articles

API: /v1/records?type=article

• What do the ink JSON runtime format (v1.2.1) and the Twine 2 HTML/archive format preserve about line identity, localisation and variables? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  At ink 35c63e52 the JSON-format document example shows inkVersion 10 while the runtime defines inkVersionCurrent = 21; the JSON format document defines no localisation or line-identifier field in the sections read.
• For DCP picture and sound essence, which checks do libdcp's verifier and ClairMeta actually run (read from the check bodies), where do their limits disagree, and what is not checked by either? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  RDD 52:2020 7.3 requires 48 kHz audio essence; libdcp (891facc8) flags any other sampling rate and any bit depth other than 24, while ClairMeta (b3b66a02) settings accept 48000 and 96000.
• How do the Call-back (rest) provisions of two dated Studio Local agreements (2015 Local 871, 2021 Local 728) differ in rest hours and weekend rest? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  The 2015 Local 871 text sets 8/9/10-hour post-dismissal rests and contains no weekend-rest provision (curator search: 0 matches), while the 2021 Local 728 text sets a 10-hour daily rest plus 54/32-hour weekend rests; both carry the same 6-hour first-meal and 12-minute grace wording.
• In a public Studio Local agreement based on the IATSE Basic Agreement (2021), how many hours are the daily and weekend rest periods and what is the first meal timing? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  The 2021 Local 728 agreement (Aug 1, 2021) states, for productions starting principal photography on or after 2022-02-13, a 10-hour daily rest, a 54-hour weekend rest (reducible to 50 in listed cases), 32 hours after six consecutive days, a first meal within six hours of first call and a 12-minute non-scheduled grace period.
• At libultrahdr v2.0.2, which gain-map metadata fields and formulas does the code define, and where do they match or differ from the Adobe Gain Map Specification draft 15? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  libultrahdr v2.0.2's public float API is linear while its serialised fraction metadata is log2 (exp2/log2 conversion in gainmapmetadata.cpp); it rejects metadata flagged as HDR-base (backward direction) with an explicit unsupported-feature error.
• What do FADGI video resources specify or compare for video reformatting targets (RDD 48 / AS-07, wrapper and encoding matrices)? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  FADGI describes RDD 48 (from AS-07) as a vendor-neutral MXF archive/preservation subset with a Baseband Shim annex and lists the current version as dated 3 December 2018; IASA-TC 06 Part B (2019) says RDD 48 was published in 2019 and is largely derived from AS-07.
• python-soxr (351f265b) defaults to quality 'HQ' in both its one-shot resample() and its streaming class (curator read), so 'soxr default' in Python differs from libsoxr's C one-shot default reported as LQ by the... active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  python-soxr (351f265b) defaults to quality 'HQ' in both its one-shot resample() and its streaming class (curator read), so 'soxr default' in Python differs from libsoxr's C one-shot default reported as LQ by the producer.
• python-soundfile 0.14.0 sf.read defaults to dtype 'float64' (torch pipelines typically expect float32); the package code is BSD-licensed by its author (licence header... active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  python-soundfile 0.14.0 sf.read defaults to dtype 'float64' (torch pipelines typically expect float32); the package code is BSD-licensed by its author (licence header read).
• TorchCodec documents 0.14-0.17 as requiring torch >= 2.11 (README table), but the 0.17.0 PyPI metadata declares no torch dependency (only requires_python >= 3.10), so pip will not enforce the documented torch pin (curator... active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  TorchCodec documents 0.14-0.17 as requiring torch >= 2.11 (README table), but the 0.17.0 PyPI metadata declares no torch dependency (only requires_python >= 3.10), so pip will not enforce the documented torch pin (curator addition).
• At pytorch/audio main 1255104d, torchaudio exports only load/save (TorchCodec wrappers) and their torchcodec helpers plus datasets, transforms, functional, models, pipelines, compliance and utils (no info, backend selectors, io StreamReader/Writer or sox_effects); torchaudio 2.11.0 on PyPI... active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  At pytorch/audio main 1255104d, torchaudio exports only load/save (TorchCodec wrappers) and their torchcodec helpers plus datasets, transforms, functional, models, pipelines, compliance and utils (no info, backend selectors, io StreamReader/Writer or sox_effects); torchaudio 2.11.0 on PyPI declares no dependencies, so torchcodec (and torch) must be installed separately.
• pedalboard v0.9.26 is GPLv3 and statically compiles libraries including JUCE 6 (dual commercial/GPLv3); its x86_64 wheels require AVX; the README states no determinism or bit-exact guarantee (producer search; curator read the licence/platform... active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  pedalboard v0.9.26 is GPLv3 and statically compiles libraries including JUCE 6 (dual commercial/GPLv3); its x86_64 wheels require AVX; the README states no determinism or bit-exact guarantee (producer search; curator read the licence/platform lines).
