4 ms·

I don't like the term 'fake images' - they absolutely are images? They're not photographs, sure: the images are fake photos. Otherwise any kind of digital art,

by OJFord 4y ago

I don't like the term 'fake images' - they absolutely are images? They're not photographs, sure: the images are fake photos. Otherwise any kind of digital art, font, or iconography is a 'fake image'. Or why draw the line at digital, surely pictures too - the Mona Lisa is 'fake' because it was merely created to look like a person.

bdg 4y ago
> the Mona Lisa is 'fake' because it was merely created Just wait until you find out about "La Trahison des Images".
HPsquared 4y ago
They are fakes, and they are images.
- OJFord 4y ago
  Sure. A fake Picasso isn't a Picasso though.
  - kibibu 4y ago
    A fake painting is still a painting
    - OJFord 4y ago
      No, I'd have the same objection to that if I'd ever heard it. 'Fake masterpiece' or 'forged master painting' make sense, but I can't find use of or see sense in 'fake painting' for the same reason as 'fake image'.
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    There's an old story about that. An art dealer approached Picasso to authenticate some drawings. "All fake!", says Picasso. A friend who watched this was skeptical -- the drawings looked real to him. So, on the sly, he gave the dealer one of his own Picasso drawings and had him come back. "Fake!", says Picasso. "But Pablo... I saw you draw that. You gave it to me with your own hands." "Bah. Anyone can do a fake Picasso. I often do them myself."
mcv 4y ago
Ceci n'est pas un image.
mcphage 4y ago
> I don't like the term 'fake images' - they absolutely are images? They're an image, but they are not what they claim to be an image of.
- OJFord 4y ago
  Yes they are? The only thing that's fake is the idea that they're a photo of a real person.
  - mcphage 4y ago
    Right, that’s why they’re fake.
    - OJFord 4y ago
      Agreed, fake photos. They're real images.
      - mcphage 4y ago
        They are actual images. They are images, that are fake.
adrianmonk 4y ago
Adjectives just don't work in a rigid fashion like that. There isn't a mechanistic process by which you take an adjective and noun combination and apply the one and only rule for deriving the meaning of that combination. Life might be simpler if there were, but it doesn't exist. Formal languages work that way, but natural languages don't. Instead, you take the two words you want to put together to mean whatever you want it to mean, and if the meaning is useful and people could figure it out, you're allowed to use it. So, a fake X can be something that isn't really an X. Or it can be something that is really an X but fakeness is involved in some other way. For example, if you meet someone in a bar and ask for their number, and then when you later call them, some totally different person answers, you've been given a fake phone number. The number itself isn't fake. It's a valid number that works fine for placing phone calls. The fakeness is in who the number belongs to. A fake person isn't a being who isn't really a person. It's a person who exhibits fake behavior. A fake voice isn't a sound that wasn't produced by a human vocal tract. It's a voice that is produced by a human vocal tract but it isn't their normal voice. The fakeness is that it intentionally sounds different from their normal voice.
- OJFord 4y ago
  > and if the meaning is useful and people could figure it out, you're allowed to use it. Right, it just doesn't convey that meaning to me, it jarrs. Of course I understand the intent, I just mean that it's not immediately clear, not without making me think 'that's not quite right'. To be clear, I don't take issue with 'fake', it's its attachment to 'image' that bothers me. 'fake photo' or 'photorealistic CGI' seems fine, more reflective even of the concern people have - few people have a problem with computers generating images at all, it's when the authenticity of the source or subject is doubted or potentially falsified that's controversial.

by OJFord 4y ago

bdg 4y ago

> the Mona Lisa is 'fake' because it was merely created Just wait until you find out about "La Trahison des Images".

HPsquared 4y ago

They are fakes, and they are images.

OJFord 4y ago
Sure. A fake Picasso isn't a Picasso though.
- kibibu 4y ago
  A fake painting is still a painting
  - OJFord 4y ago
    No, I'd have the same objection to that if I'd ever heard it. 'Fake masterpiece' or 'forged master painting' make sense, but I can't find use of or see sense in 'fake painting' for the same reason as 'fake image'.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  There's an old story about that. An art dealer approached Picasso to authenticate some drawings. "All fake!", says Picasso. A friend who watched this was skeptical -- the drawings looked real to him. So, on the sly, he gave the dealer one of his own Picasso drawings and had him come back. "Fake!", says Picasso. "But Pablo... I saw you draw that. You gave it to me with your own hands." "Bah. Anyone can do a fake Picasso. I often do them myself."

mcv 4y ago

Ceci n'est pas un image.

mcphage 4y ago

> I don't like the term 'fake images' - they absolutely are images? They're an image, but they are not what they claim to be an image of.

OJFord 4y ago
Yes they are? The only thing that's fake is the idea that they're a photo of a real person.
- mcphage 4y ago
  Right, that’s why they’re fake.
  - OJFord 4y ago
    Agreed, fake photos. They're real images.
    - mcphage 4y ago
      They are actual images. They are images, that are fake.

adrianmonk 4y ago

Adjectives just don't work in a rigid fashion like that. There isn't a mechanistic process by which you take an adjective and noun combination and apply the one and only rule for deriving the meaning of that combination. Life might be simpler if there were, but it doesn't exist. Formal languages work that way, but natural languages don't. Instead, you take the two words you want to put together to mean whatever you want it to mean, and if the meaning is useful and people could figure it out, you're allowed to use it. So, a fake X can be something that isn't really an X. Or it can be something that is really an X but fakeness is involved in some other way. For example, if you meet someone in a bar and ask for their number, and then when you later call them, some totally different person answers, you've been given a fake phone number. The number itself isn't fake. It's a valid number that works fine for placing phone calls. The fakeness is in who the number belongs to. A fake person isn't a being who isn't really a person. It's a person who exhibits fake behavior. A fake voice isn't a sound that wasn't produced by a human vocal tract. It's a voice that is produced by a human vocal tract but it isn't their normal voice. The fakeness is that it intentionally sounds different from their normal voice.

OJFord 4y ago
> and if the meaning is useful and people could figure it out, you're allowed to use it. Right, it just doesn't convey that meaning to me, it jarrs. Of course I understand the intent, I just mean that it's not immediately clear, not without making me think 'that's not quite right'. To be clear, I don't take issue with 'fake', it's its attachment to 'image' that bothers me. 'fake photo' or 'photorealistic CGI' seems fine, more reflective even of the concern people have - few people have a problem with computers generating images at all, it's when the authenticity of the source or subject is doubted or potentially falsified that's controversial.