2 UFOs-UAPs Scotland Enhanced with AI....

[johncbdg]

2 UFOs-UAPs Scotland Enhanced with AI....

 

[moonman]

You realize anything "enhanced with AI" is a complete fabrication, right? It isn't "bringing out hidden details", it is creating them where they do not exist.

[johncbdg]

Here is another 2 objects one flying over other over water 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dGRoZz7LTw

[Dejarma]

wow, brilliant photos..

 

sorry, forgot to put ... i wouldn't want folk to think i actually meant it 

[parafish]

On 9/12/2023 at 8:16 PM, johncbdg said:

2 UFOs-UAPs Scotland Enhanced with AI....

 

Never tried AI enhancement, (l tend to use Photoshop with contrast, etc)

Where is Loccy?

[Piney]

39 minutes ago, parafish said:

Never tried AI enhancement, (l tend to use Photoshop with contrast, etc)

Where is Loccy?

 Photoshop with contrast is better in my book. I used it with every Pine Barrens Bigfoot pic brought to me. 

[parafish]

2 hours ago, Piney said:

 Photoshop with contrast is better in my book. I used it with every Pine Barrens Bigfoot pic brought to me. 

Agreed l am trying to remember what tool removes unnecessary colors in images so l can create a shortcut in the commands section?

 

Edited October 11 by parafish

[Piney]

13 minutes ago, parafish said:

Agreed l am trying to remember what tool removes unnecessary colors in images so l can create a shortcut in the commands section?

 

I haven't been a Bigfoot hunter or done any nature photography since about 2003 when my step-dad became sick and that was the last time I used Photoshop so I couldn't tell you.

[ChrLzs]

Just passing, don't post here much anymores..  but I couldn't resist to add a bit here..

AI is only as smart as the people programmed it to be.  In the fields of photography, digital imaging and photogrammetry, there are very few folks that actually know even the most basic of information.. and they're making the AI somehow get smarter than they are?  No.  As an example, while photoshop is a fun and powerful tool, almost ALL of its tools and functions add false data.  It is NOT routinely used by real forensic investigators.  Those RFI's also know dam well that most imaging on the interwebz is either compressed jpeg, or compressed movie files.  Why is that important?  Because compression leads to false artefacts, sharpening haloes, posterisation...  Playing with the sliders in Photoshop is almost always a waste of time, and usually completely non-scientific.  You are just as likely to be enhancing false edges than doing anything useful.  You might as well just draw on it with crayons.  BTW, which AI are you using, OP, and what assumptions are being used?  First principle of analysis is that others can see what you have done and why, and can replicate your results.

Parafish, perhaps the tool you want to look for is (de)saturation or monochrome - I forget where they are or the exact names.  Again be careful, as you may lose real/create false detail when desaturating, and many of the black and white modes have limited bit-depth - eeurgh.

PS - you'll note am I am pretty much ignoring the OP, in the same way as he ignores all advice on:

1. how to do real analysis/enhancement

2. what is wrong with his 'methodology' (term used extremely loosely..)

 

Anyway, back to the Lurkers Void..

Edited October 13 by ChrLzs
clarify

[+joc]

17 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Just passing, don't post here much anymores..  but I couldn't resist to add a bit here..

AI is only as smart as the people programmed it to be.  In the fields of photography, digital imaging and photogrammetry, there are very few folks that actually know even the most basic of information.. and they're making the AI somehow get smarter than they are?  No.  As an example, while photoshop is a fun and powerful tool, almost ALL of its tools and functions add false data.  It is NOT routinely used by real forensic investigators.  Those RFI's also know dam well that most imaging on the interwebz is either compressed jpeg, or compressed movie files.  Why is that important?  Because compression leads to false artefacts, sharpening haloes, posterisation...  Playing with the sliders in Photoshop is almost always a waste of time, and usually completely non-scientific.  You are just as likely to be enhancing false edges than doing anything useful.  You might as well just draw on it with crayons.  BTW, which AI are you using, OP, and what assumptions are being used?  First principle of analysis is that others can see what you have done and why, and can replicate your results.

Parafish, perhaps the tool you want to look for is (de)saturation or monochrome - I forget where they are or the exact names.  Again be careful, as you may lose real/create false detail when desaturating, and many of the black and white modes have limited bit-depth - eeurgh.

PS - you'll note am I am pretty much ignoring the OP, in the same way as he ignores all advice on:

1. how to do real analysis/enhancement

2. what is wrong with his 'methodology' (term used extremely loosely..)

 

Anyway, back to the Lurkers Void..