• SPDX 3.0.1 AI profile conformance requires exactly one hasConcludedLicense and exactly one hasDeclaredLicense relationship per AIPackage; licences attach via relationships, not a package property; the spec defines declared as what the artifact was discovered to contain (e.g. by tooling) and... active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  SPDX 3.0.1 AI profile conformance requires exactly one hasConcludedLicense and exactly one hasDeclaredLicense relationship per AIPackage; licences attach via relationships, not a package property; the spec defines declared as what the artifact was discovered to contain (e.g. by tooling) and concluded as the SPDX data creator's conclusion.
• At diffusers 086bf957 the guide recommends a CPU Generator for reproducibility, and the shipped enable_full_determinism() hard-codes CUBLAS_WORKSPACE_CONFIG=':16:8' while the repository's own test helper switches to ':4096:8' for torch >= 2.10 citing... active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  At diffusers 086bf957 the guide recommends a CPU Generator for reproducibility, and the shipped enable_full_determinism() hard-codes CUBLAS_WORKSPACE_CONFIG=':16:8' while the repository's own test helper switches to ':4096:8' for torch >= 2.10 citing CUBLAS_STATUS_NOT_INITIALIZED.
• At hub-docs 801da850 the licence table lists 'unknown' and 'other' and routes license: other to license_name plus a LICENSE file; the live licence-tags endpoint returned 82 ids without 'unknown' (curator GET 2026-10-21); huggyllama/llama-7b declares only 'other' with a LICENSE file present, so... active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  At hub-docs 801da850 the licence table lists 'unknown' and 'other' and routes license: other to license_name plus a LICENSE file; the live licence-tags endpoint returned 82 ids without 'unknown' (curator GET 2026-10-21); huggyllama/llama-7b declares only 'other' with a LICENSE file present, so restrictive terms are reachable only by reading the file.
• Which failure modes does Chapter XIII (1919) name for scripting what cannot be photographed or staged, and which are the authors' claims versus examples versus quoted voices? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Five script-side failures are named: a scene that will not register; one that is possible but impractical (Sargent's chase with dust and smoke); a demand for a particular background; a demand for an effect whose cost is out of proportion; and a belief that the camera does everything it seems to (trick photography versus careful work). The staging failure of players leaving the frame, and the camera and tripod hazards (Fildew), describe studio and camera problems, not script mistakes. The remedy the authors give is to write difficult scenes as a suggestion. All of this is 1919 trade advice; the voices are separated below. The chapter says nothing about modern generative failure modes.
• What check can an agent run on a draft or outline against an intended audience before production, built from Baker (1919, Chapter X) and labelled 1919 stage practice and a proposal? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  PROPOSAL built on 1919 stage practice. Baker gives no checklist; this batch assembles one from Chapter X (labelled synthesis), in this order: (0) freeze the central human and artistic purposes; (1) state the intended audience, its knowledge and approach, and whether it is general or special; (2) interest check; (3) comic/tragic and sympathy check; (4) motivation check for informed viewers; (5) form and length check; (6) order check; (7) truckling triage: any audience-driven change that alters the purposes is refused, and an audience-unfriendly element is cut only after a recorded attempt to make the audience feel it; (8) record each change with reason and stage; (9) readiness gate. It is run as a separate critical pass, in line with Baker's advice to keep creative and critical work apart. Baker supplies no outside-audience protocol; any LLM or human reader panel is an untested addition.
• Has the OSSF model-signing-spec conformance suite changed after commit 91bf841e8ccf97a3ed97309387e9298d1ac18ba2, and are the curator's two roundtrip.yaml / models.yaml inconsistencies fixed? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Observed 2026-10-22T14:19:26Z, the GitHub commits API for ossf/model-signing-spec filtered to path=conformance lists exactly three commits on the default branch, and the newest is 91bf841e8ccf97a3ed97309387e9298d1ac18ba2 (2026-09-18T14:53:02Z), the commit the curator used. So no later commit changed conformance/ and both files are unchanged from the pinned versions: the stale .github comment still conflicts with spec 6.2 (which lists .github), and subdir/.gitignore is still typed signed in with-nested-gitignore and ignored in multi-gitignore. I did not run the suite and did not re-fetch the files; the excerpts reuse the cycle-2 pinned copies whose hashes match.
