Technology

59148 readers

2352 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

288

‘There is no such thing as a real picture’: Samsung defends AI photo editing on Galaxy S24 (www.techradar.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

116 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 35 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

“There was a very nice video by Marques Brownlee last year on the moon picture,” Chomet told us. “Everyone was like, ‘Is it fake? Is it not fake?’ There was a debate around what constitutes a real picture. And actually, there is no such thing as a real picture. As soon as you have sensors to capture something, you reproduce [what you’re seeing], and it doesn’t mean anything. There is no real picture. You can try to define a real picture by saying, ‘I took that picture’, but if you used AI to optimize the zoom, the autofocus, the scene – is it real? Or is it all filters? There is no real picture, full stop.”

If your epistemological resolution for determining the fakeness of the moon landing photos is to just assert that all photos are in a sense fake so case closed, then I feel like you aren't even wrong about the right thing.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 9 months ago

The moon photos they’re talking about are specifically the AI enhanced zoom moon photos of previous Samsung models that caught controversy because taking a picture of a marginally round object against a black background with their zoom enhancement would produce a moon photo even if it was in someone’s dark basement and the object was a dimly lit bottle cap.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

To think about it, if a new crater gets ever created on the moon one way or the other these AI models won't be ever updated and will show the "fake old version" forever.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We should nuke the near side of the moon to catch AI off-guard

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I've always wondered what it would look like from earth it the moon were nuked

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Kurzgesagt - What if we nuke the moon?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

Kurzgesagt - What if we nuke the moon?

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Forgot that kurzgesagt has already nuked everything

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Kurzgesagt has a video on the subject. Your question is answered at 5:50 - tiny blink of light for few seconds.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

video

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

if you used AI to optimize the zoom, the autofocus, the scene – is it real?

To me, using AI to optimize zoom, focus, aperture (or fake aperture effects), framing etc. That's composition. The picture isn't fake, but software helped compose the real image in a better way.

When you change the image (remove objects, distort parts of the image not the whole, airbrush etc) then the image isn't based on reality any more.

That's where I see the line drawn, at least. Yes, drawing a line also makes the image not real any more.

Beyond this, we get to philosophy. In which case, I'll refer to my other comment on another post about this story. Our brain transforms the image our eyes receive (presumably to be able to relay it around the brain efficiently, who knows?). So we can take it to Matrix philosophy. When we don't know if what we're seeing is real, what is real?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I think the reality is that there is no reality, there is only perception. Composition does add to remove things from the photo. Light, both the amount and its wavelength, is a thing. Whether the lens picks up the pores on a person's face is a thing. Whether The background seems close or far as a thing. But I agree that camera makers would tow any philosophical line to help them drive profits.