4 ms·

I think we bought into it because it looks plausible. In the original image[0], the boundary between the leaf and the person's face looks legitimately blended i

by daenz 5y ago

I think we bought into it because it looks plausible. In the original image[0], the boundary between the leaf and the person's face looks legitimately blended in a way that only AI auto-filling does. From that, it's not a leap to extrapolate that the leaf itself was auto-filled from the surroundings. 0. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FH0N9HNWQAE0n9R?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FH0N9HNWQAE0n9R?format=jpg&name=...

stefan_ 5y ago
Yeah, it has that very distinct blurry mess look that you get with all the AI stuff that is always conveniently skipped over. And frankly looking at the original picture again, focus is no excuse for that. Yes, there is a leaf, no, the AI whizbang still blurred it all to crap.
- snazz 5y ago
  The blurriness and "oil painting effect" likely has more to do with aggressive noise reduction and the fact that small lenses usually aren't super sharp to begin with.
- zepto 5y ago
  > the AI whizbang still blurred it all to crap. Maybe… Or maybe the wind was just causing the leaves to move, resulting in some blurring.
- avianlyric 5y ago
  Original image was using digital zoom, so working at the limit (or beyond) what the sensor could provide. Image processing is just doing the best it can with very little input. https://twitter.com/mitchcohen/status/1476399735858683906?s=21 https://twitter.com/mitchcohen/status/1476399735858683906?s=...
- post-it 5y ago
  The AI whizzbang salvaged a photo that would have otherwise been impossible to take with a lens that small.
daxuak 5y ago
The blurry plus the tiny twigs connected to those leaves still make my brain think it's some GAN artifacts.
nawgz 5y ago
Am I crazy? I ignored this whole debacle the first pass but that couldn't more clearly be a leaf connected to a branch
- jasode 5y ago
  >but that couldn't more clearly be a leaf connected to a branch Yes, the leaf itself is "clear" but what threw people off was the blurry and dark halo surrounding that leaf which looks like manipulation artifacts. When you use Photoshop tools like healing brush, clone/stamp tool, or A.I. Content Aware Fill, you often get strange visual artifacts like that. Here's a quick example of erasing a person that leaves behind blurry artifacts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC4TsTRTHiY&t=1m42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC4TsTRTHiY&t=1m42s
  - nawgz 5y ago
    I fail to see how the similarity of those “artifacts” would imply that the camera software added a leaf… and a branch… and connected them realistically… in the foreground… in place of the face it apparently “replaced” A simple application of Occam’s razor could’ve saved a lot of furor
    - jasode 5y ago
      > and connected them realistically… Well, that's the crux of the issue that you don't seem to see. For many observers, it does not look realistic. The unnaturalness of the pixels is what makes it plausible for Apple software to have a bug. If it looked 100% realistic to everyone, we wouldn't be in this thread discussing it. E.g. Image saving algorithm with a software bug can cause pixels to be incorrectly "replaced" even though the programmers never intended it: https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres... EDIT reply to: >, especially when the image so clearly depicts that. You still seem to be missing why this discussion of AI error was even possible. In this very thread, there are commenters who still don't see "clear depictions" of a realistic foreground leaf even after being made aware of parallax demonstration in the update... because the blurriness keeps hijacking the brain to make it look like a fake artifact. Consider that the actual person who took the original photo didn't realize it was a real foreground leaf. (Or so he claims.) In other words, saying "Am I crazy? I don't see why there's debate about the dress being blue or white when ... it is clearly and realistically BLUE" -- doesn't actually add to the discussion. Hey, it's great that the foreground leaf looks realistic to you. But your personal perception is not relevant to why others perceived it as an artifact.
sroussey 5y ago
Conspiracy theories typically have some “plausible” core to stare at (much like every other illusionist).
arcastroe 5y ago
Do we have the original uncropped and unzoomed photo? It would be helpful to have more context to the original image
natch 5y ago
In other words our brains took our knowledge about the background of the situation (new phone tech rolling out recently, ML features, etc.) and auto-filled a scenario that covered up the underlying reality here. So, our brains were the ones doing the reality augmentation.