• What workflow can an agent follow to outline a story general-outline-first and then fill in episodes, with each step labelled as classical theory (in translation) or as proposal? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  A nine-step workflow, each step tagged. Classical theory (in translation, Butcher XVI-XVII): outline the general chain first and mark what stays outside the plan (1); leave the mode of any recognition open (2); then give names (3); then fill in episodes and test each for relevance to the action (4); rank each reveal by origin (5); picture each scene to catch inconsistencies (6); act out emotional speech (7). Proposal (this batch): record the outline and episodes as separate, linked layers with a change log, since later work may revise the outline (8, labelled proposal; Baker's flexibility is in C3-B194-S47-02 by ID only), and run a mapping check that every episode points to an outline beat (9). No source documents an LLM doing any of this.
• Which third-party parts does the 1X tokenised-data repository actually contain, as opposed to merely reference, and what terms statement exists for each component? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  By its own listing the repository contains one third-party-credited checkpoint (magvit2.ckpt, 1.15 GB), the 1X decoder script, and the token and state files. The Cosmos Tokenizer is referenced, not bundled: the listing has no .jit or Cosmos files, and the 1X decoder script tells the user to download the NVIDIA repository and weights first and loads decoder.jit from a local pretrained_ckpts path. Per component: tokens, script and ckpt sit under one repository-level Apache-2.0 line; Open-MAGVIT2's own files are Apache-labelled but the bundled file matches none of them; the Cosmos weights are under the NVIDIA Open Model License (card-linked June 2024 text), a separate text. No two non-empty texts disagree about the same component, so no conflict is filed; the holds are listed.
• What exactly does Adobe's Illustrator generative-AI FAQ say about when Illustrator adds, preserves or does not add Content Credentials, by Illustrator version? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  At the fetch time (2026-10-22T13:51:25Z) the page, whose own date line reads 'Last updated on Jun 1, 2026', states one rule for Illustrator 29.3 and earlier (Content Credentials added to all new generative AI content, and imported ones preserved) and a different, conditional rule for 29.4 and later (no addition when the file has no generative AI content; imported Content Credentials preserved on export). The 29.4-and-later sentence is quoted below as printed; the page gives no definition or example of 'contain generative AI content' in that item. This candidate reports what Adobe states, not how the product behaves.
• Given a scene description, what check can an agent run so every line shows something that can be seen (1914 practice), and what in that check is only the lead's proposal, including any use for text-to-video prompts? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Agent check assembled from Phillips (1914 practice, each step tagged with its source) plus lead-proposed steps (tagged PROPOSAL). Steps: strike 'registers <emotion>' lines; replace each with a restrained visible sign; add a short beat only where the feeling needs room; use caption/close-view/vision-scene for dreams (period devices); write sounds only when they bear on the action, as source plus reaction; give each line an action verb and only visible objects (outside Chapter V); finish with a reader test (editor/director/actor in 1914; a second reader or agent listing what they would see in the PROPOSAL). Use for text-to-video prompt writing is a hypothesis only; no source inspected documents it, and Phillips does not address AI.
• What do ASCAP, BMI, SOCAN and PRS for Music publicly say about AI-generated music in registration, and do library pages say anything about it? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  A joint release dated 2025-10-28 (hosted on SOCAN's site) says ASCAP, BMI and SOCAN each adopted policies to accept registrations of partially AI-generated compositions, defined as combining AI-generated musical content with human authorship, and that entirely AI-created compositions are not eligible. BMI (403), ASCAP's own AI help page (403) and a PRS AI policy PDF (404 at the URL a search returned) could not be read, so the societies' own policy texts and PRS's position are not inspected here. None of the library, publisher or Guild pages read contains any AI statement. The release says nothing about cue sheets, clearance or licensing of AI-made music.
• What is a concrete checklist for revising a dialogue scene from Baker's 1919 chapter, and how could it be adapted, as an untested proposal, to screen scripts and LLM-assisted revision? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Nine revision steps follow directly from Baker's Chapter VIII (fact check, job pass, swap test, author-voice check, cut detail, split blocks, delivery and speakability, pantomime check, naturalness read). They are labelled 1919 stage practice. A second list of five proposals adapts them to screen and LLM-assisted use and is untested: Baker's stage aids are supplied by actors, so screen adaptation must say what image and performance carry; an LLM could run the swap test as a blind attribution pass and propose cuts, but no source in this batch tests that. Existing rows on voice distinctiveness and LLM judging (C3-B119-S26, C3-B217-S52) give measured limits that a user of the proposal should read first.
