was claiming to be able to take superzoom photos of the moon, but were actually just replacing the very fuzzy moon with a clear image

https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/13/23637401/samsung-fake-moon-photos-ai-galaxy-s21-s23-ultra

is indeed samsung that did this.

Now you see, that’s the problem there… they were claiming to do X, but were actually doing Y.

Just as lets say if we did have AI person removal… but you said "actually lets you see what’s behind the person that would obviously be a problem, as obviously that’s actually impossible.

Likewise you hear space zoom… you have to point the camera at the moon… you assume that the camera is capturing the moon, and the image you are looking at is the moon in real time. Obviously not likely to happen but imagine for a second while you were looking at the moon through your camera, and say a meteor hit the moon leading to an enormous explosion and crater that would be visible through a telescope, or hell maybe something extreme enough that it’s at least partially visible even to the naked eye. The feature as described would let you see it enhanced in more detail than you could with the naked eye, while in reality it would replace the abnormalities and give you a picture of how the moon looks in it’s training data.

Several years ago? That was barely 2.5 years ago. And nobody really cared. It was just a story for one news cycle. And they didn’t about the moon replacement. They cared about the lie, claiming that it was still their actual picture. As long as the company is honest about lying people are fine with it. They’ll even believe it’s real. Rump taught us that.

I don’t like the sky replacement stuff and never use it, but I can imagine that it’s because a photo of the moon is a photo of the moon, while a photo with sky replacement is a photo of something else where the sky just happens to be in the background. Pretty substantial difference.

One is a touch-up. The other is just replacing my photo with a better photo.

Learned-helplessness: IF you keep battering a population from some principle, using incorporated-sociopaths, or bots,

THEN they’re going to yield from principle, because organisms AREN’T machines, & machines crush organisms, including minds.

Why is it that now no government really cares about mitigating the still-accelerating ClimatePunctuation??

Learned-helplessness.

Why is it that the popuation in Argentina didn’t vote-out Millei?

Learned-helplessness.

Why did sooo many younger voters not vote against Trump?

Learned-helplessness.

Why do privacy-raping apps now happen to be the norm?

Learned-helplessness.

this means that ANY abuse will win, given enough battering of the minds of the majority, if only it keeps hammering away to win.

It depends who you talk to. Most people around me know nothing about AI except that they use it and think it’s great. They haven’t heard about fake moons or hallucinations, or they never cared.

I remember several years back people were mad that a phone brand (can’t remember which one, I think it was Samsung?) was claiming to be able to take superzoom photos of the moon, but were actually just replacing the very fuzzy moon with a clear image. Nowadays, you have phone brands (all of them, not just the one) actively promoting adding people into image, removing people from images, hell, even changing the entire SKY, with little to no reaction from most people. What happened, why doesn’t anyone care anymore?

The difference was before, it didn’t make the fuzzy moon a clear moon when they took a photo. It was a misleading ad for a feature the phone didn’t actually have.

Now that feature is a reality. Sorta. Personally, I’d prefer the lenses just be good enough to take a clear photo of the moon instead of having it draw one. 🤷‍♂️

I don’t remember anyone being explicitly against the fake pictures of the moon. Photoshop has been around for decades.

I think people care but what to do? Its not like we are sitting on some way to change what they do.