Hey Chuck!  Good to see ya!  You are correct (of course) In fact, one would do a lot better just filling in with crayons because the human mind does that all the time anyway...which is why memory is so fallible...the brain just fills in the missing pieces.  You made a great point as well about AI only being as 'smart' as it is programmed to be.  "OMG>>>Noooooo...AI is going to learn all by itself how to take over the world! We are all doomed" pffft...no it isn't.  

The problem with AI as I see it is, it can be programmed to be waaaaay smarter than most people.  That might not really be all that amazing in and of itself given the mass intellect.They can just ask Google or ChatGP3 or whatever, and it makes them 'feel' smart.  

I know it makes me feel smarter when I just look something up on google and learn a new thing or two.  But do you think AI will ever be able to program itself?  see that's kind of a ploy to pull you out of the lurker-regions

[ChrLzs]

On 10/14/2023 at 10:18 AM, joc said:

..The problem with AI as I see it is, it can be programmed to be waaaaay smarter than most people.  That might not really be all that amazing in and of itself given the mass intellect.They can just ask Google or ChatGP3 or whatever, and it makes them 'feel' smart. 

Social media is already destroying our planet, as any idiot with any crazy delusion can now easily find other idiots of the same bent... and there don't need to be many - once the delusional get their opinions re-inforced... well, just look at politics in the US for the result.

There are 2 things that could start to turn that around and save the planet, and I'll tell you what they are.  Sadly, I see no signs that either will be addressed.  The End is Nigh...

1. People (esp. kids at school) need to learn how to verify real information.  In the face of the scourge of social media, we need to learn how to think and analyze.. and also revisit why we have social constructs and laws and government and democracy.

2. There has never been any serious attempt to deal with the unfairness that results from technology and automation.  Over the ages, largely by replacing workers with machines, the rich have got sickeningly, obscenely richer, and the poor have been relegated to boredom and fighting over the scraps of gov benefits.  When combined with item 1, is it any wonder there are a lot of ill-informed angry people wanting to topple everything..?  There seems to be nothing they can do about the rich b*******, so they want to tear down the government and laws, as they are obviously weighted heavily to the rich.  Anarchy next?

On 10/14/2023 at 10:18 AM, joc said:

I know it makes me feel smarter when I just look something up on google and learn a new thing or two.  But do you think AI will ever be able to program itself?  see that's kind of a ploy to pull you out of the lurker-regions

Some of the AI's can already re-program themselves.. which isn't necessarily bad, but.. one of the scariest issues with it (there are many) is that we are *already* over dependent on tech.  As a trivial example modular systems often involve IC chips that the designer doesn't fully understand, and which may interact with other equally non-understood components in ways that are unexpected.  We've already had plane crashes caused by that.  On this thread alone - I'll bet the OP will NOT tell us about which AI system he used, nor how he verified that it was valid.  He is right to be afraid of doing so, and I will return to elaborate more fully if he does.  If it's a genuine AI forensic image analysis system, it will have (and should have) cost a fortune.  Frankly, I think the claim is false.

 

So your ploy kinda worked, but I've no desire to re-enter UM seriously.  The political forums were and likely still are a cesspool (refer item 1. above).

[+joc]

14 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Social media is already destroying our planet, as any idiot with any crazy delusion can now easily find other idiots of the same bent... and there don't need to be many - once the delusional get their opinions re-inforced... well, just look at politics in the US for the result.

So true.  Once someone confirms our own biases, our beliefs become strengthened by that confirmation.  Part of the reason Social Media et al is destroying our planet is because of all of the tracking algorithms on social media platforms.  When someone looks to confirm their bias on the internet, not only does the internet find the confirmation they seek for them, it then advertises to them their own biases and confirmations thereof, to them, personally.  Even now, a lot of people don't understand that google is specific to the person who searches.  Your keywords and my same keywords will probably yield different results.

21 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

1. People (esp. kids at school) need to learn how to verify real information.  In the face of the scourge of social media, we need to learn how to think and analyze.. and also revisit why we have social constructs and laws and government and democracy.

Yeah, I don't see that happening either.  

 

27 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

2. There has never been any serious attempt to deal with the unfairness that results from technology and automation.  Over the ages, largely by replacing workers with machines, the rich have got sickeningly, obscenely richer, and the poor have been relegated to boredom and fighting over the scraps of gov benefits.  When combined with item 1, is it any wonder there are a lot of ill-informed angry people wanting to topple everything..?  There seems to be nothing they can do about the rich b*******, so they want to tear down the government and laws, as they are obviously weighted heavily to the rich.  Anarchy next?

This kind of speaks to why we have social constructs and laws and government and democracy in the first place, and how losing sight of that has brought us to our current reality.  We are already seeing anarchy on the roads right now.  And as the break down/tear down of society continues, I only see that escalating.  Especially when bias are parroted and inflamed bias confirmation rhetoric is bellowed from political platforms.  