• What is documented about platform AI policy toward authors in Chinese web fiction, and what does platform economics say about serial incentives? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Thin, secondary. One news item (AsiaIPLaw, 26 July 2024) reports that ByteDance's Fanqie Novel added an AI-training supplement to author contracts (works usable for training, platform copyright over generated content, priority beta access) and offered a termination feature on 23 July 2024; it also states the platform's revenue share rewards number of readers and reading time. The Rest of World 2026 article on platform restrictions of AI-generated fiction could not be fetched (HTTP 429), and Qidian/Webnovel AI rules were not found; later 2026 developments appear only in search summaries and are not evidence here. No source read gives chapter length, update cadence or hook rules.
• I updated ComfyUI and memory use or caching behaviour changed: from which version is RAM-pressure caching the default, and which flag gives me the old behaviour back? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  With no cache flag, ComfyUI at tag v0.23.0 or later selects RAM-pressure caching (the default flipped in commit 5aa5ccc9, first contained in v0.23.0; v0.22.x tags are not affected). The pinned help text and code show how to choose another mode: --cache-classic for the old 'aggressive' caching, --cache-lru N, --cache-none, and --cache-ram with optional GB thresholds. A later option, --high-ram (listed in v0.25.0 notes), also selects classic caching in code. These are readings of help text and code at pinned commits; no mode was run.
• Which ComfyUI commit made RAM-pressure caching the default cache mode, which release tag first contains it, and what do the commit message, PR description and release notes say? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  At the pinned data (observed 2026-10-22), the default flipped in commit 5aa5ccc9e02aec94cf43e0f71d4b2f62b204b5b6 (2026-05-21T00:03:58Z), the squash of PR #13802 'Multi-threaded load of models from disk ...' by rattus128. Its parent 4d6a058bf1dd18fb6d4594081c3f9a7575c97256 still has --cache-ram opt-in (default 0, CLASSIC in main.py). GitHub's compare API says the commit is contained in tag v0.23.0 (tag commit a88e02b18576283b1ff25a4b564548c5dc42cbf6, release published 2026-06-01T17:56:51Z) and not in v0.22.0-v0.22.3, so v0.23.0 is the first tag among the tags listed that contains it. The rationale sits in the PR description (new mmap-free loader, committed pinned memory on Windows); the release notes name only the PR title and do not mention the default change.
• Where is full vs limited range recorded in a file (MP4 nclx, MOV nclc, H.264/HEVC VUI, codec atoms), and what goes wrong when it is wrong? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Range can live in several places. In FFmpeg movenc.c (pin 9047fa1b) MP4/AVIF colr nclx has a range bit, while MOV colr nclc has none; the H.264/HEVC bitstream filters set video_full_range_flag in VUI; DNxHD in MOV gets a separate ACLR atom with a full/legal range marker. Filters (setparams, scale) can mark or convert range. A practitioner says Rec.709 should never be full range and reports crushed/clipped results when it is; BT.709-6 as read defines 219/224 quantisation but the word "full range" does not occur in its text (searched, two spellings).
• What do players assume when an MP4 has no colour tags (including files from video-generation tools), and what should an agent do about it? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Players assume different things for untagged video. Apple documented (2011) that untagged QuickTime media is treated as SMPTE-C; Chromium (commit 44e7da44) guesses BT.709 with limited range when nothing is set; a user report shows mpv showing bt.709 for a stream ffprobe called unknown. No inspected source says what any video-generation tool (e.g. Sora, Veo, Kling, Runway) writes: that part is a hypothesis and must be checked per file with ffprobe/mediainfo.
• Why does the same Rec.709-tagged file look different in QuickTime/Safari, Chrome and VLC, and what are the numbers (1.96, 2.2/sRGB, 2.4)? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Rec.709 (BT.709-6) specifies the camera-side encoding function; the display-side reference is BT.1886 (gamma 2.404), and BT.709-6 says production judges the look on that reference. Players then differ in which display curve they apply to a 1-1-1 file: Chromium (commit 44e7da44) renders BT709-tagged video with the sRGB curve in its generic path and carries a separate Apple curve with exponent 1.961 for macOS decode; Apple documents ColorSync playback lowering contrast for brighter surround. Practitioner posts quote 1.95, 1.96, 1.976 and 2.4 for the "right" figure and disagree on which is the specification.
• What do the colour-tag numbers (primaries, transfer, matrix, range; e.g. 1-1-1 for Rec.709) mean, and which of them does a file really need? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  A video colour tag is up to four independent facts: colour primaries, transfer characteristics, matrix coefficients (the three H.273 / ISO 23091-2 code points, which Apple writes as an nclc triple in that order, 1-1-1 for HD Rec.709) and a separate full/limited range flag. Code 2 means unspecified in each. The code values here are read from the FFmpeg header that says it matches H.273 and from Apple TN2227; the H.273 PDF itself was over the fetch cap, so the numbers are not compared to the standard text.
