Forum
>
General / Nonfiction
>
Thread
Log in |
Register
her recent rise in numbers could be probably due to her editing her entire body with AI. A clear example is this vid she posted today
it looks like you're right about that specific vid, but having seen her on live streams etc. i don't think this is a serial issue that warrants a complete blacklisting from the main page. face filters are pretty common on douyin, xhs, and chinese social media generally so unless the issue is especially egregious and shows up in every post she makes online, i don't think it warrants a total blacklisting either. she's got one of the best physiques and overall looks on the site, so this would be a pretty big L imo if she remains blacklisted. ofc though, i get why it's an issue -- but having seen her posts across multiple platforms for a pretty long time, i really don't think it's as chronic or as problematic an issue as with Guo Hui for example.🥲
I didn't soft blacklist her because of the face editing, but rather the body editing.
understood -- i just had never noticed it as being such a chronic issue with her posts. aside from the one example linked here i can't imagine she's been editing her physique in every single post or even the majority.
understood -- i just had never noticed it as being such a chronic issue with her posts. aside from the one example linked here i can't imagine she's been editing her physique in every single post or even the majority.
Welp, after reading thru this thread's mentions of YH it seems it has indeed been a common issue.
The soft-blacklisting's disappointing but it's very likely for the better.🥲
Yan Hong is too gorgeous to fully ban. Oh such a shame she does this, literally Eun Hee Kang all over again.
Yeah my thought process is this:
She posts a video where there's an obvious AI glitch, where she or her editor failed to cover up an AI edit.
Even with said AI edit, she isn't obviously bigger than in previous videos.
We know she already uses a filter for her face.
All this combined makes it vanishingly unlikely that this is the first AI edit she's ever done. She's likely been doing it for a long time. This is just the first time she messed up in an obvious way.
(Every time this happens, it's a huge shame because the woman doing it already has an amazing physique; she just feels the need to cheat to go even further than that for some reason)
Yeah that's what's brutal about it. She's already been facing down haters on douyin etc. for being too jacked. So it's kinda sad to know that she's been faking her physique for validation in the opposite direction. Same unfortunate dynamic just a different flavor.
Society.😔
Honestly I think this is getting a little out of hand. I get that some people don't want any edits at all, but like, there are so many of us that just don't care. Can we have a global toggle in our cookies or user settings or something that allows these soft-blacklisted models to appear in the main site?
This thread has been an exercise in subjectivity overruling objectivity.
understood -- i just had never noticed it as being such a chronic issue with her posts. aside from the one example linked here i can't imagine she's been editing her physique in every single post or even the majority.
Spotting fakes isn't for the casual observer, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. The distinction isn't if you're casually noticing, but if you're applying that casual observation as a proactive denial when someone that scrutinized it more closely has flagged something suspicious. Sure, that works in the opposite direction where someone casually flags something as suspicious when it isn't, but this isn't a topic for casual opinion in either direction.
Yan Hong is too gorgeous to fully ban. Oh such a shame she does this, literally Eun Hee Kang all over again.
The Soft Blacklist isn't a full ban. They're still on the site, you can fav them, search them, afaik you can still add uploads and receive notifications. The Soft Blacklist just means they won't be on the main page. No need for catastrophizing.
Honestly I think this is getting a little out of hand. I get that some people don't want any edits at all, but like, there are so many of us that just don't care. Can we have a global toggle in our cookies or user settings or something that allows these soft-blacklisted models to appear in the main site?
Why ask Chainer to code a new feature that you can easily accomplish by starting a thread which lists everyone in the Soft Blacklist? If you want a site with a main page of cartoonish reality distortions, I recommend DeviantArt.
This thread has been an exercise in subjectivity overruling objectivity.
Spotting fakes isn't for the casual observer, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. The distinction isn't if you're casually noticing, but if you're applying that casual observation as a proactive denial when someone that scrutinized it more closely has flagged something suspicious. Sure, that works in the opposite direction where someone casually flags something as suspicious when it isn't, but this isn't a topic for casual opinion in either direction.
everyone's entitled to an opinion. either way, it's a huge L. she really didn't need to go the AI route to prove herself.🥲
I think it's important people don't get the pitchforks out and start a witch hunt. There is a kinder way to go about it
but this. also this.💯
This thread has been an exercise in subjectivity overruling objectivity.
I haven't seen anyone refuting the evidence.
As I understand it we found one instance where there is a glitch which shows physique enhancement. (And face filters which are applied constantly, but that can be spotted by the casual observer often enough).
Based on this some might think it's something which is maybe done now and then, but the scale and frequency might be limited.
Others might think it's a Lance Armstrong kind of operation where a team of professionals are busy day and night creating and manipulating (enhancing) the footage, and to detect and cover up glitches that may remain. And that this was one rare slip-up, which uncovers the entire operation.
But going by the evidence we don't know this. We don't know which tools they have used, we don't know the scale and frequency of the practice. Given what we have found we have to deal with it in a certain manner.
My opinion (yes, an opinion) is that Chainers line of thinking here is reasonable, and the soft-blacklisting is appropriate, even though I am a bit disappointed. And she doesn't even need it, to edit her stuff. She has a great physique. She won a pro-competition (of which we have the photo's directly from the source) and qualified for the Olympia. Anyways, this last part is me coping again 😅
I haven't seen anyone refuting the evidence.
As I understand it we found one instance where there is a glitch which shows physique enhancement. (And face filters which are applied constantly, but that can be spotted by the casual observer often enough).
Based on this some might think it's something which is maybe done now and then, but the scale and frequency might be limited.
Others might think it's a Lance Armstrong kind of operation where a team of professionals are busy day and night creating and manipulating (enhancing) the footage, and to detect and cover up glitches that may remain. And that this was one rare slip-up, which uncovers the entire operation.
But going by the evidence we don't know this. We don't know which tools they have used, we don't know the scale and frequency of the practice. Given what we have found we have to deal with it in a certain manner.
My opinion (yes, an opinion) is that Chainers line of thinking here is reasonable, and the soft-blacklisting is appropriate, even though I am a bit disappointed. And she doesn't even need it, to edit her stuff. She has a great physique. She won a pro-competition (of which we have the photo's directly from the source) and qualified for the Olympia. Anyways, this last part is me coping again 😅
That middle part read like an AI wrote it. 🤔
Not sure how you interpreted my "subjectivity" comment as "refuting evidence" given that I expound on the theme with individual replies.
Subjectivity as in wanting to turn the GWM Galleries into an AI and "morphing" free-for-all because 3 users are indifferent and object to any efforts of the site to curate for quality and for real physiques.
Subjectivity as in cognitive dissonance by not seeing or believing that Yan self "morphs" or claiming it's an isolated anecdote despite her entire GWM gallery matching the exaggerated muscle mass of the concrete evidence. AKA, we DO know the scale and frequency of the practice, and we know it's AI tools even if we don't know the exact software. That's like saying it's not really photoshopped because we don't know if it was literally Adobe Photoshop or another program of similar purpose. It's enough to know it was manipulated and the exact tool is irrelevant.
It doesn't matter that she doesn't need it. It only matters that she manipulates her own media because that's the only relevant criteria.
And the all purpose "everyone gets an opinion" angle in response to a very narrowly directed comment regarding concrete evidence isn't the gotcha either of you think it is.
No. Evidence based criteria isn't open to opinions.
Yan hong has been clearly editing her face for a couple of years now but her recent rise in numbers could be probably due to her editing her entire body with AI. A clear example is this vid she posted today, you can see the filter flickering at the start of the vid on her arm… https://www.girlswithmuscle.com/2832496/