36 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Some of the AI's can already re-program themselves.. which isn't necessarily bad, but.. one of the scariest issues with it (there are many) is that we are *already* over dependent on tech.  As a trivial example modular systems often involve IC chips that the designer doesn't fully understand, and which may interact with other equally non-understood components in ways that are unexpected.  We've already had plane crashes caused by that.  On this thread alone - I'll bet the OP will NOT tell us about which AI system he used, nor how he verified that it was valid.  He is right to be afraid of doing so, and I will return to elaborate more fully if he does.  If it's a genuine AI forensic image analysis system, it will have (and should have) cost a fortune.  Frankly, I think the claim is false.

Thanks for the elaboration thus far.  I think this very subject is probably one of the least understood (and for good reason) we face, as you mentioned previously.  I have noticed that people more and more  are gravitating to the 15 second Short videos where their biases are instantly confirmed.  I think the really scary part about AI is how we as a society and a nation and a planet can be and are so manipulated and controlled by the social media meta data.   If you 'google' a question about any subject...almost instantly, when you click on Google, advertisements in the 'framework' of 'news' stories appear on the Google page.  If you click on one, then you begin to see them more and more.  So, for example, when I click on Google...the Google main page will show me News Stories of basically everything that I seemed to be interested in.  If you like a You Tube Short video, and you watch it twice...bam...it appears in your Google Main page.  I think in general, we aren't really seeing the big picture in all of that because not that many people even realize the problem and fewer understand the tech behind it.  

 

48 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

So your ploy kinda worked, but I've no desire to re-enter UM seriously.  The political forums were and likely still are a cesspool (refer item 1. above).

I understand.  The political forums will always be a cesspool...for reasons already mentioned, bias confirmations, etc.   Nonetheless, you do bring your intellect into any discussion you engage in.  Glad to know you are still out there on the outskirts of darkness, watching from the higher points...like Batman...

[ChrLzs]

.... 

 

 {{swoops down silently, salutes Joc, Piney, Xeno, Moonman and Dejarma ... and then disappears back Into The Darkness...}}

[+OverSword]

On 9/14/2023 at 7:24 AM, moonman said:

You realize anything "enhanced with AI" is a complete fabrication, right? It isn't "bringing out hidden details", it is creating them where they do not exist.

A good test would be to have AI enhance/create a grainy image of a known object and see how it does.

[+OverSword]

On 10/12/2023 at 11:06 PM, ChrLzs said:

Just passing, don't post here much anymores..  but I couldn't resist to add a bit here..

AI is only as smart as the people programmed it to be.  In the fields of photography, digital imaging and photogrammetry, there are very few folks that actually know even the most basic of information.. and they're making the AI somehow get smarter than they are?  No.  As an example, while photoshop is a fun and powerful tool, almost ALL of its tools and functions add false data.  It is NOT routinely used by real forensic investigators.  Those RFI's also know dam well that most imaging on the interwebz is either compressed jpeg, or compressed movie files.  Why is that important?  Because compression leads to false artefacts, sharpening haloes, posterisation...  Playing with the sliders in Photoshop is almost always a waste of time, and usually completely non-scientific.  You are just as likely to be enhancing false edges than doing anything useful.  You might as well just draw on it with crayons.  BTW, which AI are you using, OP, and what assumptions are being used?  First principle of analysis is that others can see what you have done and why, and can replicate your results.

And regardless I have used photoshop and successfully improved and brought out better detail in many pictures of known things like low res pictures I took with an old cell phone or scans of family photos from decades past.  

[ChrLzs]

On 10/24/2023 at 2:42 AM, OverSword said:

A good test would be to have AI enhance/create a grainy image of a known object and see how it does.

EXACTLY!  And then we can actually test it on a known subject and determine whether the 'enhancement' actually reveals *real* detail that was in the original scene.

Yes, PS is great for prettying up pictures, smoothing and sharpening.. but those are mathematically 'matrixed' pixels where the software guesses or exaggerates the actual detail - false 'detail'.  There is one PS tool that can be useful on some images, and that is the 'Levels' (or Gamma) Adjustment, which if gently adjusted may show details that are in hard to see, deep shadow areas.  Having said that, if it make a big difference .. that suggests your monitor or viewing device is either cheap and nasty, or poorly adjusted.

PS is generally not used in a proper scientific / forensic scenario, as 'adjusting the sliders' implies, and usually means that you are finding some 'enhancement' that merely confirms what you want to see.  That's OK for polishing up a picture of granny, but it's not OK for actual analysis.

Edited October 24 by ChrLzs