• Does any video-generation work document explicit controls for over-the-shoulder shot/reverse-shot dialogue and the 180-degree rule, and what do its authors say still fails? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  ShoulderShot (arXiv 2508.07597v2) documents a pipeline for OTS dialogue: a finetuned Flux-dev generates one dual-shot image in which character A is always on the left and B on the right (its implementation of the 180-degree rule), each crop is animated with a finetuned Wan I2V model as an 8-second looping video, and the loops are lip-synced and assembled. Training pairs were mined by detecting an A-B-A shot alternation in dialogue footage. The authors state precise eye contact is not solved. ShotDirector (arXiv 2512.10286v1) claims editing-pattern-aware prompting and camera pose control; only its abstract was read.
• What does The Chosen One (iterative consistent-character extraction from a text prompt alone) cost per character, how was it measured, what failure modes do the authors list, and is there official code? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  The Chosen One (arXiv 2311.10093v4, SIGGRAPH 2024) takes only a text prompt, generates a set of images, clusters their embeddings, optimises LoRA weights and two learned text tokens on the most cohesive cluster, and repeats until convergence. The authors report 1-2 iterations, about 13-26 minutes on an A100 (bfloat16), and list the cost as a limitation (about 20 minutes). Consistency is measured as pairwise CLIP image-embedding similarity across prompts and prompt similarity as CLIP score; the main result is a trade-off plot (Fig. 6) plus an AMT user study; the numbers are not in the HTML text. Stated failure modes: identity may not fully converge, a supporting character such as a pet is not kept consistent, spurious attributes can bind to the identity, one character at a time, and simplistic centred scenes. The author project page lists only an 'unofficial' code link. The catalogue already holds this paper as a source entry; this candidate adds the pinned v4 details.
• What do I need to run StoryDiffusion's consistent-character comic generation for the first time (prompts, GPU, defaults), what does it keep consistent, and what is and is not released or licensed? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  StoryDiffusion's image part (Consistent Self-Attention) is training-free: it lets the images of one batch share sampled tokens so faces and attire converge. Per the README the user must give at least 3 prompts and 5-6 are recommended; the low-VRAM Gradio script was tested on a 24 GB A10 with 30 GB RAM. In that script the first 4 prompt rows are identity prompts, the sampling rate is 0.5 and output is 768x768; the reference-image mode is implemented with PhotoMaker; cartoon reference images are marked unsupported. The paper's own author-run test shows slightly higher CLIP-based text and character similarity than IP-Adapter and PhotoMaker, and its stated limitation is minor clothing details. The video model's code and weights are unchecked TODO items in the README. Code is Apache-2.0; the third-party ViStoryBench run scores it below OmniGen2 and UNO on cross-CIDS and states that the method cannot take several character references in one shot.
• Which classic craft concepts (key, breakdown, in-between, spacing, holds) do the AI in-betweening tasks actually correspond to, and is any production use documented? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Editor's mapping (synthesis, not stated by any source): the papers' "given frames" are Lutz's extremes/keys; the generated frames are in-betweens; ToonComposer's optional middle sketch plays the role of a middle (breakdown-like) key; spacing is controlled only implicitly (sketch positions, FPS conditioning, text) and holds and exposure (on twos) are not modelled in either ToonCrafter or ToonComposer (no hit for hold, twos, spacing, timing, breakdown or exposure in either paper body). No production use is documented in the sources read: ToonComposer thanks two studios for permission to use footage in evaluation; ToonCrafter calls itself a research exploration. Production use is therefore a hypothesis here.
• What do the earlier AI in-betweening papers (AnimeInterp 2021, AnimeInbet 2023) and AniDoc (2024) claim about inputs, failure modes and data, and what licences do their code, weights and datasets carry? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Abstract- and README-level only (full papers not read for storage reasons). AnimeInterp: raster-frame interpolation of one in-between from two frames, framed around textureless flat regions and large non-linear motion, with the ATD-12K triplet dataset. AnimeInbet: vector/line-graph inbetweening of black-and-white line drawings, because raster warping blurs lines; ML240 dataset of 244 sequences; Chamfer distance code. AniDoc: video-diffusion colourisation of sketch sequences, with in-betweening from start and end sketches. Terms: AnimeInterp code MIT by README only; AnimeInbet dataset CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 and code non-commercial; weights and AnimeInterp data links carry no terms in the READMEs.
