undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdotancohen2mo ago0 comments

  > So these are more artistic photo works than real science photos...

I disagree. If there are many flies around a statue, and I photograph the statue but remove the flies in the photo (via AI or any other technique), then I'm still producing an image of something that exists in the world - exactly as it appears in the world.

I agree that the claim "no generative AI used" is technically incorrect, but I do feel that the image does not contain any AI-hallucinated content and therefore is an accurate representation of reality. These structures appear in the image exactly as they exist in nature.

0 comments

robotfelix2mo ago

AI-related definitions aside, if it's a strictly subtractive/destructive tool that only removes light, it's hard to characterise as "generative" and arguably not much different to filtering frequencies!

teraflop2mo ago

It's not just "removing light", because if you removed all the light from stars, you would be left with black spots instead of white spots. The stars are bright enough to completely saturate a region of the image sensor. So there was actually no data recorded about what was in that particular part of the nebula or whatever.

The "generative" part is that the algorithm is filling in a plausible guess as to what would have been observed if there was no star "in the way".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

robotfelix2mo ago

teraflop2mo ago

The "generative" part is that the algorithm is filling in a plausible guess as to what would have been observed if there was no star "in the way".

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse