this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2025
10 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
571 readers
278 users here now
Share interesting Technology news and links.
Rules:
- No paywalled sites at all.
- News articles has to be recent, not older than 2 weeks (14 days).
- No external video links, only native(.mp4,...etc) links under 5 mins.
- Post only direct links.
To encourage more original sources and keep this space commercial free as much as I could, the following websites are Blacklisted:
- Al Jazeera;
- NBC;
- CNBC;
- Substack;
- Tom's Hardware;
- ZDNet;
- TechSpot;
- Ars Technica;
- Vox Media outlets, with exception for Axios;
- Engadget;
- TechCrunch;
- Gizmodo;
- Futurism;
- PCWorld;
- ComputerWorld;
- Mashable;
- Hackaday;
- WCCFTECH;
- Neowin.
More sites will be added to the blacklist as needed.
Encouraged:
- Archive links in the body of the post.
- Linking to the direct source, instead of linking to an article talking about the source.
Misc:
Relevant Communities:
- Beehaw Technology- Technology Related Discussions.
- lemmy.zip Technology- Hard Tech news.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Are these marketers in this very room now? Do we really have any "AI" that is "explicitly marketed as being able to understand images"? Did you read all the fine text under asterics, if there are really some of such "AI"s?
https://help.openai.com/en/articles/8400551-chatgpt-image-inputs-faq
Now read that FAQ. I see just a bunch of limitations descriptions, not a "I can read and correctly understand 100 percent of the images"
I think there’s a vast difference between “I say I can take in images as input for prompts with limitations “ and “I’m using the wrong tool for a completely absurd use case” like your microscope analogy implies.
LLM is the wrong tool for image analysis, even if the providers say that it is possible. Possibility doesn't mean effectiveness or even usefulness. Like a microscope and onions.