To be clear, I agree that the line you quoted is almost assuredly incorrect. If they changed it to “thousands of deepfake apps powered by open source technology” then I’d still be dubious, simply because it seems weird that there would be thousands of unique apps that all do the same thing, but that would at least be plausible. Most likely they misread something like https://techxplore.com/news/2025-05-downloadable-deepfake-image-generators.html and thought “model variant” (which in this context, explicitly generally means LoRA) and just jumped too hard on the “everything is an open source app” bandwagon.

I did some research - browsing https://github.com/topics/deepfakes (which has 153 total repos listed, many of which are focused on deepfake detection), searching DDG, clicking through to related apps from Github repos, etc…

In terms of actual open source deepfake apps, let’s assume that “app” means, at minimum, a piece of software you can run locally, assuming you have access to arbitrary consumer-targeted hardware - generally at least an Nvidia desktop GPU - and including it regardless of whether you have to write custom code to use it (so long as the code is included), use the CLI, hit an API, use a GUI app, a web browser, or a phone app. Considering only apps that have as a primary use case, the capability to create deepfakes by face swapping videos, there are nonetheless several:

• Roop
• Roop Unleashed
• Rope
• Rope Live
• VisoMaster
• DeepFaceLab
• DeepFaceLive
• Reactor UI
• inswapper
• REFace
• Refacer
• Faceswap
• deepfakes_faceswap
• SimSwap

If you included forks of all those repos, then you’d definitely get into the thousands.

If you count video generation applications that can imitate people using, at minimum, Img2Img and 1 Lora OR 2 Loras, then these would be included as well:

• Wan2GP
• HunyuanVideoGP
• FramePack Studio
• FramePack eichi

And if you count the tools that integrate those, then these probably all count:

• ComfyUI
• Invoke AI
• SwarmUI
• SDNext
• Automatic1111 SD WebUI
• Fooocus
• SD WebUI Forge
• MetaStable
• EasyDiffusion
• StabilityMatrix
• MochiDiffusion

If the potential criminals use easier ready-made (commercial) web-services instead of buying a RTX 5090, learning ComfyUI, dealing with the steep learning curve etc, we’d know we have to primarily fight those apps and services, not necessarily the generative AI tools.

This is the part where, to be able to answer that, someone would need to go and actually test out the deepfake apps and compare their outputs. I know that they get used for deepfakes because I’ve seen the outputs, but as far as I know, every single major platform - e.g., Kling, Veo, Runway, Sora - has safeguards in place to prevent nudity and sexual content. I’d be very surprised if they were being used en masse for this.

In terms of the SaaS apps used by people seeking to create nonconsensual, sexually explicit deepfakes… my guess is those are actually not really part of the figure that’s being referenced in this article. It really seems like they’re talking about doing video gen with LoRAs rather than doing face swaps.

Without searching for them myself to confirm, it’s plausible, especially if you take it to mean “apps leveraging open source AI technology.”

There are a ton of open source AI repos, many of which provide video related capabilities. The number of true open source AI models is very slim, but “Open weight” AI models are commonly referred to as open source, and from the perspective of building your app, fine tuning the model, or creating Loras for it, open weight is good enough.

Some Loras come with details on the training data set, so even if the base model is only open weights, the Lora can still be open source.

Until recently, Civitai had Loras for famous people, e.g., Emma Watson, and apparently just regular people. There was a post here last week, I think (or maybe to some other community), to 404 Media, about those being taken down thanks to credit card processors drawing a line in the sand at deepfake imagery.

