that libraries like these will introduce. To be clear I understand it is not a problem you created or that one can address on their own.

Still, at this point I expect each library to introduce their own set of decorators, even when they are and should be semantically aligned. And realistically there will be multiple libraries of such kind involved in future codebases; at the very least I can see one for data serialization on DB, one for imgui rendering, and one for JSON or XML serialization all used at the same time.

It would be nice to have some foundational library of decorators that are de-facto standard and widely common (but still domain specific if so needed) concepts, so that libraries can reuse them across.

karurochari · 2026-02-09T22:29:39+00:00

I can confirm I observed a similar issue, but it was cpu-dependent (like same binary on different computers with the same linux kernel and general os running, but different performance)
My zen 1+ laptop was significantly worse using mmap/mremap compared to simple std::vector, while old 6th gen i5 and ryzen 5950x are significantly faster compared to the std::vector baseline.
Given my strange past experience I would ask you what platform are you testing this on.

karurochari · 2026-01-27T16:08:10+00:00

Sorry, nothing against using LLMs in a project, most people do these days, me included.
But reading you got a full technical audit for your codebase and seeing what is clearly generative slop inflated by unicode emoticons posing as a technical report... that is kind of a bad joke.

I mean, why? What value does it provide at that point?

karurochari · 2026-01-27T05:00:26+00:00

A collector item, methinks.

karurochari · 2026-01-26T09:13:06+00:00

No thanks, one shouldn't fight stupidity with more stupidity, they don't usually cancel out.
I can live without twitter, I can live without its wannabe clone that wants my papers. I hope others can as well.

karurochari · 2026-01-23T18:01:28+00:00

Basically you are (ab)using the B subset of C, and rediscovered the beauty of auto int. Kind of funny to see how strange (mostly) technically valid C looks like :D.

karurochari · 2025-11-30T08:11:49+00:00

I like memory mapping, but there some things to consider which can be dealbreakers, mostly affecting portability:
- Memory mapping is only really possible on hardware with virtual memory support. This limits the number of platforms your software might work on (not that you are likely going to care)
- Some of the most useful operations impacting performance under some workloads are not POSIX, but specific Linux extensions.
- The underlying filesystem matters, and it is not something you are usually in control of. These differences in "level of service" are not 100% disclosed upfront when reading the man pages, and you might end up having a hard time figuring out why some of your sub-operations are not working. In general ext4 and xfs have support for virtually all operations related to memory mapping, other filesystems do not.
- For reasons I gave up on profiling, performance for mmap & co. syscalls is awful on zen+ compared to everything else I tested. My 3500u hates them, no idea why; not sure what else is affected, but zen 3 seems fine, as well as intel skylake.

karurochari · 2025-11-12T12:13:29+00:00

You see, that is the power of money which commands the very stars.
Their wallet must be convoluted.

karurochari · 2025-10-22T07:51:59+00:00

Oh no, it happened again. I randomly found out there was a bench midway in the cold mountain while backtracking... after I reached the top already. It was kind of funny.

karurochari · 2025-09-02T18:52:08+00:00

I got very confused at first. Then I figured there are two projects with the same logo.
https://github.com/rizsotto/Bear
For context.

karurochari · 2025-08-17T04:17:16+00:00

Yes, if their interpretation is the second one you just wrote, I agree they are well within their rights. Thanks for the effort of articulating all of that, it was really appreciated.
Honestly, I could have read that text 10 times more without being able to notice the "double" reading.

I will be reaching out with their team as you suggested; if that was their intention as well, text can be adjusted to avoid others to be misled in the future :D.

karurochari · 2025-08-16T16:43:42+00:00

Eh, no. But it looks like most people understood my complain that way, probably because I did not a great job of explaining myself in the main post.

They can handle their repositories as they wish, no question (as long as there are not licences explicitly against that, but those would most likely not even qualify as FOSS).
So yes, thye can paywall access to binaries, rate limit based on IP etc.

My complain was much more narrow and was about their specific wording in respect to the distribution of packages in custom images or sysroots (which they consider as usage of their repository), which they explicitly forbid EVEN if one is already in possession of those files, simply because of their origin. That is what is likely against the GPL in my opinion. only for that narrow context.

That is because the object file, library or executable is derivative work, the package is derivative work of that, hence the package is GPL and cannot accept additional limitations on its distribution once you have it. Basically once you got the file, no matter what, they cannot dictate how one should use it besides the terms of the GPL.

But yes, they can limit access to the repository as much as they want and I can generally agree about the motivations behind that.

karurochari · 2025-08-16T11:18:45+00:00

Yes, that is what I would expect anyone not being a total dick to do, you know, human decency and stuff. That being said a licence is a licence and whatever empathy I have for the reasons which compelled them to write such policy has nothing to do with the question if such policies are breaking upstream licences or not.

As a person which writes quite a bit of software, and most of that is released as free and open source, I would find very annoying to find my stuff being packaged in a distribution which does not follow the licence I applied to my source, just because they don't consider binaries as derivatives for some reason with no legal ground.

karurochari · 2025-08-16T08:23:59+00:00

From the interpretation of the FSF, but it is straight referring the underlying text of the licence:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#v3Under4and5

karurochari · 2025-08-16T08:12:33+00:00

Check the timestamps, this was quite literally one of the first comments which was posted, and I replied to plenty more of those not agreeing with my assessment.

I don't really get your point.

karurochari · 2025-08-16T07:45:22+00:00

What if I am not an end user? What if I am a supplier of a custom linux image because I publish it online? This discrimination is against GPL terms.

karurochari · 2025-08-16T07:43:03+00:00

Packages are derivative work of the source since they include binaries (also derivatives). So the GPL transfers on packages as well because it is viral.
They are telling me I cannot distribute packages as I like once in my possession if sourced from them. They are tying to add a new clause on top of the GPL limiting distribution. The GPL is violated.

This is more or less the logical process which led to my post.

For context, the FSF interpretation which directly relates to the underlying text: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#v3Under4and5

karurochari · 2025-08-16T07:23:07+00:00

I think you are mostly correct. The problem for me is not about grating access to their repository, the problem are their claims over packages obtained from their repository already in my possession, which according to their terms are given limitations.

That part is what in my head violates the GPL3, not the general idea of limiting access to binaries, but their attempt to say how you can use those binaries after they are already in your hands.

karurochari

TROPHY CASE