Can't see "we used a GAN" as an explanation that would fly. To counter it you can simply say "well, the GAN could be wrong." The technique outlined above is us

Can't see "we used a GAN" as an explanation that would fly. To counter it you can simply say "well, the GAN could be wrong." The technique outlined above is useful because we as humans can eyeball the results and say "the improvement on that blurry zebra photo is great!", but we know that it's an improvement based on a networks hueristics that's good enough for us, not an exact replica of the information lost through noise and compression.