4 ms·
What? Not only is this a bizarre argument (why would deterministically creating wrong information be okay?), it's not even correct. There's nothing that fundame
by ImprobableTruth 5y ago
What? Not only is this a bizarre argument (why would deterministically creating wrong information be okay?), it's not even correct. There's nothing that fundamentally prevents an image scaling NN from being deterministic and I doubt you think that deterministically adding someone's face would be fine, right?
- jschwartzi 5y agoThe reason it’s okay to be deterministic and wrong in engineering is because it’s a lot easier to explain the conditions under which the wrong result will be produced and how you can identify those situations in the specific photo. The reason I think a simple resize that deterministically adds misinformation is better than a neural network is because I can calculate the bounds under which the algorithm produces wrong information and label the image. And I can do that without running the algorithm.
- _djo_ 5y ago‘Wrong’ information, if it’s expected, understood, and predictable, is still usable. Especially if we know it’s not going to introduce completely alien artefacts into an image like Ryan Reynold’s face. All of the standard zoom algorithms fall into that category. Whether bilinear, nearest neighbour, or similar, they’re all going to produce similar outcomes with which, importantly, a teenaged witness on the stand will be familiar. Same with the way TVs upscale content. It’s not like this is new evidence being introduced in its zoomed-in form. It’s an iPad and footage or images being used in the same way prosecutors and defence attorneys have used them for years when cross-examining witnesses.