• punkfungus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 day ago

        I hate how tech companies are now applying their fetish for a constructed unreality as “features” in photos we take ourselves.

        The citizen science website iNaturalist has to remind people to turn off features like this, because it will clobber the details that identify a species to make things look more photogenic.

        • tiramichu@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          14 hours ago

          The sad part is, there are people who want it.

          Plenty of people out there for whom the purpose of a photo isn’t to document objective reality; it’s to portray a postcard-perfect version of reality they can put on social media for clout.

          If you have that mindset, then any filters or AI that make your pretend reality more sparkly than it is are all welcome.

        • limelight79@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 day ago

          I would, too, but I have to admit it’s pretty impressive what a phone can do these days. That kind of processing power just hanging out in our pockets. It would have taken my first PC years to do that.

          • morto@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 day ago

            By the description, It doesn’t looks like something that requires that much processing power. Probably less than transcribing some audio, but I get what you mean, it’s impressive

            • limelight79@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              Well I also think there’s something to be said for the sheer uselessness of it - not only CAN it do it, it’s not a major drain on battery life or anything.

              Also, my first computer was an IBM PCjr, so my comment stands - transcribing audio would have taken that blazing 4.77 MHz processor a large amount of time. 128 KB of RAM, baby - we had the upgrade sidecar. 360KB floppy disk! 16 color CGA graphics, but since few games were programmed with that in mind, it was really four color!

              • morto@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                Well I also think there’s something to be said for the sheer uselessness of it

                Indeed. We have all this impressive technology, but what do we use it for? To create fake photos?