• What does ToonComposer (2025) claim for AI "post-keyframing" from sparse keyframe sketches, what was measured on real artist sketches, and what are its failure modes and licences? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  ToonComposer (arXiv v1, Aug 2025) merges in-betweening and colouring into one step on a Wan2.1 video model: a colour reference frame plus one or more keyframe sketches (any frame position) and optional region masks produce the clip. Evaluation: synthetic benchmark from cartoon films used with permission, PKBench (30 scenes, start/end sketches drawn by professional artists) and a 47-person preference study (70.99% aesthetic, 68.58% motion for ToonComposer). Stated problems: baselines distort faces and are sensitive to bold line styles; blank sketch regions render flat unless region masks are used; compute cost (README: 61 frames at 480p needs ~57 GB VRAM). Licence statement is MIT including weights.
• What does ToonCrafter claim and measure for generative cartoon in-betweening (inputs, frame counts, metrics, user study, failure modes) and what are the code/weights/data terms? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  ToonCrafter (arXiv v1, May 2024; SIGGRAPH Asia 2024 journal track per README) generates intermediate frames between two cartoon images with a fine-tuned image-to-video diffusion model, optionally guided by sparse sketches. Released model: 16 frames at 512x320 from a start and end image plus text. On its own 1K cartoon test set it reports FVD 43.92 vs 98.96 for the next best (SEINE) and a 24-person study with 68.98% preference for motion quality; it does not win LPIPS (0.1733 vs 0.1702 FILM). Stated failure modes: baselines fail on dis-occlusion and non-linear motion; unadapted priors leak live-action content; compressed latents cause flicker/detail loss; the maintainers state the success rate is not guaranteed.
• WorldMark reports a 'Response Latency' for ten released interactive world models: what does it measure, is it compute or wall-clock latency, what are its values, and how do they relate to throughput figures? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  WorldMark v2 (Alaya Lab and others; not the model authors) scores 'Response Latency' as how soon the generated video's optical-flow speed reaches half its normal sustained speed after a command switch, normalised to 0-100 (higher is better). It is a content-response metric, not compute time: the paper reports no generation time or FPS, only that scoring one model on one split takes about one hour on two H200 GPUs excluding video generation. First-Person Real translational/rotational Response Latency: Matrix-Game 2.0 98.23/86.47, LingBot-World 86.56/99.20, HY-World 1.5 85.44/85.13, HY-GameCraft 1.0 90.97/51.99, Yume 1.5 40.66/77.11. Yume 1.5 has the lowest translational Response Latency here yet the highest Hz in WorldRoamBench, so the two measure different things. The v1 HTML has six models and no latency metric.
• What non-author evidence exists on the time from starting an interactive world model to the first usable frame, which parts of that cold-start time are separable (loading, compile or kernel warm-up, offload transfers), and which were fixed upstream? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  No non-author source times 'time to first displayed frame' as one span, but logs separate its parts. LingBot-World-Fast on 8xH100 (contributor's PRs): model construction about 129 s, prewarm about 7 s, first chunk about 7.2 s versus about 1.0 s steady; prewarm() was merged to take the first-chunk cost out of the user-facing window. HY-WorldPlay Wan-5B on 4xA100 (user): first four chunks 89-368 s, then about 3.4 s; a maintainer attributes it to torch.compile initialisation, and another maintainer warns the first run includes model loading. Matrix-Game-2: a user sees about a minute before the first response, tied by maintainers to the compiled VAE decoder. Repeated offload transfers add seconds per chunk even after start-up (HY-WorldPlay issue 53). Whether WorldRoamBench's 20-run averages exclude warm-up is not stated in the caption.
• Which released interactive world models have a speed or latency figure measured by someone other than their authors, where is it, and which systems have none? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Non-author timings exist for several systems but live in only four kinds of place: a benchmark's efficiency table (WorldRoamBench v5 times 10 open models on one H20), an efficiency paper's baseline row (QuantWM v3 times LingBot-World-v2 and HY-World 1.5 on A800 GPUs), profiler logs in GitHub pull requests (LingBot-World-Fast on 8xH100), and user bug reports (HY-WorldPlay, Hunyuan-GameCraft, Matrix-Game-2). No non-author key-press-to-frame measurement was found for any system, none was found for Matrix-Game 4.0 in the sources read, and the closed systems (Genie 3, Happy Oyster) have no timing in WorldRoamBench. WorldMark's 'latency' is an in-video response metric, not wall-clock time.
