3 ms·

>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 surround

by 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.
  - nawgz 5y ago
    I don’t think you read what I wrote, so I’ll say it again: claiming some image processing AI introduced an entire branch, twig, leaf construct in place of a face is comical, especially when the image so clearly depicts that. I’m much more likely to interpret this thing as anti-capitalist sentiment being expressed in a ridiculous fashion than an actual good faith argument there could be a bug so rare but so profound that people’s faces are mistaken for the background and the AI’s post hoc justification is that there is a branch and leaf there so it’ll output that. It doesn’t even make sense what is being claimed here, your links don’t really change that Edit: I see a leaf in the foreground, and the situation was a highly (digitally) zoomed picture with a tree in the foreground. This has nothing to do with color perception like you imply; the fact that a bunch of people - whose perception was previously influenced to believe in AI error - don’t think it shows the exact literal situation it correctly shows hardly makes it a relevant discussion Edit 2: what I see might not be relevant, but the camera software showed the situation correctly, and you’re still arguing because the digital zoom produced artifacts that the entire branch / twig / leaf that was literally there might NOT have literally been there and could have been added by some magic unexplained AI replacement. It doesn’t even make sense. There is no room for human perception here. If the software was rendering leaves instead of faces, it wouldn’t be a single guy finding that scenario, and especially not when the argument the leaves didn’t exist in the first place was based on compressed video. Comical stuff. This is literally conspiracy theory argumentation from you
    - jasode 5y ago
      >_I_ see a leaf in the foreground, You keep repeating "I". Again, the emphasis on "I" in your sentence is not relevant to the commenter right above you perceiving something else: "The blurry plus the tiny twigs connected to those leaves still make my brain think it's some GAN artifacts." The blue/white dress example was not to apply color to the iPhone example but a cultural reference to this perception debate: https://www.google.com/search?q=was+dress+blue+or+white https://www.google.com/search?q=was+dress+blue+or+white Or put another way, consider : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind EDIT reply to: >This is honestly blowing my mind that you think theory of mind applies Let me try to put it this way... nawgz sees a clear and realistic leaf in the foreground. Case closed. Therefore, nawgz would not even submit a Twitter post or a new thread to HN wonder why the head is missing. And yet, such a thread exists with (some) commenters wondering if the software had a glitch: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29739235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29739235 Stepping outside of yourself and considering Theory Of Mind might help explain to you why such a thread exists with comments even though you yourself see no issue with the photo. EDIT2: >There is no room for human perception here. There is room for human perception because the person who took the original iPhone photo and posted it on Twitter is a senior iOS programmer with a degree in computer science and yet he overlooked the possibility of a real leaf. If we take his story at face value, his particular mind and perception initially chose to believe that iOS photo software replaced the head with a leaf rather than consider a scenario that a tree branch in front of his own house occluded the walker's head. Only when another programmer on Twitter theorized that a real leaf is in the foreground, he then went back outside again to notice that there's a low hanging branch on his tree. (That's his later video showing parallax demonstration.) The original photographer did not believe the pixels in his own photo. That's a human perception issue. That faulty perception led to software theories from some programmers in that Twitter thread including this comment: >When you open iPhone camera, it keeps recording. When you take a shot, it takes some frames from before and after you pressed the shutter and then merges those to create a detailed photo. One of this frame had this leaf on her head. -- from https://twitter.com/masnun/status/1476457354128281600?s=20 https://twitter.com/masnun/status/1476457354128281600?s=20
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> but what threw people off was the blurry and dark halo surrounding that leaf which looks like manipulation artifacts. That halo is pretty clearly what's left of the subject's head after the phone has tried to get rid of it. It's difficult for me to understand how this wouldn't qualify as "replacing someone's head with a leaf". Sure, the leaf is there. But the head used to be there too, and in the photo it's been removed.
- nawgz 5y ago
  If it’s not clear to you, the original claim probably sets critical context. The first thread was spawned by the photographer claiming there were no leaves in the foreground, and that the post processing software had picked some random background content and used that in place of a human face. Clearly, what you say is in some sense true; digital zoom and post processing have left some artifacts. To me it sort of looks like there’s another leaf on the same branch as the first. But when you are digitally zooming a tiny iPhone camera to photograph someone 50-100ft away and there’s multiple depths captured, it seems hard to imagine how the photograph would be crystal clear in that circumstance, and even further it’s crystal clear the post processing only failed to add clarity, and it certainly did not introduce a nonexistent leaf / twig / branch connected realistically as some software bug.

