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
Yeah, I think the first example is bad. This shouldn't be used for the photos you took. What's the purpose of having a photo if it wasn't the real moment you captured? I could understand the usage in marketing or event photographies, but for memories with your loved ones (as the first example tries to show it) it just doesn't make sense to me.

Two anecdotes:

1. A friend of mine met his favourite author (traveled from one continent to another for a signing event). When he shaked hands with the author, a friend took a photo. A lady (still hated by us!) step in the middle, and blocked the photo. Maybe an IA or a talented person could remove her, use a footage photo of the author and rebuild the photo... but why? What's the purpose of that?

2. A few months ago during the pandemic I scanned all the printed pictures of my grand parents with my phone. Aftre scanning like 200s, I checked one and I zoomed in: the stupid app applied some IA to make it better and it just was worse. I don't care if it looks better for the untrained eye: my grandparents didn't look like that. I now have stupid horrible verson of the scanned photos, where my grand parents appear with smooth skin and weird eyes.

>>101008+5l
Is IA French for AI? (Like UE and many other abbreviations)? I could look it up but might as well ask the question.

>>nuance+Lo
In Spanish, too — and other subject–object–verb languages

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