Submitted 1 year ago by simple@lemm.ee to technology@lemmy.world
https://www.wired.com/story/google-pixel-8-artificial-intelligence-photos/
This is what happens when you think you have a story, but it turns out you don’t. Image editing apps exist and are getting easier to use, big whoop?
I for sure thought this was gonna be about “AI cameras”. Seems all phones nowadays have some kind of software to make the camera seem less shitty, but nope, it’s about people making a choice to edit their photos.
nice misleading title
Welcome to our new counterfeit reality.
Does the author use Internet Explorer 5.0?
none of your
This hand-wringing bullshit would feel much more weighty if a FOSS alternative with manual controls didn’t exist available for free on the same OS and the same device: f-droid.org/packages/net.sourceforge.opencamera/
Love OpenCamera, this is pretty much my camera app of choice.
If I need extra image processing (e.g. Night Sight) I use modded GCam with one of its many modes
This has been the situation for over a decade. The real news (likely within the next year) will be when we can no longer trust video.
This article is talking mostly about generative AI features like the ones in the new Pixel phone. There’s a big difference between filters and minor touchups and entirely changing the position of people and objects in a few taps.
Great so now the tools are getting in the hands of the people
The default setting for the default camera on my phone already “enhances” your appearance by making your eyes bigger and trying to squash your jaw line. I hate that I can’t even change it so that the filter is always off.
Such a shitty mobile site.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Of course they’re not real. They’re reproductions of reality. This has been true of images since cave paintings.
simple@lemm.ee 1 year ago
That’s not what the article is about and I’m impressed how many people in the comments completely missed the point.
tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Maybe if the article actually got to the point instead of rambled on and on about “thirst traps” and the like, it would be more obvious what it was actually (trying to be) about.
rediot@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That’s bc the article sucks.