ComfyUI is a self hostable AI platform (and there are also many hosts that offer it) that lets you build a workflow from multiple nodes, each of which generally integrates some open source AI tech that was otherwise released. For example, there are nodes that add the capabilities to perform:

• image generation with Stable Diffusion, Flux, Hidream, etc
• TTS with KokoroTTS, Piper, F5 TTS, etc
• video generation with AnimateDiff, Cog, Wan2.1, Hunyuan, FramePack, FantasyTalking, Float
• video modification, i.e., LatentSync, which takes a video and lipsyncs it to a provided audio file
• image manipulation, i.e., controlnet, img2img, inpainting, outpainting, or even specific tasks like “remove the background” or “change the face to this other face”

If you think of a deepfake as just a video of a recognizable person doing a thing, you can create a deepfake by:

• taking an existing video and swapping the face in each frame
• faceswap video specific approaches, i.e., Roop.
• an image to video workflow, i.e., with Wan: “the person dances.” You can expand the options available with Wan by using Loras.
• a text to video workflow, where you use a Lora for that person
• an image+audio to video workflow, i.e., with FantasyTalking/Float, creating a lipsync to an audio file you provide
• a video+audio to video workflow with LatentSync to make it look like they said something different, particularly using a TTS (like F5 TTS) that does voice cloning to generate the new audio

My suspicion is that most of the AI apps that are available online are just repackaging these open source technologies, but are not open source themselves. There are certainly some, of course, though the ones I know of are more generic and not deepfake specific (ComfyUI, SwarmUI, Invoke AI, Automatic1111, Forge, Fooocus, n8n, FramePack Studio, FramePack Eichi, Wan2GP, etc.).

This isn’t a licensing issue, as many open source projects are licensed with MIT or Apache licenses, which don’t require you to open source derivative products. Even if they used the GPL, it wouldn’t be required for a SaaS web app. Only the AGPL would protect against that, and even then, only the changes to the AGPL library would need to be shared; the front end app could still be proprietary.

The other issue could be them not knowing what “app” means. If you think of a Lora as an app, then the sentence might be accurate. I don’t know for sure that there were thousands of Loras for people that published their training data, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that were the case.

It’s the new hyped up version of “no-code” or low-code solutions, but with AI so you have more flexibility to footgun.

Not any lazier. Script kiddies didn’t write the code themselves, either.

Are you talking about a warning for a self signed cert or for not using HTTPS?

I had never heard of this show before today but what you just described makes it sound cool as fuck, I’m gonna check it out now

The one I grabbed to test was the ROG Azoth.

I also checked my Iris and Moonlander - both cap out at 6, but I believe I can update that to be higher with QMK or add a config key via Oryx on the Moonlander to turn it on.

deleted by creator

Per this thread from 2009, the limit was conditional upon using a particular keyboard descriptor documented elsewhere in the spec, but keyboards are not required to use that descriptor.

I tested just now on one of my mechanical keyboards, on MacOS, connected via USB C, using the Online Key Rollover Test, and was able to get 44 keys registered at the same time.

If you want to generate audiobooks using your own / a hosted TTS server, check out one of these options:

• OpenReader-WebUI - this has built-in read along capability and can be deployed as a PWA that can allow you to download the audiobooks to your phone so you can use them offline
• p0n1/epub to audiobook
• ebook2audiobook

If you don’t have a decent GPU, Kokoro is a great option as it’s fast enough to run on CPU and still sounds very good.

If you’re going to use Kokoro, Audiblez (posted by another commenter) looks like it makes that more of an all-in-one option.

If you want something that you can use without an upfront building of the audiobook, of the above options, only OpenReader-WebUI supports that. RealtimeTTS is a library that handles that, but I don’t know if there are already any apps out there that integrate it.

If you have the audiobook generation handled and just want to be able to follow along with text / switch between text and audio, check out https://storyteller-platform.gitlab.io/storyteller/

From the Slashdot comments, by Rei:

Or, you can, you know, not fall for clickbait. This is one of those…

Ultimately, we found that the common understanding of AI’s energy consumption is full of holes.

“Everyone Else Is Wrong And I Am Right” articles, which starts out with…

The latest reports show that 4.4% of all the energy in the US now goes toward data centers.

without bothering to mention that AI is only a small percentage of data centre power consumption (Bitcoin alone is an order of magnitude higher), and…

In 2017, AI began to change everything. Data centers started getting built with energy-intensive hardware designed for AI, which led them to double their electricity consumption by 2023.