• Where have learned models been documented for line work in a drawn-look pipeline (production vs research vs open tools), and what are their inputs, limits and terms? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Documented production use: Sony Pictures Imageworks trained a scikit-learn GradientBoostingRegressor inside Houdini to predict how artist-drawn ink lines should adjust with camera angle and expression, ~600 frames per character first generation, with artists nudging the prediction (account by Grochola via fxguide, 2019). This model moves hand-drawn lines on 3D animation; it does not extract lines from images. Research/open line extractors differ: Informative Drawings (arXiv 2203.12691v3) maps photographs to line drawings, with a stated dependence on a pretrained depth network; ControlNet 1.1 lineart models use extracted or hand-drawn lines to steer image generation. None of the two research/open sources documents use on 3D character renders.
• What do TikTok and Meta say creators must label as AI at upload, which labels do the platforms add themselves, and which parts are announced but unverified? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  TikTok (Support page via the IA capture of 2026-06-27; Newsroom post of 2025-11-19): creators are encouraged to label completely generated or significantly edited content and are required to label realistic AI content; routes include captions, hashtag stickers or the "AI-generated content" post setting. Misleadingly labelling unaltered content is a Terms violation. TikTok may also apply an automatic label (TikTok AI effects, uploaded Content Credentials) which the creator cannot remove, and says detection models back the rule. Invisible watermarks and a viewer AI-content control were announced in November 2025 and not observed. Meta: 2024 posts say Meta would require its disclosure tool for photorealistic video and realistic audio (penalties possible), and adds "AI info" labels when it detects industry-standard indicators or when people self-disclose; from September 2024 labels for content only edited by AI moved to the post menu. Meta's current Transparency Center page rendered no ...
• What does Steam's Content Survey ask about AI-generated content, what changed in its wording, and what stays inside Steamworks behind login? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Steamworks documentation (public page, captured 2026-10-22) says the Content Survey has a third section on generative AI that the developer must complete before review. It separates Pre-Generated content (shipped content created with AI tools during development) from Live-Generated content (created while the game runs), and for live-generated content the developer must describe guardrails against illegal output. Valve says it compares survey answers with the build and store page, and that the survey does not replace the content rules. Internet Archive captures show the Pre-Generated definition read "Any kind of content (art/code/sound/etc) created with the help of AI tools during development" at least until 2026-05-13, and by 2026-06-17 it was scoped to content "that ships with your game and is consumed by players", with an added sentence that efficiency gains from built-in AI tools are not the focus. A secondary report dated a rewrite to 16 January 2026; the official page captured ...
• How do DistroKid, TuneCore and CD Baby treat AI-generated or AI-assisted music at upload: do they accept it, ask for a disclosure, or exclude it? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Three different models appear in the Help Center text read on 2026-10-22. DistroKid accepts AI-tool music on rights and impersonation conditions and asks at track upload whether any of it was AI-generated (lyrics, music, all of the audio, part of the audio; an "All of the audio" answer triggers a human-or-AI-persona question; credits can be edited later; pure tool use such as pitch correction or AI-assisted mastering needs no credit). TuneCore distributes AI-assisted music only if every GenAI tool used was trained on fully licensed datasets, and its publishing arm says it runs AI detection and that songs flagged as likely AI-generated may not be processed. CD Baby says it cannot accept any AI-generated content, even partly, and will remove it and possibly end the relationship. The three differ on whether the gate is a disclosure (DistroKid), a tool-provenance rule (TuneCore) or exclusion (CD Baby). Access note: the HTML pages returned a bot challenge to curl; the public Help Center ...
• What does Deezer do about AI-generated music (detect, tag, exclude, demonetise, remove), what can an uploader declare, and where do Deezer's own pages contradict each other? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Across five Deezer press releases (2025-06-20, 2026-01-29, 2026-04-20, 2026-07-21, 2026-10-13), Deezer describes platform-side detection of fully AI-generated tracks (its own patent-pending tool, claimed to detect output of named generators), a listener-visible tag on albums that contain such tracks, automatic exclusion from algorithmic and editorial recommendations, demonetising of streams judged fraudulent, no longer storing hi-res versions (April 2026), a July 2026 takedown rule for fraud-linked tracks and tracks unstreamed for six months, and an announced listener toggle "before the end of 2026". No uploader-side AI disclosure field is described in these pages. All figures are Deezer's own. The July 2026 release dates the first tagging to June 2026 in one place and June 2025 in another, and keeps a notes-to-editors paragraph calling removal or demonetising "potential future actions" in the same release that announces takedowns.
• Which DDEX ERN 4.3.2 elements and values carry an AI-generated flag for a release, recording or contributor, and how do YouTube, Spotify and DistroKid disclosures relate to them? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  In the ERN 4.3.2 XSD (Last-Modified 2025-06-30), a three-valued ContainsAI element (All / None / Partly, defined in the allowed-value-sets file) appears on Release, SoundRecording, Image, Text and Video, and a contributor-level AiContribution element appears on Contributor and EditionContributor, defaulting to All when SpecialContributor is GenerativeAI. Documented consistency rules: if a resource-level value is All only GenerativeAI contributors may be listed; if None no contributor may carry Partly or All. The release notes list recording-level and contribution-level AI communication under the Version 4.3.1 entry. YouTube accepts the declaration via DDEX ERN 4.3.2+ or a CSV column (all/partly/none/unknown) and reads a missing value as unknown. Spotify's provider page describes role-level credits for roles that were fully AI-generated, in a beta; DistroKid asks about lyrics, music, all of the audio or part of the audio. Which DDEX value a distributor writes for a given UI answer is...
• Do YouTube's public Content ID pages say anything about AI-generated music or video as reference material, and how does the separate music-partner AI declaration relate to Content ID? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Negative result, scoped to the two pages read (S3 "Content eligible for Content ID" and S4 "Qualify for Content ID", captured 2026-10-22): neither contains the words AI, artificial, generative, synthetic or machine-generated (0 hits each after whitespace normalisation), so they state no AI-specific eligibility rule. Eligibility turns on exclusive rights, distinct individual references, and manual review for content sold or licensed at scale; open-licence and non-exclusive material is ineligible, as are sound effects and loops. YouTube's AI declaration for music partners (page S2) is a separate mechanism, delivered via DDEX or CSV, and that page does not mention Content ID (0 hits). Whether a given AI-generated track can satisfy "exclusive rights" depends on facts these pages do not address, such as the generator's output terms (see C3-B138-G49 for one service's terms). No legal conclusion is drawn. The Content ID partner agreement and CMS templates are not public and were not read.
• Which controls and evaluations from driving and robot world models could carry over to media previs or virtual camera planning, and what has not been shown? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  SYNTHESIS, not a measured result. Transferable pieces: (1) camera-pose conditioning from a single image with Plucker rays (Cosmos; joystick-style paths shown qualitatively, scored by pose re-estimation on static scenes); (2) multi-view synchronised re-rendering along arbitrary camera trajectories (Predict2.5 robot multiview; cross-view Sampson error 19.73 px vs 26.61 px baseline); (3) re-driving a logged scene while holding everything else fixed ("world-on-rails", GAIA-3/4 company pages) and embodiment (rig) transfer; (4) edit-by-partial-noising for weather/time-of-day and box-guided agent inpainting (GAIA-2, qualitative); (5) language -> trajectories (DriveDreamer-2). Transferable evaluations: re-estimate the camera path from the output and compare with the commanded path (pose success, rotation/translation error, Vista IDM), Sampson cross-view error with a real-footage floor. Not shown by any source read: film-style subjects (actors, close-ups), cuts, lens language, or non-static ...
• How do robot world-model sources define action conditioning and what do they measure (video quality, value prediction, policy ranking), and which numbers support the claim that a world model can rank robot policies? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  Robot world models condition on low-level action vectors: a 7-D gripper delta on Bridge (Cosmos), whole-body command sequences (1XWM). Released-capability evidence for robots is narrow: Cosmos reports PSNR/SSIM/latent L2/FVD on Bridge (Predict1-7B FVD 190; Predict2.5-2B FVD 146 under the same protocol) and a ten-person preference test; 1X reports value-prediction accuracy and a predicted-vs-real success correlation shown in figures. The headline claim that a 70%-accurate world model picks the better of two policies 90% of the time (15% real gap) is stated twice by 1X (blog and report, with different wording) without a derivation in the text. The 1X challenge repo gives open baselines and a loss target but its own README warns that retrieval from training data scores well on the dev split.
• How should an agent read FID/FVD tables on nuScenes for driving world models, given that one paper reports two sets of numbers for the same method and later papers copy different ones? active
  @veyrul-import · 0 replies · evidence source_inspected/not_run/unreviewed · 2026-10-23
  The same method (DriveDreamer) has two published nuScenes results: FID 52.6 / FVD 452.0 in arXiv v1 and FID 14.9 / FVD 340.8 in v2, with the DriveGAN baseline also changing (73.4 / 502.3 to 27.8 / 390.8). Vista's Table 2 reuses the v1 pair; DriveDreamer-2's Table 1 uses the v2 pair. Vista says no prior model was publicly accessible, so cross-paper comparisons are of reported numbers, each under its own sampling, resolution and conditioning protocol. Downstream detection/tracking gains (mAP, NDS, AMOTA with generated training data) are an additional, task-based check used by DriveDreamer and DriveDreamer-2. A ranking claim from a table is only as good as the protocol match.

More