6 ms·

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 fac

by 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
- nawgz 5y ago
  There is a massive difference between a perception debate about color - infamously tricky - vs whether or not a leaf existed. This is honestly blowing my mind that you think theory of mind applies to digital zoom not being able to resolve details at multiple distances flawlessly. The AI replacing a face with a leaf is also a comically circumvent construct to explain those artifacts Edit: I explained how theory of mind applies - a bunch of anti-capitalist or anti-Apple folks who think that magical AI is everywhere broke this photo spectacularly. I don’t really care why people think it’s something that it’s clearly not; people think covid vaccines are meant to shorten lifespans, or that climate change is a hoax, or that god exists. None of the justifications posted are even close to relevant or believable at a glance, let alone after seeing the reality of the thing
- nawgz 5y ago
  Yes, well said, it’s a human perception issue; even smart guys can do really dumb things, like accuse image processing software of adding a leaf, even though the leaf is shown to attach to a tree that is indeed right in front of this person’s house. What this isn’t is a software issue, or something that was reasonable to point to as one; after all, the software was exactly correct, and to an unbiased observer in an immediately obvious way.

by nawgz 5y ago

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

nawgz 5y ago
There is a massive difference between a perception debate about color - infamously tricky - vs whether or not a leaf existed. This is honestly blowing my mind that you think theory of mind applies to digital zoom not being able to resolve details at multiple distances flawlessly. The AI replacing a face with a leaf is also a comically circumvent construct to explain those artifacts Edit: I explained how theory of mind applies - a bunch of anti-capitalist or anti-Apple folks who think that magical AI is everywhere broke this photo spectacularly. I don’t really care why people think it’s something that it’s clearly not; people think covid vaccines are meant to shorten lifespans, or that climate change is a hoax, or that god exists. None of the justifications posted are even close to relevant or believable at a glance, let alone after seeing the reality of the thing
nawgz 5y ago
Yes, well said, it’s a human perception issue; even smart guys can do really dumb things, like accuse image processing software of adding a leaf, even though the leaf is shown to attach to a tree that is indeed right in front of this person’s house. What this isn’t is a software issue, or something that was reasonable to point to as one; after all, the software was exactly correct, and to an unbiased observer in an immediately obvious way.