🧵 Identifying Quality
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 06:58:38 UTC No. 16087681
Why is it that some people seem unable to identify quality in something? I've wondered what this in the past and never really found an answer.
Sometimes the reason is obvious, for example if you buy something expecting it to be new but it's broken or doesn't work, that's bad quality and it's easy to identify.
If you look at picrel though, I think it would be obvious to most people the cake on the right is low quality, but the person who made it clearly thinks it's good, at least good enough to sell. You might say it's just a lack of shame or a scam, but I get the feeling someone like this would create low quality things even if they weren't selling them.
Good artists can identify quality in their own work, that's how they know what they're making is good, but some people just can't do it even though they might be equally as creative and understand the art creation process so that nothing is stopping them from creating something good quality.
Sometimes even large groups of people are known to produce things of low quality. Like if you outsource software creation to India the chances are you're going to get something low quality in return whereas other countries don't have that kind of reputation at all. It doesn't cost more to make higher quality software a lot of the time if it has the same feature set, it's more just like these people can't see that what they're making is poor quality and seem oblivious to the fact. Some people just do low quality work and never change, even when good quality examples are right in front of them.
Do you think it's something innate? Or environmental? Or dunning kruger? or just takes practice? Not for creating something of quality, but for identifying that something you created is of good quality, emphasis on the identifying part.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:34:33 UTC No. 16088123
>>16087681
Point out OBJECTIVELY why the cake isn't high quality. Do not introduce your own arbitrary subjective criteria for quality.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:36:57 UTC No. 16088128
>>16088123
The likeness on the cake is OBJECTIVELY inconsistent with the reference. Fuck you faggot.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:46:44 UTC No. 16088140
But is the cake tasty?
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 14:58:03 UTC No. 16088147
>>16088128
>OBJECTIVELY inconsistent
No such thing.
Choose a metric, and explain your choice.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 15:51:10 UTC No. 16088216
>>16087681
Recognizing quality, is itself a skill that is learned. Mind you, making something of quality is a tougher skill that requires alot more time and effort.
I believe some people don't learn how to recognize quality, but many more don't care enough to put in the time and effort to make something of quality. Us being social animals, we feel obligated to not let others down. But when there's nobody you care about letting down, nobody you care to impress, why try at all? So when large groups fail to yield quality, I believe it's a symptom of bad education, bad leadership, older generations not worth impressing, and the lack of role models.
Tangentially related to the topic, is that that computational complexity quote by Scott Aaronson:
>If P = NP, then the world would be a profoundly different place than we usually assume it to be. There would be no special value in "creative leaps," no fundamental gap between solving a problem and recognizing the solution once it's found. Everyone who could appreciate a symphony would be Mozart; everyone who could follow a step-by-step argument would be Gauss
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 15:56:39 UTC No. 16088220
>>16087681
>>16088123
>>16088140
this game graphic style is example of poor taste
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:01:28 UTC No. 16088227
>>16088147
nta but I think that is the kind of quality I was referring to in the OP for that picture, just that it doesn't match the picture really. Why might more humans see the cake as being ugly instead of appealing might be a different question, because I assume there probably is a way to have it not look like the reference picture but still be of high quality if the person is artistic
But the overall question is more about why is it that the person creating the cake can't see that it's low quality, assuming that the majority of people would agree that it is low quality.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:03:35 UTC No. 16088230
>>16088227
Why are you wasting time responding?
Dude's obviously just baiting for (you)s.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:05:06 UTC No. 16088231
>>16088216
...to add to that and the OP, maybe this is a good example...
Maybe you're aware of Corey Feldman, the entertainer. His singing skills are abysmal and he's been doing it for many years, even hanging around Michael Jackson often when he was younger. But all the training and hanging around with the biggest pop star didn't seem to have any effect on the quality of his music, it's terrible. But he doesn't seem to know it's terrible, its more like he actually thinks its really good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYF
it's like he can't identify the quality level of the stuff he's creating despite having years of training and hanging around people who made high quality stuff
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:07:42 UTC No. 16088235
Maybe the person is a 3 year old or an adult with schizophrenia.
