An artist preparing a brush to paint with is not doing art, they're doing engineering to make art tools.
They employ those art tools to make art, but the tools themselves are works of engineering, not art.
That isn't to say that art tools cannot be art, such as source code that's formatted like poetry or ASCII images, but that's a very different sort of design work than the development of base functions.
A "side-channel attack" is one where fundamental flaws in the encryption implementation method are targeted, as opposed to flaws in the cryptographic algorithm itself.
By means of analogy, if your cryptographic method is to go to a locked room to have a private conversation, then a spy doesn't have to pick the lock if they can still hear you through the door. The locked-room security method itself isn't flawed, but implementing it without a soundproof door has much the same result.
In this case:
The threat resides in the chips’ data memory-dependent prefetcher, a hardware optimization that predicts the memory addresses of data that running code is likely to access in the near future. By loading the contents into the CPU cache before it’s actually needed, the DMP, as the feature is abbreviated, reduces latency between the main memory and the CPU, a common bottleneck in modern computing. DMPs are a relatively new phenomenon found only in M-series chips and Intel's 13th-generation Raptor Lake microarchitecture, although older forms of prefetchers have been common for years.
Security experts have long known that classical prefetchers open a side channel that malicious processes can probe to obtain secret key material from cryptographic operations. This vulnerability is the result of the prefetchers making predictions based on previous access patterns, which can create changes in state that attackers can exploit to leak information.
So, the encryption the chips use is solid, but some of the hardware employed can still leak data.
Squats, I guess?
Randomly generated content is usually a bad idea on public-facing websites. Generating and displaying it automatically means you only get to inspect the results after the fact, so you're relying on the image generator to never produce something unacceptable.
Having a DB of prepared images means you can pick through and remove all the unacceptable ones before they have a chance to be displayed.
Sure you can, you just need a sufficiently diverse database of images at which to point your random number generator. No generation necessary, just aggregate human artistic output.
I am autistic. I actually hate that my brain is forcing me to reply to this drivel.
I am also autistic, but I enjoy a good argument and will never pass up the chance to complain when people put generated images on my screen. There's more real art out there in the world to see than could be seen in a lifetime, so why should anyone waste time with computer-generated approximations of art?
Anyway, this is a stupid argument. Even if it's not as an mp3, it's like a movie, what-the-fuck-ever.
We are comparing apples to oranges here, but the fact remains that serving existing content will always be cheaper than serving content one has to generate first.
I stand corrected.
Guess it's time to put on the ol' software criticism hat.
Edit: This is just BOINC but without the scientific justification. I love the idea of decentralized computing but building it to run one's plagirism laundromats on other people's computers is such a waste.
It's not a choice between AI art and commissioned art, it's a choice between AI generated images and nothing at all because that was the point of his project.
That's a false dichotomy. If there's no budget to commission new art then ideally the space should have been used to promote artists via their existing work.
I don’t like seeing visual art automated.
I don't care?
If you didn't, then you wouldn't be in this thread defending your creative choices. You could have ignored me like a person who doesn't care would do.
Most high-end graphic cards actually use close to 100W when not in demanding workloads. Mine certainly does.
As per Tom's Hardware, the average high-end card comes in somewhere north of 250W. But even if we half the total power estimate again we're still talking about an eigth of a watt-hour, or 50,000 times more than a 4mb download, per image.
You said double that.
I revised my estimate while you were replying.
Most people's PCs idle at 200-W300W as a total. And even if 400W was the total PC usage, as I said, my PC is already on.
My PC idles at about 75W, and tops out just shy of 600W with all cores, cards, and drives running.
You don't seem to have posted the source code, so the final result is all we have to judge.
Software companies don't want you to know this, but the open-source licenses on the internet are free. You can just take them home. I have 458 apps.