by jasode 5y ago

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.
- nawgz 5y ago
  I don’t think you read what I wrote, so I’ll say it again: claiming some image processing AI introduced an entire branch, twig, leaf construct in place of a face is comical, especially when the image so clearly depicts that. I’m much more likely to interpret this thing as anti-capitalist sentiment being expressed in a ridiculous fashion than an actual good faith argument there could be a bug so rare but so profound that people’s faces are mistaken for the background and the AI’s post hoc justification is that there is a branch and leaf there so it’ll output that. It doesn’t even make sense what is being claimed here, your links don’t really change that Edit: I see a leaf in the foreground, and the situation was a highly (digitally) zoomed picture with a tree in the foreground. This has nothing to do with color perception like you imply; the fact that a bunch of people - whose perception was previously influenced to believe in AI error - don’t think it shows the exact literal situation it correctly shows hardly makes it a relevant discussion Edit 2: what I see might not be relevant, but the camera software showed the situation correctly, and you’re still arguing because the digital zoom produced artifacts that the entire branch / twig / leaf that was literally there might NOT have literally been there and could have been added by some magic unexplained AI replacement. It doesn’t even make sense. There is no room for human perception here. If the software was rendering leaves instead of faces, it wouldn’t be a single guy finding that scenario, and especially not when the argument the leaves didn’t exist in the first place was based on compressed video. Comical stuff. This is literally conspiracy theory argumentation from you
  - jasode 5y ago
    >_I_ see a leaf in the foreground, You keep repeating "I". Again, the emphasis on "I" in your sentence is not relevant to the commenter right above you perceiving something else: "The blurry plus the tiny twigs connected to those leaves still make my brain think it's some GAN artifacts." The blue/white dress example was not to apply color to the iPhone example but a cultural reference to this perception debate: https://www.google.com/search?q=was+dress+blue+or+white https://www.google.com/search?q=was+dress+blue+or+white Or put another way, consider : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind EDIT reply to: >This is honestly blowing my mind that you think theory of mind applies Let me try to put it this way... nawgz sees a clear and realistic leaf in the foreground. Case closed. Therefore, nawgz would not even submit a Twitter post or a new thread to HN wonder why the head is missing. And yet, such a thread exists with (some) commenters wondering if the software had a glitch: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29739235 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29739235 Stepping outside of yourself and considering Theory Of Mind might help explain to you why such a thread exists with comments even though you yourself see no issue with the photo. EDIT2: >There is no room for human perception here. There is room for human perception because the person who took the original iPhone photo and posted it on Twitter is a senior iOS programmer with a degree in computer science and yet he overlooked the possibility of a real leaf. If we take his story at face value, his particular mind and perception initially chose to believe that iOS photo software replaced the head with a leaf rather than consider a scenario that a tree branch in front of his own house occluded the walker's head. Only when another programmer on Twitter theorized that a real leaf is in the foreground, he then went back outside again to notice that there's a low hanging branch on his tree. (That's his later video showing parallax demonstration.) The original photographer did not believe the pixels in his own photo. That's a human perception issue. That faulty perception led to software theories from some programmers in that Twitter thread including this comment: >When you open iPhone camera, it keeps recording. When you take a shot, it takes some frames from before and after you pressed the shutter and then merges those to create a detailed photo. One of this frame had this leaf on her head. -- from https://twitter.com/masnun/status/1476457354128281600?s=20 https://twitter.com/masnun/status/1476457354128281600?s=20

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> but what threw people off was the blurry and dark halo surrounding that leaf which looks like manipulation artifacts. That halo is pretty clearly what's left of the subject's head after the phone has tried to get rid of it. It's difficult for me to understand how this wouldn't qualify as "replacing someone's head with a leaf". Sure, the leaf is there. But the head used to be there too, and in the photo it's been removed.

nawgz 5y ago
If it’s not clear to you, the original claim probably sets critical context. The first thread was spawned by the photographer claiming there were no leaves in the foreground, and that the post processing software had picked some random background content and used that in place of a human face. Clearly, what you say is in some sense true; digital zoom and post processing have left some artifacts. To me it sort of looks like there’s another leaf on the same branch as the first. But when you are digitally zooming a tiny iPhone camera to photograph someone 50-100ft away and there’s multiple depths captured, it seems hard to imagine how the photograph would be crystal clear in that circumstance, and even further it’s crystal clear the post processing only failed to add clarity, and it certainly did not introduce a nonexistent leaf / twig / branch connected realistically as some software bug.