It’s been nice so far, thanks for the examples and the conversation. I don’t think there’s much more to add. Even though you want to keep discussing it, I feel like I’d be repeating myself just to reach an impasse. Have a good day!

That’s ok, I can paste what you were trying to compare here:

I’m not seeing the relevance of your new video. This filter manipulates brightness and material at a pixel level, which my video shows at several. At the level of focus you are trying to show, there are still material differences being applied, like how light bounces of off the skin, eye, and lips, and the filter is working over detail that I already warned you the only frames that could be compared against each other are lacking.

My video already shows it applying well enough, but if try to zoom up to the pixels in an image that does not have the quality to show what it’s parting from and ignore what’s happening on the quality that can be made it, it certainly can be argued into a different story.

I think my example already does a decent job at showing that this isn’t just the typical image generation AI, so I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree from here on out, as I don’t think either can make the example to each other any more clearer. Regardless, if you are as interested as I am on this, it will be something true experts go over and point out when it gets released.

Yep, got it to work (hardest part was the cropping): https://streamable.com/j0ryqe

Your images are coming from different frames. If you go to the YouTube link, you can see where they were copied from and how the idle animation distorts them. Unfortunately, they’ve only included the intro clip to the video as a side by side of the same frame. Here is your example, zoomed out - it was never going to match: https://imgur.com/a/vRu1Xxa

You are working with different frames, and you are also flickering between them as opposed to using the opacity slider, which makes it difficult to see how the brightness and material effects are being altered between the two. All you need to do is gradually shift the opacity layer from the top layer once you’ve aligned them. You are actually working with the source images while I just down and dirty snipped it, gonna try getting the source image of the side by side comparison from the same frame and see if the higher definition makes a difference. I would make it a streamable, but I have no experience doing it.

Yeah, just tried it out. The ones actually from the same frame are pretty low res in comparison, but the high res ones you are choosing are from different frames, so even if you align them using the pupil as a reference, zooming out shows just how uneven they are due to minor shifts in position. Unfortunately, that means having to resort to the lower resolution alternative.

Not only have I done that, I overlayed one image on top of the other in GIMP to test it out with the opacity slider. Her eyes are not bigger, and the corners have not been moved up. The overlay is perfect, and transitions perfectly. I think that what you are referring to is the optical illusion of the eyes appearing to get “bigger” when they get brighter, but if you say, place it around a fixed reference, it is clear they remain the same size.

Regarding the football player, if you look at the entire scene, there’s a dark tone applied to everything, including the soccer ball. It seems to make dark scenes brighter and outdoor scenes darker. Having said that, I agree, the filter does exaggerate the skin color of the football player, but that’s what it alters, the lighting and material properties. There’s even a point where you can place the bar that the transition is seamless enough that it appears to be the same shot of the face. To test whether this was the case, I put it into GIMP, and using just the brightness slider tried to see whether I could make the colors match just from changing the brightness - and I could.

What I actually found more interesting is that in every other example, even the clothing folds remained the same - this is the only example where the folds in the clothing seem to change. Looking at the background, there’s also some evidence it’s not the same frame. I doubt it’s from a material change, it’s just that they are really one frame apart.

Without using GIMP, you can also take the football player, anyone of them, and zoom close up. Make a note of every features in their face, because it is preserved, if exaggerated.

I didn’t read this.

Seems on par.

I stand corrected, I would not have referred to the process being described as generative AI, and neither did the sources I watched. Thank you for the clarification. I wasn’t acting in bad faith, which unfortunately means I will have to take greater care, as something that I did not intend to seems to be happening, and it is under a rather broad definition. I’ll lay off of the topic, and thank you for the rather direct rebuttal, I would like to think I would have accepted it had it been offered elsewhere in the thread.

Feel free to bring up any other concerns, specially in case your warning extends beyond any other behavior beyond the current topic.

Is that so? Thank you for your constructive criticism. No I was not interested in a discussion, but I was under the impression that neither were you. My support for AI slop is conditional and rather minimal, but I do not believe the concept applies here. Thank you for your laughter, it brings joy into the thread.

I’ve actually just been corrected, this was referred to employ some form of generative AI by Jensen. It’s also significantly different enough to what I generally thought of as AI slop and my issues with it that your suspicion has turned out to be right, I do support some form of generative AI now.

Is relying on the NVIDIA release and developer blogs as the primary source the misinformation? Because that’s what I’m relying on my basis. If not, could you clear it up, what is the misinformation I’m spreading?