What a retcon. AI was *nothing* until the early 2020s. Yet datacentre power consumption did start skyrocketing in 2017 - having nothing whatsoever to do with AI. Bitcoin was the big driver.

At that point, AI alone could consume as much electricity annually as 22% of all US households.

Let’s convert this from meaningless hype numbers to actual numbers. First off, notice the fast one they just pulled - global AI usage to just the US, and just households. US households use about 1500 TWh of the world’s 24400 TWh/yr, or about 6%. 22% of 6% is ~1,3% of electricity (330 TWh/yr). Electricity is about 20% of global energy, so in this scenario AI would be 0,3% of global energy. We’re just taking at face value their extreme numbers for now (predicting an order of magnitude growth from today’s AI consumption), and ignoring that even a single AI application alone could entirely offset the emissions of all AI combined. Let’s look first at the premises behind what they’re arguing for this 0,3% of global energy usage (oh, I’m sorry, let’s revert to scary numbers: “22% OF US HOUSEHOLDS!”):

• It’s almost all inference, so that simplifies everything to usage growth
• But usage growth is offset by the fact that AI efficiency is simultaneously improving at faster than Moore’s Law on three separate axes, which are multiplicative with each other (hardware, inference, and models). You can get what used to take insanely expensive, server-and-power-hungry GPT-4 performance (1,5T parameters) on a model small enough to run on a cell phone that, run on efficient modern servers, finishes its output in a flash. So you have to assume not just one order of magnitude of inference growth (due to more people using AI), but many orders of magnitude of inference growth.   * You can try to Jevon at least part of that away by assuming that people will always want the latest, greatest, most powerful models for their tasks, rather than putting the efficiency gains toward lower costs. But will they? I mean, to some extent, sure. LRMs deal with a lot more tokens than non-LRMs, AI video is just starting to take off, etc. But at the same time, for example, today LRMs work in token space, but in the future they’ll probably just work in latent space, which is vastly more efficient. To be clear, I’m sure Jevon will eat a lot of the gains - but all of them? I’m not so sure about that.   * You need the hardware to actually consume this power. They’re predicting by - three years from now - to have an order of magnitude more hardware out there than all the AI servers combined to this point. Is the production capacity for that huge level of increase in AI silicon actually in the works? I don’t see it.

There’s a difference between a tool being available to you and a tool being misused by your students.

That said, I wouldn’t trust AI assessments of students to determine if they’re on track right now, either. Whatever means the AI would use needs to be better than grading quizzes, homework, etc., and while I’m not a teacher, I would be very surprised if it were better than any halfway competent teacher’s assessments (thinking in terms of high school and younger, at least - in university IME the expectation is that you self assess during the term and it’s up to you to seek out learning opportunities outside class if you need them, like going to office hours for your prof or TA).

AI isn’t useless, though! It’s just being used wrong. For example, AI can improve OCR, making it more feasible for students to hand in submissions that can be automatically graded, or to improve accessibility for graders. But for that to actually be helpful we need better options on the hardware front and for better integration of those options into grading systems, like affordable batch scanners that you can just drop a stack of 50 assignments into, each a variable number of pages, with software that will automatically sort out the results by assignment and submitter, and automatically organize them into the same place that you put all the digital submissions.

Though… If a computer has a real biological brain in it doing the thinking, is it artificial intelligence?

The person who came up with the Chinese Room Argument argued that if a brain was completely synthetic, even if it were a perfect simulation of a real brain, it would not think - it would not have a genuine understanding of anything, only a simulation of an understanding. I don’t agree (though I would still say it’s “artificial”), but I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

From section 4.3:

Consider a computer that operates in quite a different manner than an AI program with scripts and operations on sentence-like strings of symbols. The Brain Simulator reply asks us to suppose instead the program parallels the actual sequence of nerve firings that occur in the brain of a native Chinese language speaker when that person understands Chinese – every nerve, every firing. Since the computer then works the very same way as the brain of a native Chinese speaker, processing information in just the same way, it will understand Chinese. Paul and Patricia Churchland have set out a reply along these lines, discussed below.

