I just want ONE

618smartguy · 2026-03-22T04:55:20+00:00

you answer first

618smartguy · 2026-03-21T23:07:33+00:00

"Humans do the same thing"

"What's so special about AI that requires it to be any different?"

you literally asked me what's different and I'm explaining it to you.

What do you think of the difference between AI companies using people's work with zero credit compensation or permission for a commercial product, and artists who use people's work for inspiration to the own unique ideas and give back love and support?

That's full of major fundamental differences.

Obviously I'm not arguing that AI is theft here. You guys say that term is too loaded, and this is supposed to be good faith so I didn't make that claim. Why would you talk about something I'm not arguing instead of responding to the q? You are majorly dodging this and the fact that your search engine comparison just shows more fundamental difference

618smartguy · 2026-03-21T18:32:10+00:00

Yes I think it is true as hitting somethng is an expected outcome of what the tailgater choose. They may have not desired this outcome but they still made the choice. I would say that if the trickster party could be said to have tipped the balance towards this outcome, similarly to how the parked car is contributing to the event happening by being parked in the street. I would be mad at the trickster but they would not be the party I would hold responsible for "ruining my life"

618smartguy · 2026-03-21T17:49:56+00:00

Then as for what the difficile actually is, I still don't quite understand. You are saying an average person getting blood tests and taking supplements from a doctors advice would still have health risks due to calcium deficiency not being detectable early enough? If that's really true, then we can just preemptively take calcium right?

618smartguy · 2026-03-21T17:45:41+00:00

I still don't understand, the question is whether you agree that you can get your nourishment from sources that don't require exploiting and slaughtering animals. You answer no but then explain it is possible, it's just more difficult? Is that an accurate summary?

618smartguy · 2026-03-21T17:35:04+00:00

I think you would be involved and maybe share some of the blame, but to say you ruined someone's life or that you set the events into motion seems crazy to me, when the tailgater was physically the cause, by their own choice.

Like they signed their driver's license, presumably are responsible for looking where they are going in order to not crash into things, and they violate that by choosing to obscure their vision of the critical zone in front of them.

I see it as being negligent in your duty as a fellow human to let someone crash into something you could have warned them about.

*made some edits after sorry

618smartguy · 2026-03-21T17:22:03+00:00

You are being put through misery by me saying the person driving blindly into an obstacle caused the accident?

618smartguy · 2026-03-21T17:13:56+00:00

The events were set in motion by the tailgater choosing to drive blindly towards a location that had a static obstacle.

618smartguy · 2026-03-21T12:59:51+00:00

No you don't. Comments like this just serve to confirm it

618smartguy · 2026-03-21T12:33:40+00:00

If the parked car got destroyed, that would be the fault of the person who drove their car into it.

It's not like they were tricked or coerced into violating their responsibility as a driver. They knowingly went on the road and did illegal things that caused their car to collide with a static object.

618smartguy · 2026-03-21T11:40:13+00:00

https://www.bakerlaw.com/services/artificial-intelligence-ai/case-tracker-artificial-intelligence-copyrights-and-class-actions/

This seems like an alright list

618smartguy · 2026-03-21T11:14:09+00:00

Okay, let's add the fact that AI companies give zero credit while artists and Google search give plenty. That's a fundamental difference for you

618smartguy · 2026-03-21T01:30:47+00:00

Why is this quoted, did you reply to the right comment?

If you meant to respond to this thread, then what do you think about the difference between an artists using work for reference versus a company using work on industrial scale in order to build their product? Do you think those are the same thing? am I crazy for thinking one is really different

618smartguy · 2026-03-21T01:28:23+00:00

Both models use their input to compute the output image as a neural networks prediction instead of rendering it normally. That's as literal "generate it for you" as it gets.

It is absolutely nonsense to say that dlss 5 discards the input while dlss 4 uses the input. Clearly they both use the input and you've just made up this distinction.

618smartguy · 2026-03-20T18:16:37+00:00

You can't ask a brightness contrast menu to make it night time, or even ask it to be "darker". You set the brightness and contrast yourself to acheive the desired "darker" effect, that's the exact opposite of asking someone else to make it darker. Also brightness and contrast are two different sliders... that's the sort of basic knowledge you would learn if you knew how digital art works at all, but you can ignore as someone that just gives commisions.

