3 ms·

It's just a clickbait article, like many others written on this topic. Samsung doesn't replace the image of the moon with some pre-saved picture they already ha

It's just a clickbait article, like many others written on this topic. Samsung doesn't replace the image of the moon with some pre-saved picture they already have. They take the actual real picture taken with your camera and then enhance it, whether with some AI algorithm or not - adding detail to make it look sharp. If you use a picture of a moon that's wrong(craters in the wrong place etc) then it will just sharpen that up, it won't replace it with a "correct" version of the moon. How is that different than selfie algorithms present on pretty much any phone that make you look great, smoothing out your face, removing blemishes etc.

ethbr0 4y ago
It's an important distinction as we move into a statically-usually-true AI future (vs the deterministically-true recent past). It doesn't matter until it does. Showing pretty pictures of the moon on Instagram? Doesn't matter. Planning a rover trip across the surface of the moon? Does matter. And while it may be absurd to expect anyone is planning the latter, the problem is that nowhere in the marketing or documentation of the future as-exists is there sufficient information to determine what use cases it should not be used for. Or, in other words, if Samsung were doing the exact same thing for cancer detection microscopy, they'd be killing people...
- gambiting 4y ago
  >>Or, in other words, if Samsung were doing the exact same thing for cancer detection microscopy, they'd be killing people... Now that's some major whataboutism if I've ever seen one. Of course, if they use this tech for cancer detection, I will happily join the protests. But they aren't. They take pictures you take with your camera and make them look sharp. If anything it's super cool the way they do it without resorting to pre-saved pictures of the moon. It's literally absurd to me that people are getting annoyed at this, even though literally all phones do image processing of one kind or another. >>the problem is that nowhere in the marketing or documentation of the future as-exists is there sufficient information to determine what use cases it should not be used for. Really? That's the problem people are having with it? That the mode exclusively demonstrated and marketed for taking pictures of the moon doesn't have sufficient information to establish what use cases it should not be used for? I find that extremely hard to believe - it sounds like a made up problem for clicks, exactly what Verge is doing(they are kind of famous for it).
itslennysfault 4y ago
Have you seen the original Reddit post? You're right (I assume) it is an ML thing and not "replacing" the image, but it takes a 170x170px intentionally blurry blob and turns it into a detailed moon photo. Very very little of that photo is the result of light captured via the camera sensor. This is the original posters side-by-side: https://imgur.com/ULVX933 https://imgur.com/ULVX933
- gambiting 4y ago
  Also I just wanted to add to this - MKBHD has just posted his video about this, and he wasn't able to reproduce what the reddit user did. Samsung did improve the photo of the blurry moon, but nowhere near as much as that guy on Reddit shows. That's not saying that he's lying of course - it's just that maybe we need to take it with a grain of salt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1afpDuTb-P0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1afpDuTb-P0
- gambiting 4y ago
  Yes I have seen it , and I disagree with this statement: " Very very little of that photo is the result of light captured via the camera sensor." The photo is entirely the result of the light captured by the sensor - after image processing, yes detail is added which physically couldn't have been captured by the camera - but like I said above, that's literally all mobile photography nowadays. I literally don't see the problem, if anything I'm extremely impressed by the result.
  - itslennysfault 4y ago
    I don't see a problem either, but the fact of the matter is that the moon in that picture is much closer to generated than captured.

ethbr0 4y ago

It's an important distinction as we move into a statically-usually-true AI future (vs the deterministically-true recent past). It doesn't matter until it does. Showing pretty pictures of the moon on Instagram? Doesn't matter. Planning a rover trip across the surface of the moon? Does matter. And while it may be absurd to expect anyone is planning the latter, the problem is that nowhere in the marketing or documentation of the future as-exists is there sufficient information to determine what use cases it should not be used for. Or, in other words, if Samsung were doing the exact same thing for cancer detection microscopy, they'd be killing people...

gambiting 4y ago
>>Or, in other words, if Samsung were doing the exact same thing for cancer detection microscopy, they'd be killing people... Now that's some major whataboutism if I've ever seen one. Of course, if they use this tech for cancer detection, I will happily join the protests. But they aren't. They take pictures you take with your camera and make them look sharp. If anything it's super cool the way they do it without resorting to pre-saved pictures of the moon. It's literally absurd to me that people are getting annoyed at this, even though literally all phones do image processing of one kind or another. >>the problem is that nowhere in the marketing or documentation of the future as-exists is there sufficient information to determine what use cases it should not be used for. Really? That's the problem people are having with it? That the mode exclusively demonstrated and marketed for taking pictures of the moon doesn't have sufficient information to establish what use cases it should not be used for? I find that extremely hard to believe - it sounds like a made up problem for clicks, exactly what Verge is doing(they are kind of famous for it).

itslennysfault 4y ago

Have you seen the original Reddit post? You're right (I assume) it is an ML thing and not "replacing" the image, but it takes a 170x170px intentionally blurry blob and turns it into a detailed moon photo. Very very little of that photo is the result of light captured via the camera sensor. This is the original posters side-by-side: https://imgur.com/ULVX933 https://imgur.com/ULVX933

gambiting 4y ago
Also I just wanted to add to this - MKBHD has just posted his video about this, and he wasn't able to reproduce what the reddit user did. Samsung did improve the photo of the blurry moon, but nowhere near as much as that guy on Reddit shows. That's not saying that he's lying of course - it's just that maybe we need to take it with a grain of salt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1afpDuTb-P0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1afpDuTb-P0
gambiting 4y ago
Yes I have seen it , and I disagree with this statement: " Very very little of that photo is the result of light captured via the camera sensor." The photo is entirely the result of the light captured by the sensor - after image processing, yes detail is added which physically couldn't have been captured by the camera - but like I said above, that's literally all mobile photography nowadays. I literally don't see the problem, if anything I'm extremely impressed by the result.
- itslennysfault 4y ago
  I don't see a problem either, but the fact of the matter is that the moon in that picture is much closer to generated than captured.