In response to this, Searle argues that it makes no difference. He suggests a variation on the brain simulator scenario: suppose that in the room the man has a huge set of valves and water pipes, in the same arrangement as the neurons in a native Chinese speaker’s brain. The program now tells the man which valves to open in response to input. Searle claims that it is obvious that there would be no understanding of Chinese. (Note however that the basis for this claim is no longer simply that Searle himself wouldn’t understand Chinese – it seems clear that now he is just facilitating the causal operation of the system and so we rely on our Leibnizian intuition that water-works don’t understand (see also Maudlin 1989).) Searle concludes that a simulation of brain activity is not the real thing.

However, following Pylyshyn 1980, Cole and Foelber 1984, and Chalmers 1996, we might wonder about gradually transitioning cyborg systems. Pylyshyn writes:

If more and more of the cells in your brain were to be replaced by integrated circuit chips, programmed in such a way as to keep the input-output function each unit identical to that of the unit being replaced, you would in all likelihood just keep right on speaking exactly as you are doing now except that you would eventually stop meaning anything by it. What we outside observers might take to be words would become for you just certain noises that circuits caused you to make.

These cyborgization thought experiments can be linked to the Chinese Room. Suppose Otto has a neural disease that causes one of the neurons in his brain to fail, but surgeons install a tiny remotely controlled artificial neuron, a synron, alongside his disabled neuron. The control of Otto’s artificial neuron is by John Searle in the Chinese Room, unbeknownst to both Searle and Otto. Tiny wires connect the artificial neuron to the synapses on the cell-body of his disabled neuron. When his artificial neuron is stimulated by neurons that synapse on his disabled neuron, a light goes on in the Chinese Room. Searle then manipulates some valves and switches in accord with a program. That, via the radio link, causes Otto’s artificial neuron to release neuro-transmitters from its tiny artificial vesicles. If Searle’s programmed activity causes Otto’s artificial neuron to behave just as his disabled natural neuron once did, the behavior of the rest of his nervous system will be unchanged. Alas, Otto’s disease progresses; more neurons are replaced by synrons controlled by Searle. Ex hypothesi the rest of the world will not notice the difference; will Otto? If so, when? And why?

Under the rubric “The Combination Reply”, Searle also considers a system with the features of all three of the preceding: a robot with a digital brain simulating computer in its aluminum cranium, such that the system as a whole behaves indistinguishably from a human. Since the normal input to the brain is from sense organs, it is natural to suppose that most advocates of the Brain Simulator Reply have in mind such a combination of brain simulation, Robot, and Systems or Virtual Mind Reply. Some (e.g. Rey 1986) argue it is reasonable to attribute intentionality to such a system as a whole. Searle agrees that it would indeed be reasonable to attribute understanding to such an android system – but only as long as you don’t know how it works. As soon as you know the truth – it is a computer, uncomprehendingly manipulating symbols on the basis of syntax, not meaning – you would cease to attribute intentionality to it.

after the interview, the robot — and the company — then ghosted them with no future contact.

For fuck’s sake, if you’re going to use a GenAI powered interview process to filter through resumes, interview and eliminate candidates, spend the ten extra seconds it takes to set up an automated follow-up email to the candidates you ruled out.

You can run a NAS with any Linux distro - your limiting factor is having enough drive storage. You might want to consider something that’s great at using virtual machines (e.g., Proxmox) if you don’t like Docker, but I have almost everything I want running in Docker and haven’t needed to spin up a single virtual machine.

This is an interesting parallel, but I feel like I missed some key part of it.

In the US, at least, we historically killed off a lot of deer’s natural predators - mostly wolves - and as a result, the deer population can get out of control, causing serious problems to the ecosystem. Hunters help to remedy that. The relatively small violences that they perform on an individual basis add up to improving the overall ecosystem.

