5 ms·

Cool tech, but plastering "authentic" all over this kind of generated photography is really disingenuous and just rubs me the wrong way. I get that it's informe

by bhaney 3y ago

Cool tech, but plastering "authentic" all over this kind of generated photography is really disingenuous and just rubs me the wrong way. I get that it's informed by real details from other photos, but that's not what authentic means. If I buy an "authentic Rolex" and receive a Chinese Rolex clone that's built similarly based on observations of a real Rolex, I'm going to feel scammed and very upset. And I'm much more protective of my memories than I would be of a watch.

dang 3y ago
Ok, we've taken authenticity out of the title above.
cmdli 3y ago
I would argue that authentic is a relative term, and actually helped me understand the product more easily. IMO, it is “authentic” because, compared to other image fills, it tries to fill in the data using real data from other photos.
- tremon 3y ago
  How do they know the data from the other photos is real?
- endisneigh 3y ago
  IDK, when I think authentic, I think "genuine", and no image generation is genuine by definition. this is not a bad thing necessarily, but it's important to frame these things correctly. ultimately we oughta think about what we are referring to. if we are talking about a photograph taken by someone, the authenticity is ultimately coming from the combination of the photograph and camera used. so when you think of a genuine photo in this scenario you expect it to be fundamentally taken by the user by a particular camera to create a particular photograph. you can use devices to take a photo without pressing the button, such as a timer, but the photograph and camera are both fundamental to the authenticity of the image. if the camera is no longer entirely involved in the generation of the photograph I would say that it is no longer genuine. Reference driven as described in the article is more appropriate, but alas it is verbose. normally such pedantry bores me, but in this case it's pretty tantamount to what it is being presented in this case.
  - tremon 3y ago
    I think "composite" would be more accurate to describe this process. As in, "complete a picture using image composition".
- jameshart 3y ago
  We need a new word: authentish.
  - smcnally 3y ago
    Like “truthy.”
- sdfghswe 3y ago
  HN loves arguing about words.
  - debugnik 3y ago
    And recent HN posts love to twist them and reinterpret them just for promotion.
- marricks 3y ago
  It's "authentic" in the same way that when you see something labeled authentic it makes you more likely to question if it's actually what it says it is because authentic thing don't need such labels plastered on them. Regardless, I'm pretty sure "reconstructed" it the honest word to use.
- HaZeust 3y ago
  I'd call that "contextual" rather than authentic.
  - waynesonfire 3y ago
    let me give you an example. when i draw a mustache on a face in ms paint in brown, that's contextual but not authentic.
101008 3y ago
Yeah, I think the first example is bad. This shouldn't be used for the photos you took. What's the purpose of having a photo if it wasn't the real moment you captured? I could understand the usage in marketing or event photographies, but for memories with your loved ones (as the first example tries to show it) it just doesn't make sense to me. Two anecdotes: 1. A friend of mine met his favourite author (traveled from one continent to another for a signing event). When he shaked hands with the author, a friend took a photo. A lady (still hated by us!) step in the middle, and blocked the photo. Maybe an IA or a talented person could remove her, use a footage photo of the author and rebuild the photo... but why? What's the purpose of that? 2. A few months ago during the pandemic I scanned all the printed pictures of my grand parents with my phone. Aftre scanning like 200s, I checked one and I zoomed in: the stupid app applied some IA to make it better and it just was worse. I don't care if it looks better for the untrained eye: my grandparents didn't look like that. I now have stupid horrible verson of the scanned photos, where my grand parents appear with smooth skin and weird eyes.
- IanCal 3y ago
  I totally agree with 2. I'm less sure on 1. Imagine it's perfect - it would be an accurate representation of what was really there. The real photo is a snapshot of a very specific time that doesn't represent the broader context of what happened. A different angle, if a friend had painted the encounter instead, it wouldn't be exact but it would be a snapshot of a memory. I'm not hugely arguing in favour of it but I think there's different scales here, from cameras doing "merge pictures half a second apart so people have their eyes open" to "totally change their face".
- nuancebydefault 3y ago
  Is IA French for AI? (Like UE and many other abbreviations)? I could look it up but might as well ask the question.
  - nargek 3y ago
    Yes it is ! IA -> Intelligence Artificielle
  - 3y ago
drewcoo 3y ago
> plastering "authentic" all over this kind of generated photography is really disingenuous No more so than "virtual," which used to mean "true." Or "literal" which used to be the opposite of "figurative." It's just another word being used auto-autonymically. Definitio fugit.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  Virtual never meant real. Literally is often used in a sarcastic context. That sarcasm depends on the word meaning what it means.
neilv 3y ago
They really need to not use the term "authentic" to name this. They also need to be very, very careful when introducing capability to falsify photographic images convincingly. Using the term "authentic" for this (and how do they even know what's an authentic memory?) doesn't sound like being very, very careful. It sounds like being gratuitously reckless.
thomastjeffery 3y ago
This literally goes against the meaning of the word authenticity. Call it "realistic". Words matter.
- Timon3 3y ago
  "Realistic" is the wrong word, since that's what infill models are already doing, and the word is already used for that. You'd have to find something that differentiates between plausibly realistic and contextual realistic infill.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    > contextual realistic That works fine.
QuercusMax 3y ago
Seems like it's only a matter of degree, given that modern cell phone cameras take image bursts and combine them into a single output image. Filling in details in a scene from other photos taken at the same time doesn't really seem that different to me. And seeing that photography has never really been capturing real life exactly, is it really that big a deal? Look at Ansel Adams - he heavily edited his "real-life" photographs, and changed them over the years as he made subsequent prints. (Disclaimer: work for Google but have nothing to do with this project.)