If not, and the intention of the cake is to replicate the left picture, then I would assume the person is just having a bad run at life, probably had a rough chilhood and is very stressed in his life. You can extrapolate this to the millions of bad papers published on academia.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:27:13 UTC No. 16088255
>>16088227
>it doesn't match the picture really
By which metric?
Explain your answer.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:33:14 UTC No. 16088266
>>16088255
>>16088235
>>16088233
>>16088231
man made this cake from (food colored) marzipan which can be molded by fingers
otherwise its whipped cream and licorice
everything in it can be eaten if you really want to
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:43:23 UTC No. 16088282
>>16088255
Just look at it with your eyes, retard.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:34:59 UTC No. 16088410
>>16088220
I don't know that game but the graphics look acceptable. Would play if it's the right genre.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 18:39:23 UTC No. 16088415
>>16087681
>oh no, the baker didn't cater to my cartoon fetish
I'm so sorry, you couldn't engage in your pseudo-cannibalism of ingesting a Disney princess. The baker is based af and the cake looks delicious. Food isn't supposed to be visual art anyway. Only degenerates want to prepare food in such unnecessary detail. In the end it's just gonna end up in our stomachs.
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 19:40:48 UTC No. 16088472
>>16088282
I looked at it with my eyes, and it good to me. It's not photo-perfect, but it's cream on a cake, so it's unreasonable to expect photo-perfection.
Any other metric?
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 20:13:56 UTC No. 16088502
>>16088472
Lying faggot
Anonymous at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 21:35:43 UTC No. 16088648
>>16088502
>you disagree with me, therefore you're lying
fallacious argument
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 06:08:35 UTC No. 16089113
>>16088472
Explain why it's good to you, what metric did you use?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:06:16 UTC No. 16089313
>>16088472
>It's not photo-perfect
Its not drawing-acceptible either, it looks absolutely nothing like the original drawing by any metric from linework to shading to contouring.
But you are clearly too retarded to tell the difference between a photo of a person and a drawing of a Disney princess, so you just have to accept that you will never understand most things no matter how much other people try to explain them to you.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:56:01 UTC No. 16089748
>>16088578
What's your point?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:57:03 UTC No. 16089750
>>16089113
Sharpness
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:14:25 UTC No. 16089774
>>16089750
Explain this metric.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:15:00 UTC No. 16089776
>>16089774
It's not a metric
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:18:03 UTC No. 16089786
>>16089776
Anon asked when metric you used, and you replied 'sharpness.' Explain this metric.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:18:48 UTC No. 16089788
>>16089786
Sharpness is not a metric
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:20:37 UTC No. 16089793
>>16089788
"Image sharpness can be measured by the “rise distance” of an edge within the image"
Are you being a dipshit on purpose?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:24:14 UTC No. 16089801
>>16089793
Yes I'm being a dipshit on purpose.
But I'll help you out cause you quoted the wrong thing.
https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/96
Have a lovely day.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:25:37 UTC No. 16089803
>>16089801
>Talk about an image
>You quoted the wrong thing
Nah. Go be a dipshit somewhere else.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:26:24 UTC No. 16089808
>>16089803
Jeez anon, i was only messin, you not take a joke?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:27:58 UTC No. 16089810
>>16087681
it's psychological. same reason some people are ok with being obese or ugly, eventually your brain just gives out and you don't care
>>16088147
>No such thing.
what is signal processing?
>Choose a metric, and explain your choice.
digitize the image then pick any of the embeddings and loss functions used for image processing or ML
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:28:13 UTC No. 16089811
>>16088140
LMAO, you are a fucking moron if you believe that cake is not filled with the cheapest crap.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:28:19 UTC No. 16089812
>>16089808
No, I'm running you out of town, git on yer horse n never come back.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:29:44 UTC No. 16089815
>>16088147
That cake is 100% woke shit. Simple as, you imbecile piece of aborted dog turd.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:29:46 UTC No. 16089816
>>16089812
OK, I best be off then.
Have a lovely day.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:34:46 UTC No. 16089822
>>16089816
You too, friend.