Is the misinformation present here? - https://lemmy.ca/post/61897561/22253720

Or here? - https://lemmy.ca/post/61900649/22251320

I just want to make sure what you consider misinformation, because it might be something I consider fact, and it might just be a controversial opinion under the circumstances. If it is something I consider fact, I’m not going to argue it, but you are going to have to tell me what it actually is so that I censor myself.

In regards to my attitude, I’ll be nicer and just suffer the downvotes for relying on primary sources, it’s partly my fault since I already suspected that the conversation would not be fruitful, given the downvotes and initial premise.

Is it a limited to this particular community, or to the account?

Far from the first circlejerk slop, tho. I’m sure like in all circlejerks, the people going all into their presumptions will surely admit they were wrong when proven so, surely.

If NVIDIA was lying and this was all marketing, they would have definitely done more to hide the clearly obvious flaws of DLSS 5. It’s a shame that we can’t have a decent discussion about them because the circlejerk slop is just slopping the argument down into an hallucination.

I’ve actually just been corrected, this was referred to employ some form of generative AI by Jensen. It’s also significantly different enough to what I generally thought of as AI slop and my issues with it that it could also be said that I am a supporter of generative AI now.

Confirmation bias and closed mindedness it is.

https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/nvidia-dlss-4-5-delivers-super-resolution-upgrades-and-new-dynamic-multi-frame-generation/

(DLSS 4.5)

DLSS 4 introduced a transformer model architecture with NVIDIA GeForce RTX 50 Series GPUs. That enabled a leap in image quality over our previous convolutional neural network. The second-gen transformer model for DLSS 4.5 Super Resolution uses 5x more compute and is trained on an expanded data set, so it has greater context awareness of every scene and more intelligent use of pixel sampling and motion vectors.

“It AlTeRs ThE fINaL iMaGe So It GeNeRaTeS iMaGe DaTa” at this point. I don’t think you are even bothering to check just how many things you could call image generation at that point.

you took Nvidia’s news post’s wording as gospel.

“ThE dEvElOpEr Is LyInG!”

NVIDIA might be many things, in marketing particularly so, but in this particular blog it is not. Then again, it’s like what I said:

Perhaps what you are actually referring to is the tendency for people to justify lying and throwing shade about a thing if they hate the thing associated with it enough.

Ergo, now nothing NVIDIA says can be trusted now. If you were going to be this reductive, not sure why you didn’t open with this. It’s a clear win from your perspective, but I don’t think there’s any hope of a shared reality between us. It’s all a lie by big corpo, after all.

It’s funny how you complain about me not providing more links, while calling the most direct ones lies. All I would have done is having to subject a creator to the same sort of shade you are trying to throw at me. After all, if the primary source of information is lying, those reporting it are just spreading lies.

Not gonna subject other people to downvotes and harassment from assholes, they get enough of that already. I’m afraid you’ll just have to disingenuously act as if you can’t perform searches yourself or that they exist.

I already was pretty certain nothing that I said could convince you, but it’s going to be so funny when in a few months this take becomes so obviously bad. I like to type and edit, sue me, although it’s also funny how quickly you also decided to participate in the endeavor. Call it a chance to disengage.

It’s just tragic how having the capacity to know better, some people fool themselves. This is not image generation, buddy, and that’s what AI slop typically refers to. The term AI has long preceded the term AI slop.

Sorry, gonna have a wonderful day.

I call it how I see it - close minded because of how set you are arguing against something that seems rather evident, an asshole because you downvote first and don’t provide explanations without an ordeal of an interaction that immediately begins with belittling me with false claims (there was plenty of backing up you skipped over with your downvotes across the threads), and compared to MAGA because they are just such an evident example of people stuck in their own bubble through extreme confirmation bias and closed mindedness. I could be more respectful, but were you?

I think at this point in time, we have to come up with a term for these sort of threads: circlejerk slop. Guys, stop making generative AI look good, as bad as it is I’d choose it any day of the week over these circlejerk hallucinations. Do not expect them to carry across time and place.

I’ve actually just been corrected, this was referred to employ some form of generative AI by Jensen, who presumably did not lie in this instance. It’s also significantly different enough to what I generally thought of as AI slop and my issues with it that it could also be said that I am a supporter of generative AI now. I am surprised by the application of the label, but it does prove me wrong.

I don’t think it’s possible to convince anyone with a closed mind, but sure.

This is doing the same thing as here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKCyk3CeUFY

It is not changing geometry or shapes.

It is changing lighting.

It is changing material properties.

There are no “image generating AI toolchain tech” involved. There is no image generation happening.