That isn’t the same as being a bigot, or a sexist, or a fascist… and I don’t know why anyone would assume that a person holds those views because they’re mean and petty. They hold those views for a variety of reasons - sometimes because they’re a child or barely an adult and that’s just what they learned, and they either don’t know any better or haven’t cared enough to think it through; sometimes because they’ve been conditioned to think that way; sometimes because they’re sociopaths who recognize that it’s easier to oppress that particular group.

It doesn’t really matter what their reason is. Either way, they’re a worse person because of it, and often they’re overall a bad person, regardless of the rest of their views, actions, and contributions.

Being a hunter, by contrast, is neutral leaning positive.

It makes sense that a rational person who loves being in nature, who loves animals, who wants their local ecosystem to be successful, would as a result want to help out in some small way, even if that means they have to kill an animal to do so. It doesn’t make sense that a rational person who loves all people, who wants their local communities to be successful, would as a result want to oppress and harm the people in already marginalized groups.

I don’t think equating being bigoted with holding unjustifiable opinions does it justice. The way we use the word opinion generally applies to things that are trivial or unimportant, that don’t ultimately matter, e.g., likes and dislikes. Being a bigot is a viewpoint; it shapes you. For many bigots, their entire perspective is warped and wrong. And there’s a common misunderstanding that you can’t argue with someone’s opinions; because it’s just how they “feel.” But being a bigot, whether you’re sexist, racist, transphobic, queerphobic, homophobic, biphobic, etc., is a belief, and it’s one that, in most cases, the bigot chooses (consciously or not) to keep believing.

If an adult with functioning cognitive abilities refuses to question their bigoted beliefs, then they’ve made a choice to be a bigot.

If you’re not indemnified, you might be found liable, but you’re not necessarily liable. It depends on the circumstances.

Headline is clickbait and is incorrect per the text of the article. It should read “Doctors not indemnified if AI transcriber mandated by NHS gets it wrong.”

You don’t have to finish the file to share it though, that’s a major part of bittorrent. Each peer shares parts of the files that they’ve partially downloaded already. So Meta didn’t need to finish and share the whole file to have technically shared some parts of copyrighted works. Unless they just had uploading completely disabled,

The argument was not that it didn’t matter if a user didn’t download the entirety of a work from Meta, but that it didn’t matter whether a user downloaded anything from Meta, regardless of whether Meta was a peer or seed at the time.

Theoretically, Meta could have disabled uploading but not blocked their client from signaling that they could upload. This would, according to that argument, still counts as reproducing the works, under the logic that signaling that it was available is the same as “making it available.”

but they still “reproduced” those works by vectorizing them into an LLM. If Gemini can reproduce a copyrighted work “from memory” then that still counts.

That’s irrelevant to the plaintiff’s argument. And beyond that, it would need to be proven on its own merits. This argument about torrenting wouldn’t be relevant if LLAMA were obviously a derivative creation that wasn’t subject to fair use protections.

It’s also irrelevant if Gemini can reproduce a work, as Meta did not create Gemini.

Does any Llama model reproduce the entirety of The Bedwetter by Sarah Silverman if you provide the first paragraph? Does it even get the first chapter? I highly doubt it.

By the same logic, almost any computer on the internet is guilty of copyright infringement. Proxy servers, VPNs, basically any compute that routed those packets temporarily had (or still has for caches, logs, etc) copies of that protected data.

There have been lawsuits against both ISPs and VPNs in recent years for being complicit in copyright infringement, but that’s a bit different. Generally speaking, there are laws, like the DMCA, that specifically limit the liability of network providers and network services, so long as they respect things like takedown notices.

I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Alpine Linux Alpine Linux is in fact Pine’s fork, Alpine / Alpine Linux Pine Linux, or as I’ve taken to calling it, Pine’s Alpine plus Alpine Linux Pine Linux. Alpine Linux Pine Linux is an operating system unto itself, and Pine’s Alpine fork is another free component of a fully functioning Alpine Linux Pine Linux system.