by bhaney 3y ago

dang 3y ago

Ok, we've taken authenticity out of the title above.

cmdli 3y ago

I would argue that authentic is a relative term, and actually helped me understand the product more easily. IMO, it is “authentic” because, compared to other image fills, it tries to fill in the data using real data from other photos.

tremon 3y ago
How do they know the data from the other photos is real?
endisneigh 3y ago
IDK, when I think authentic, I think "genuine", and no image generation is genuine by definition. this is not a bad thing necessarily, but it's important to frame these things correctly. ultimately we oughta think about what we are referring to. if we are talking about a photograph taken by someone, the authenticity is ultimately coming from the combination of the photograph and camera used. so when you think of a genuine photo in this scenario you expect it to be fundamentally taken by the user by a particular camera to create a particular photograph. you can use devices to take a photo without pressing the button, such as a timer, but the photograph and camera are both fundamental to the authenticity of the image. if the camera is no longer entirely involved in the generation of the photograph I would say that it is no longer genuine. Reference driven as described in the article is more appropriate, but alas it is verbose. normally such pedantry bores me, but in this case it's pretty tantamount to what it is being presented in this case.
- tremon 3y ago
  I think "composite" would be more accurate to describe this process. As in, "complete a picture using image composition".
jameshart 3y ago
We need a new word: authentish.
- smcnally 3y ago
  Like “truthy.”
sdfghswe 3y ago
HN loves arguing about words.
- debugnik 3y ago
  And recent HN posts love to twist them and reinterpret them just for promotion.
marricks 3y ago
It's "authentic" in the same way that when you see something labeled authentic it makes you more likely to question if it's actually what it says it is because authentic thing don't need such labels plastered on them. Regardless, I'm pretty sure "reconstructed" it the honest word to use.
HaZeust 3y ago
I'd call that "contextual" rather than authentic.
- waynesonfire 3y ago
  let me give you an example. when i draw a mustache on a face in ms paint in brown, that's contextual but not authentic.

101008 3y ago

Yeah, I think the first example is bad. This shouldn't be used for the photos you took. What's the purpose of having a photo if it wasn't the real moment you captured? I could understand the usage in marketing or event photographies, but for memories with your loved ones (as the first example tries to show it) it just doesn't make sense to me. Two anecdotes: 1. A friend of mine met his favourite author (traveled from one continent to another for a signing event). When he shaked hands with the author, a friend took a photo. A lady (still hated by us!) step in the middle, and blocked the photo. Maybe an IA or a talented person could remove her, use a footage photo of the author and rebuild the photo... but why? What's the purpose of that? 2. A few months ago during the pandemic I scanned all the printed pictures of my grand parents with my phone. Aftre scanning like 200s, I checked one and I zoomed in: the stupid app applied some IA to make it better and it just was worse. I don't care if it looks better for the untrained eye: my grandparents didn't look like that. I now have stupid horrible verson of the scanned photos, where my grand parents appear with smooth skin and weird eyes.

IanCal 3y ago
I totally agree with 2. I'm less sure on 1. Imagine it's perfect - it would be an accurate representation of what was really there. The real photo is a snapshot of a very specific time that doesn't represent the broader context of what happened. A different angle, if a friend had painted the encounter instead, it wouldn't be exact but it would be a snapshot of a memory. I'm not hugely arguing in favour of it but I think there's different scales here, from cameras doing "merge pictures half a second apart so people have their eyes open" to "totally change their face".
nuancebydefault 3y ago
Is IA French for AI? (Like UE and many other abbreviations)? I could look it up but might as well ask the question.
- nargek 3y ago
  Yes it is ! IA -> Intelligence Artificielle
- 3y ago

drewcoo 3y ago

> plastering "authentic" all over this kind of generated photography is really disingenuous No more so than "virtual," which used to mean "true." Or "literal" which used to be the opposite of "figurative." It's just another word being used auto-autonymically. Definitio fugit.

thomastjeffery 3y ago
Virtual never meant real. Literally is often used in a sarcastic context. That sarcasm depends on the word meaning what it means.

neilv 3y ago

They really need to not use the term "authentic" to name this. They also need to be very, very careful when introducing capability to falsify photographic images convincingly. Using the term "authentic" for this (and how do they even know what's an authentic memory?) doesn't sound like being very, very careful. It sounds like being gratuitously reckless.

thomastjeffery 3y ago

This literally goes against the meaning of the word authenticity. Call it "realistic". Words matter.

Timon3 3y ago
"Realistic" is the wrong word, since that's what infill models are already doing, and the word is already used for that. You'd have to find something that differentiates between plausibly realistic and contextual realistic infill.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  > contextual realistic That works fine.

QuercusMax 3y ago

Seems like it's only a matter of degree, given that modern cell phone cameras take image bursts and combine them into a single output image. Filling in details in a scene from other photos taken at the same time doesn't really seem that different to me. And seeing that photography has never really been capturing real life exactly, is it really that big a deal? Look at Ansel Adams - he heavily edited his "real-life" photographs, and changed them over the years as he made subsequent prints. (Disclaimer: work for Google but have nothing to do with this project.)