[eviks]

I think you missed the "a" vs " the", you can encode different sources that would have different grains, or the same source would have different grain at different times.

But also a simulation called compression of a real thing is different from that real thing, so that purity test had already been failed

[phantasmish]

I just feed AI the IMDB summary and let it re-create the movie for me. Just as “pure” as high-bitrate h.265, after all.

[eviks]

You've chosen your argumentative perch very well, it's indeed right down there with the AI slop where you can't see any difference in reality

[phantasmish]

Well film grain doesn't matter because compression exists, apparently, and may as well be simulated because it's already failed the "purity test" and may as well be algo-noise. That holds for everything else! May as well maximize the compression and simulate all of it then.

[EDIT] My point is "film grain's not more-real than algo noise" is simply not true, at all. An attempt to represent something with fidelity is not the same thing as giving up and faking it entirely based on a guess with zero connection to the real thing—its being a representation and not the actual-real-thing doesn't render it equally as "impure" as a noise-adding filter.

[eviks]

You're still dancing there in the slop, hallucinating the arguments thinking it's a pretty dress!

It may as well be stimulated because you won't see the difference! So now you've imagined some purity test which was never true, so you have nothing and start hallucinating some hyperbolic AI thing

[phantasmish]

> But also a simulation called compression of a real thing is different from that real thing, so that purity test had already been failed

Quoted: the introduction of “purity test” to the conversation, from not one of my posts.