zlacker

>>dang+it
Cool tech, but plastering "authentic" all over this kind of generated photography is really disingenuous and just rubs me the wrong way. I get that it's informed by real details from other photos, but that's not what authentic means.

If I buy an "authentic Rolex" and receive a Chinese Rolex clone that's built similarly based on observations of a real Rolex, I'm going to feel scammed and very upset. And I'm much more protective of my memories than I would be of a watch.

>>bhaney+Rh
I would argue that authentic is a relative term, and actually helped me understand the product more easily. IMO, it is “authentic” because, compared to other image fills, it tries to fill in the data using real data from other photos.

>>cmdli+Ri
It's "authentic" in the same way that when you see something labeled authentic it makes you more likely to question if it's actually what it says it is because authentic thing don't need such labels plastered on them.

Regardless, I'm pretty sure "reconstructed" it the honest word to use.

>>flavor+(OP)
[stub for offtopicness]