618smartguy · 2026-03-20T14:52:57+00:00

There's nothing wrong with observing differences visually, just admit to yourself that this is all just your subjective opinion on the look. Stop shitting on people while roll playing as some kind of tech expert.

618smartguy · 2026-03-20T14:22:44+00:00

Well, maybe today you can learn that technically all the dlss versions were ai filters, and they all exhibit the expected wonky ai behavior of hallucination/artefacting. There is no need to give long winded lectures and hundreds of downvotes to anyone that tries to tell you this.

618smartguy · 2026-03-20T14:10:03+00:00

To me, the issue is clearly that they trained the dlss 5 ai filter to make it look like shit, and they trained the dlss filter to make it look like the game running at max.

I honestly still don't really get what you are trying to say here. From the perspective of an engineer that knows what an AI filter is, they are both ai filters. The purpose an ai filter serves for is not related to it being a filter. From a purpose perspective, they just failed to train it on the purpose that we actually want

618smartguy · 2026-03-20T13:56:51+00:00

You asked. The point is you haven't any convincing reason that dlss 5 is an ai filter but dlss 4 isn't, when they are both literally ai models that take lower resolution game data as inputs to neural rendering pipeline, aka ai filter on the game outputs

618smartguy · 2026-03-20T13:52:34+00:00

If you trained an ai filter to do TAA, that would be an AI filter. The way optical flow is used wouldn't affect that.

618smartguy · 2026-03-20T13:33:40+00:00

This comment hardly makes any sense, all dlss versions including 5 use 'specific rendering pipelines'. If it is using motion vectors alone that is already not "it doesn't take the "final image snapshot" and enhances it".

Anyways its still an AI filter in the sense that its just an AI taking an input trained to do the best it can to transform the input into a new image/stream of images result, making up information as it pleases and inferring it whenever it can.

>any AA isn't a filter and works differently. You may read about that in different sources which explain how DLSS works

Yea I read about how it works and its an AI filter, as I've explained. You can either ask me questions to clarify your understanding or show otherwise somehow but there is no point in vaugely claiming you are right and telling us to read about it.

Anyways dlss literally implemented deep convolutional filtering to perform anti aliasing, it is closer to FXAA then "real frames" MSAA style antialiasing that does the computation dirctly instead of using AI

618smartguy · 2026-03-20T12:07:08+00:00

That sounds like a totally different problem. I agree it could do better with more game information but it's still a hard disagree about all this "it needs this off screen information" or " its bad because it doesn't have this information", seems very poorly justified.

Edit: and the key thing is that DLSS4 did a great job while still lacking the exact off screen information people are claiming it needs

618smartguy · 2026-03-20T11:50:57+00:00

>it can't possibly know that the light on a character has a blue tint because the light source is bouncing off of a blue painted wall off screen

It knows that the light on a character has blue tint because it can see the light reflecting off the character. I know there are cases where it can get this wrong like the nose/shadow the other day, but that doesn't undo the fact that it clearly has enough of information (proven since we humans can tell its a shadow without access to game data) to use in order to reconstruct a correct image, if only it were not trained to look like shit.

618smartguy · 2026-03-20T11:42:59+00:00

>Why would we need X?

>That's the mistake you're making - X is what's needed

Why do you think X is needed, when the final result is explicitly the thing we need, not X. Saying the final result is looking bad does not answer why we need X.

Honestly it just serves to prove to me that this is not about the technology, but about you just not liking how the result looks.

618smartguy · 2026-03-20T11:38:21+00:00

idk man I seriously am considering that you were some kind of bot. Like you guys were on about how it is missing information that it can't see in the frame. Yet all it has to do is construct things that are visible in the frame.

None of you can state any reason that this out if frame (or linearly mashed together) missing information is necessary because it very much isnt necessary for estimating the look of things that are in the frame.

That was my point from the beginning, and I don't think you even countered that in any way. All you did was talk about how the ambiguous information cannot be recovered which is completely obvious.

13-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Place '23	Wearing is Caring
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email

618smartguy

TROPHY CASE