Isn't it more like this:
JEPA looks at the video, "a dog walks out of the door, the mailman comes, dog is happy" and the next frame would need to look like "mailman must move to mailbox, dog will run happily towards him", which then an image/video generator would need to render.
Genie looks at the video, "when this group of pixels looks like this and the user presses 'jump', I will render the group different in this way in the next frame."
Genie is an artist drawing a flipbook. To tell you what happens next, it must draw the page. If it doesn't draw it, the story doesn't exist.
JEPA is a novelist writing a summary. To tell you what happens next, it just writes "The car crashes." It doesn't need to describe what the twisted metal looks like to know the crash happened.
Is there really a reason to get excited about this? When we look at the path they took with Android on the phones, why should we believe that they will be any different from Microsoft on the desktop?
It is relatively easy to make a secure OS. What is terribly expensive in developer labor is a secure OS that runs a mainstream browser well. Android is an open-source OS that runs a mainstream browser well and is about 100 times more secure than any other open-source Linux distro -- except ChromiumOS. But for some reason, no vibrant open-source project ever formed around ChromiumOS whereas a vibrant open-source project (namely GrapheneOS) has formed around the Android open-source project.
Past week I got to know about InputActions [0] so I installed Kubuntu 25.10 to test it, and it is very promising. Linux never had a proper mouse gesture support, and I won't go into details, but this was one of the three dealbreakers for me. The other one was a Windows-only app which ran so sluggishly on all previous tests I've made over the years, but with Wine 11 the app is just as good and fast as on Windows. Though I first need to populate the registry with an icon set. But now with AI this can be easily automated (letting it write a script I then run). The third is some custom electron-based launcher which is heavily Windows-customized, which I will need to migrate to Linux, but also this should be easy with AI.
For the first time I feel like there is a real path for me to switch to Linux, and it's about time!
> It would be great if those scientists who use AI without disclosing it get fucked for life.
There need to be dis-incentives for sloppy work. There is a tension between quality and quantity in almost every product. Unfortunately academia has become a numbers-game with paper-mills.
Harsh sentiment. Pretty soon every knowledge worker will use AI every day. Should people disclose spellcheckers powered by AI? Disclosing is not useful. Being careful in how you use it and checking work is what matters.
What they are doing is plain cheating the system to get their 3 conference papers so they can get their $150k+ job at FAANG. It's plain cheating with no value.
Confront the culprit and ask for their side; you'll just get some sob story about how busy they are and how they were only using the AI to check their grammar and they just don't know how the whole thing ended up fabricated... Waste of time. Just blacklist these people, they're no better than any other scammer.
Rookie numbers. After NeurIPS main conference, you’re dumb not to ask for 300K YOY. I watched IBM pay that amount prorated to an intern with a single first author NeurIPS publication.
> Should people disclose spellcheckers powered by AI?
Thank you for that perfect example of a strawman argument! No, spellcheckers that use AI is not the main concern behind disclosing the use of AI in generating scientific papers, government reports, or any large block of nonfiction text that you paid for that is supposed to make to sense.
False equivalence. This isn't about "using AI" it's about having an AI pretend to do your job.
What people are pissed about is the fact their tax dollars fund fake research. It's just fraud, pure and simple. And fraud should be punished brutally, especially in these cases, because the long tail of negative effects produces enormous damage.
I was originally thinking you were being way too harsh with your "punish criminally" take, but I must admit, you're winning me over. I think we would need to be careful to ensure we never (or realistically, very rarely) convict an innocent person, but this is in many cases outright theft/fraud when someone is making money or being "compensated" for producing work that is fraudulent.
For people who think this is too harsh, just remember we aren't talking about undergrads who cheat on a course paper here. We're talking about people who were given money (often from taxpayers) that committed fraud. This is textbook white collar crime, not some kid being lazy. At a minimum we should be taking all that money back from them and barring them from ever receiving grant money again. In some cases I think fines exceeding the money they received would be appropriate.
I think the negative reaction people have comes from fear of punishment for human error, but fraud (meaning the real legal term, not colloquially) requires knowledge and intent.
That legal standard means that the risk of ruinous consequences for a 'lazy kid' who took a foolish shortcut is very low. It also requires that a prosecutor look at the circumstances and come to the conclusion that they can meet this standard in a courtroom. The bar is pretty high.
That said, it's very important to note that fraud has a pretty high rearrest (not just did it, but got arrested for it) rate between 35-50%. So when it gets to the point that someone has taken that step, a slap on the wrist simply isn't going to work. Ultimately, when that happens every piece of work they've touched, and every piece of work that depended on their work, gets called into question. The dependency graph affected by a single fraudster can be enormous.
"responsible for made up sources" leads to the hilarious idea that if you cite a paper that doesn't exist, you're now obliged to write that paper (getting it retroactively published might be a challenge though)
"Pretty soon every knowledge worker will use AI every day" is a wild statement considering the reporting that most companies deploying AI solutions are seeing little to no benefit, but also, there's a pretty obvious gap between spell checkers and tools that generate large parts of the document for you
In general we're pretty good at drawing a line between purely editorial stuff like using a spellchecker, or even the services a professional editor (no need to acknowledge), and independent intellectual contribution (must be acknowledged). There's no slippery slope.
Instead of publishing their papers in the prestigious zines - which is what they're after - we will publish them in "AI Slop Weekly" with name and picture. Up the submission risk a bit.
It's like Trump and his followers are not aware how fragile this entire system is, and if they are aware, they don't seem to be aware of the risks, and that the most likely outcome is that the world is in a less good condition than before. A big child that got the wish granted to play president.
And up at the top right, left to "Latest" you can skip the time back and forth at 10 minute intervals. And then jump back like 10 images, what a beauty.
Not to be a buzzkill but I think those are planes. The stars show trails so these must be long exposures, and trails of similar length appear to be going in all different directions, eg: https://www.foto-webcam.eu/webcam/ederplan/2026/01/19/1820
That is a nice way to have a static IP on the internet and enough resources to do small things like host a nameserver and/or OpenVPN/Wireguard.
I may have had 4 hours of downtime in one year, always announced days in advance.
reply