To quote the literal title of a previous post, “Nvidia’s DLSS 5 AI-infused tech transforms pixels with photorealistic lighting and materials” - but it does not transform geometry. I know this because rather than live in my assumptions, I dared look up more information about it instead of tucking in my presumptions at the end of my comment.

It does involve AI (just like previous DLSS has), and just like previous versions, looks at color and motion vectors. It’s outputs are lighting and material properties, “applying a mask”. It can be criticized, but for different reasons. It seems to create an uncanny valley effect worse than generative AI would in actual usage, precisely because it is not changing geometry or shapes, “image generating”.

It can be confirmed by looking at the examples. I urge you to do the same, but I don’t have a lot of hope. MAGA exists because of confirmation bias, and it does not have exclusivity on it. While wrong and being an asshole about it, thanks for at least making some effort of an explanation this time.

I’ve actually just been corrected, this was referred to employ some form of generative AI by Jensen. It’s also significantly different enough to what I generally thought of as AI slop and my issues with it that it could also be said that I am a supporter of generative AI now. I am surprised by the application of the label for the aforementioned reasons, but it does prove me wrong.

The point and substance of an argument are made with more precise and nuanced words, not by using less of them poorly. There is no point and substance to deliberately trying to portray this as generative AI, which a lot of the comments are trying to do.

For example, you’ve said nothing and have absolutely not made the point and substance of your problem with DLSS 5 clear, while I actually have. People would have to take wild guesses to try to get to “the point and substance” of your issue with it.

Perhaps what you are actually referring to is the tendency for people to justify lying and throwing shade about a thing if they hate the thing associated with it enough. That’s just throwing sloppy shade to me. Judging by the downvotes and the correlation that exists between this tendency and them, I suspect this might apply here instead.

I’ve actually just been corrected, this was referred to employ some form of generative AI by Jensen. It’s also significantly different enough to what I generally thought of as AI slop and my issues with it that it could also be said that I am a supporter of generative AI now. I am surprised by the application of the label, but it does prove me wrong.

There’s DLSS 5, from the janky animation shifts when you aren’t looking at a still photo of character’s faces to the amount of hardware you’d actually need to get these results and the cost of it in today’s market and whether photorealism is truly needed to enjoy a game, specially if it means giving money to the largest culprit of the AI bubble. But just jumping on the circlejerk of calling it AI slop is sort of its own slop.

I’ve actually just been informed this was referred to employ some form of generative AI by Jensen.

I think you think you are making an argument, but the hair is the best example. The strands haven’t been changed a bit, all the unique curls, all there. Generative AI would have changed that big time. You might be getting confused by some of the shots like the Starfield ones, that have been taken from different frames (look at the person in the background).

I’ve actually just been corrected, this was referred to employ some form of generative AI by Jensen. It’s also significantly different enough to what I generally thought of as AI slop and my issues with it that it could also be said that I am a supporter of generative AI now. I am surprised by the application of the label, but it does prove me wrong.

I think it’s a testament to DLSS 5 that people are calling it AI slop and can’t seem to recognize that the geometry/shape aren’t being modified, just lighting and material effects. Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKCyk3CeUFY

There is a lot of valid criticism of AI slop, there is even a lot of criticism about DLSS multi frame generation, but people who misuse the same term for everything just take away the meaning and credibility it and they had. For example, this technology wasn’t even trained on IP theft for a change!

If you thought I was referring to ease of use, that’s not what I was referring to. If you are treating it as just another Discord, then you probably don’t have to worry about what I was referring to.

I assume material as in https://dev.epicgames.com/documentation/en-us/unreal-engine/unreal-engine-material-properties , except at the pixel level.

Oh, right you are.

Then he shouldn’t be a moron and downvote the person he wants a response from. It is a stupid response, it is not my job to tell him or you my opinion, because it is that.

People will easily dismiss it if I provide any more details because they are just too smart for it, while people whom my comment made more cautious will be less likely to fall into a false sense of security. Be sure to have a beef with the dozens of people who also didn’t seem to need any clarification. I don’t need to get into the name-calling war zealots like you are eager for.

If you are sure, you are sure, why so mad? I can tell you it isn’t some deep hidden zero day exploit, if that makes you feel any less hostile. It won’t, because people like you read “misleading”, and literally thought “hah, probably wouldn’t be misleading to me!” and are just trying to farm a response you can object to - the “stupid response” all but confirms this intent.

I also don’t need to prove anything to anyone else. Just being aware there’s an issue will make them much more cautious, and that’s largely what’s needed.