202
Upscaling especially ai assisted upscaling is a form of faking data that isn't there.
Although the underlying technology is similar, AI upscaling is not a valuable propaganda tool, so is not in any way shape or form the same as AI "fakes".
The intention with AI upscaling is to enhance existing detail and remove artefacts while increasing size and scale; not to create a completely new or false image that is different to the input source or changes its narrative. It's closer to this, than it is to deep fakes or propaganda.
You're not wrong. But that's done by inferring what should be there. So it's still going to appear to be faked, because in a very real sense it is faked. It's faked within a narrow band of expectations, but it is faked. A better way to send out photos like this is to include the original and the enhanced version in the publication. To remove doubt
True. Upscaling is likely to always trigger a positive with any AI analysis tool, unless it has been calibrated to detect upscaling; including probably some reference to, or pre-processing of, the original image.
So yes... Honestly, including a visible disclaimer, and providing a reference to the original, should be a requirement for ANY digital image adjustment, in ANY work of non-fiction; including adjustments made in photoshop, like making a model skinnier or removing stretch marks. You shouldn't be able to misrepresent reality to consumers without explicitly telling them it's a misrepresentation.
Technically true, but I don't think most people would consider upscaling as "faking" an image. However, given a poor quality source (and parameters), I'm sure some terrible "AI" upscalers could produce some kind of massively-modified abomination.
Edit: Taking a closer look, I think this image qualifies. Terribly done at every level, with extreme over-sharpening and hideous artifacts. SMFH.
You play with words to make seem as if upscaling takes Hamas dude from photo where he is pulling injured out of the crambled building and place him in private jet environment.
So even if upscaling "recalculate" most pixels it's based on what is already in picture and doesn't change the content or context of the pic. By that i mean information given to t he the viewer stay the same.
If we rely on computers and algorithms to maintain the intented interpretation of data we are setting ourselves up for confusion.
Showing the regular unenhanced data is key to credibility. Enhancing data, is just a fancy way of saying guessing what the data should look like, and there's a range of valid guesses. Which puts it right up there with artistic interpretation, courtroom sketches, which have their places. And they should be labeled as such, they shouldn't be called a photograph.
As much as i agree that link to the original is better and that verification is always required. There are these points that make this debate meaningless:
- This case was verified. We know where it came from how it looked like before.
- Verification is required regardless of apparent enchantment.
- AI can make picture avg Joe won't be able to tell apart from "real" picture, there's no point make it apparent like this.
Let me also point out that the idea of not relaying on computer for images processing is naive.
- Everyone would have to take pictures with classic mirror camera with film, make photos the old fashioned way in the lab and still photos could be doubted.
- Moment any photo gets digitalized all the analogue information in the pictures goes through computing algorithms.
- Scanned photos get distorted to fit binary representations and to compensate to scanner "flaws".
- Most of today's smartphone and cameras apply some sort of upscale, sharpening and other kind of filters to make their photos more attractive.
- Don't let me start on comprehension or up-scaling to be able to render web fast enough and without over thousands of people's bad connection.
Forbes really doesn’t want to report on Gaza.
The images went viral on Friday after they were published to X, formerly known as Twitter, by Hananya Naftali
This is the dude who deleted his tweet saying Israel bombed the hospital in Gaza because it was a Hamas headquarter. Pardon me if I do not really trust his word.
I honestly have no idea if he or the source is credible, but he did provide a source for the original photographs he used. There's a link to it in the Forbes article.
All media stopped being believable long time ago, even more now with AI. Being uninformed is somehow better now.
Let me guess, you're American?
You guessed wrong. You have 2 more tries.
Canada
I wish, but no. Think souther.
Alright well I only have one guess left, there are quite a few countries south of Canada lmao. Im gonna stay northern hemisphere and saaaaayyy Mexico?
Yes 😂. Although I dont live there anymore.
I've always wanted to visit!
4x was a bit too aggressive I guess
In 2007 there were no AI fakes worth mentioning . Enlargement or sharpening in amaterish way does NOT equal AI fake or faking content .
Also about every smart phone does upscaling and enchantment in some way by default . That would make most of the photos taken by smartphones fakes as well.
What are we even talking about?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
202 points (93.5% liked)
World News
38969 readers
1659 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS