• circuitfarmer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    I mean, you’re debating the meaning of “accurate representation”. We may as well debate the meaning of perception, too, but I don’t think it changes the point of my original argument.

    • Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I think it does, because photos have always been an inaccurate representation of what a person sees. You zoom in on my face in a picture and you see a bunch of pixels. That’s not what my face looks like, I’m not made of tiny boxes. If I AI upscale it, it looks a lot closer. My argument here is simply: the statement that an AI dependent image is inherently less representative of reality, is not necessarily true.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        The fact that it’s AI generated and not directly light-into-image makes it untrustworthy.

        Like actual film photos are a lot harder to fake and therefore are more trustworthy.

        In principle, that image AI software can be programmed to generate whatever it wants. It can even censor your own film footage.

        Like if a revolution happens in this country next year, you bet your ass the police and military will exact atrocities on the American people to stop it, and the corporations they’re in bed with can reprogram everyone’s phones to censor out the footage of it, so genocide cannot be proven.

        Watch and see it happen.