by daenz 5y ago

stefan_ 5y ago

Yeah, it has that very distinct blurry mess look that you get with all the AI stuff that is always conveniently skipped over. And frankly looking at the original picture again, focus is no excuse for that. Yes, there is a leaf, no, the AI whizbang still blurred it all to crap.

snazz 5y ago
The blurriness and "oil painting effect" likely has more to do with aggressive noise reduction and the fact that small lenses usually aren't super sharp to begin with.
zepto 5y ago
> the AI whizbang still blurred it all to crap. Maybe… Or maybe the wind was just causing the leaves to move, resulting in some blurring.
avianlyric 5y ago
Original image was using digital zoom, so working at the limit (or beyond) what the sensor could provide. Image processing is just doing the best it can with very little input. https://twitter.com/mitchcohen/status/1476399735858683906?s=21 https://twitter.com/mitchcohen/status/1476399735858683906?s=...
post-it 5y ago
The AI whizzbang salvaged a photo that would have otherwise been impossible to take with a lens that small.

daxuak 5y ago

The blurry plus the tiny twigs connected to those leaves still make my brain think it's some GAN artifacts.

nawgz 5y ago

Am I crazy? I ignored this whole debacle the first pass but that couldn't more clearly be a leaf connected to a branch

jasode 5y ago
>but that couldn't more clearly be a leaf connected to a branch Yes, the leaf itself is "clear" but what threw people off was the blurry and dark halo surrounding that leaf which looks like manipulation artifacts. When you use Photoshop tools like healing brush, clone/stamp tool, or A.I. Content Aware Fill, you often get strange visual artifacts like that. Here's a quick example of erasing a person that leaves behind blurry artifacts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC4TsTRTHiY&t=1m42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC4TsTRTHiY&t=1m42s
- nawgz 5y ago
  I fail to see how the similarity of those “artifacts” would imply that the camera software added a leaf… and a branch… and connected them realistically… in the foreground… in place of the face it apparently “replaced” A simple application of Occam’s razor could’ve saved a lot of furor
  - jasode 5y ago
    > and connected them realistically… Well, that's the crux of the issue that you don't seem to see. For many observers, it does not look realistic. The unnaturalness of the pixels is what makes it plausible for Apple software to have a bug. If it looked 100% realistic to everyone, we wouldn't be in this thread discussing it. E.g. Image saving algorithm with a software bug can cause pixels to be incorrectly "replaced" even though the programmers never intended it: https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres_are_switching_written_numbers_when_scanning https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres... EDIT reply to: >, especially when the image so clearly depicts that. You still seem to be missing why this discussion of AI error was even possible. In this very thread, there are commenters who still don't see "clear depictions" of a realistic foreground leaf even after being made aware of parallax demonstration in the update... because the blurriness keeps hijacking the brain to make it look like a fake artifact. Consider that the actual person who took the original photo didn't realize it was a real foreground leaf. (Or so he claims.) In other words, saying "Am I crazy? I don't see why there's debate about the dress being blue or white when ... it is clearly and realistically BLUE" -- doesn't actually add to the discussion. Hey, it's great that the foreground leaf looks realistic to you. But your personal perception is not relevant to why others perceived it as an artifact.

sroussey 5y ago

Conspiracy theories typically have some “plausible” core to stare at (much like every other illusionist).

arcastroe 5y ago

Do we have the original uncropped and unzoomed photo? It would be helpful to have more context to the original image

natch 5y ago

In other words our brains took our knowledge about the background of the situation (new phone tech rolling out recently, ML features, etc.) and auto-filled a scenario that covered up the underlying reality here. So, our brains were the ones doing the reality augmentation.