If the synthetic images are not classified as forgeries, does that mean they're essentially generating model-specific fuzzed versions of the originals? So rather than just adding noise to the pixels, it's able to pentrate the noise deeper?
I posted this more than 6 hours ago, no matter what the timestamp says. This has happened to me before [0] and I still wish the time weren't rewritten.
Sorry for the confusion—I know it's weird but if we don't do it, then the threads fill up with other comments about timestamps, like "why is this old post ranking alongside all the new ones". The current system is imperfect but seems to be the available optimum.
I see. A tricky design constraint; if you _indicate_ it's from the second-chance pool it might not get a fair shake but if you don't it'll look old and unpopular and might not get a fair shake. Maybe for something like that an on-hover/tooltip on the timestamp might make sense, but I appreciate the difficulty and your chiming-in to let me know what's going on!
9 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 38.3 ms ] threadThat sounds generally useful with deep models.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29529099
Sorry for the confusion—I know it's weird but if we don't do it, then the threads fill up with other comments about timestamps, like "why is this old post ranking alongside all the new ones". The current system is imperfect but seems to be the available optimum.