zlacker

>>mystra+(OP)
Are these AI filters, or just applying high compression/recompressing with new algorithms (which look like smoothing out details)?

edit: here's the effect I'm talking about with lossy compression and adaptive quantization: https://cloudinary.com/blog/what_to_focus_on_in_image_compre...

The result is smoothing of skin, and applied heavily on video (as Youtube does, just look for any old video that was HD years ago) would look this way

>>data-o+17
It's filters, I posted an example of it below. Here is a link: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO9MwTHCoR_/?igsh=MTZybml2NDB...

>>randyc+d7
The time of giving these corps the benefit of the doubt is over.

>>ares62+u7
Wouldn't this just be unnecessary compute using AI? Compression or just normal filtering seems far more likely. It just seems like increasing the power bill for no reason.

>>bongod+Vr
Video filters aren't a radical new thing. You can apply things like 'slim waist' filters in real time with nothing more than a smartphone's processor.

People in the media business have long found their media sells better if they use photoshop-or-whatever to give their subjects bigger chests, defined waists, clearer skin, fewer wrinkles, less shiny skin, more hair volume.

Traditional manual photoshop tries to be subtle about such changes - but perhaps going from edits 0.5% of people can spot to bigger edits 2% of people can spot pays off in increased sales/engagement/ad revenue from those that don't spot the edits.

And we all know every tech company is telling every department to shoehorn AI into their products anywhere they can.

If I'm a Youtube product manager and adding a mandatory makeup filter doesn't need much compute; increases engagement overall; and gets me a $50k bonus for hitting my use-more-AI goal for the year - a little thing like authenticity might not stop me.