[Brian_K_White]

It means what it already says for itself, and does not need correcting into incorrectness.

"no perceived loss" is a perfectly internally consistent and sensible concept and is actually orthogonal to whether it's actually lossless or lossy.

For instance an actually lossless block of data could be perceptually lossy if displayed the wrong way.

In fact, even actual lossless data is always actually lossy, and only ever "perceptually lossless", and there is no such thing as actually lossless, because anything digital is always only a lossy approximation of anything analog. There is loss both at the ADC and at the DAC stage.

If you want to criticize a term for being nonsense misleading dishonest bullshit, then I guess "lossless" is that term, since it never existed and never can exist.

[unshavedyak]

Similar to your points, i also expect `perceptually lossless` to be a valid term in the future with respect to AI. Ie i can imagine a compression which destroys detail, but on the opposite end it uses "AI" to reconstruct detail. Of course though, the AI is hallucinating the detail, so objectively it is lossy but perceptibly it is lossless because you cannot know which detail is incorrect if the ML is doing a good job.

In that scenario it certainly would not be `transparent` ie visually without any lossy artifacts. But your perception of it would look lossless.

The future is going to be weird.