GIO SCOTTI LITERALLY UNFOGGABLE IN HER NEWEST POSTS GTFIH

[DelonLover1999]

Only like 3 people in the world even have the options.

You have to reach an aesthetic limit at which any change to the faces decreases the percieved attractiveness.

Even if that were feasible, which I don't think it is, you'd still have some problems. You can sort of do it the half-assed way: Try a couple of different morphs changing a few features, and if they don't improve anything, just say you've reached perfection. But since you said you're not in the 'good enough' business, I suspect you'd want a better system. Think of the insane amounts of computational power (basically infinite) you'd need in order to make an algorithm that could calculate something like that. All that just to have an 'approximation' of the ideal version of that algorithm, because there's no guarantee there isn't a better one if you change some parameter.

Even when operating under prescriptivism, there's still debate as to whether a certain feature X or Y is preferable, but I'm assuming here this perfection you speak of is based on your specific set of ideal features, which is fair.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that, in your own prescriptive school of thought, beauty evaluation is a scientific endeavor in my view, and therefore it is never really complete. It's actually a fundamental principle of the philosophy of science that no theory will (or even could) ever be 'perfect'. And if you think it's more like math, which is 100% logic based and rigorous, then you're in for a treat, because even in mathematics, there are certain paradoxes and weird things that prevent it from being 'complete'.

 

[HeightPilledum]

I agree. I didnt discover those unfrauded photos first. But i noticed something was off with her chin, turns out i was right. When she took those candid photos, those modelling agents surely saw that and told her to be as natural as possible

I would be okay with her being a chinlet if she wasn't insecure about it. Her jutting is VERY noticeable in motion, though I guess she can fraud it in pics

Another photo, this one a candid, where she wasn't jutting

 

[HeightPilledum]

View attachment 2459515

That's clearly a different angle

 

[HarrierDuBois]

Even if that were feasible, which I don't think it is, you'd still have some problems. You can sort of do it the half-assed way: Try a couple of different morphs changing a few features, and if they don't improve anything, just say you've reached perfection. But since you said you're not in the 'good enough' business, I suspect you'd want a better system. Think of the insane amounts of computational power (basically infinite) you'd need in order to make an algorithm that could calculate something like that. All that just to have an 'approximation' of the ideal version of that algorithm, because there's no guarantee there isn't a better one if you change some parameter.

Even when operating under prescriptivism, there's still debate as to whether a certain feature X or Y is preferable, but I'm assuming here this perfection you speak of is based on your specific set of ideal features, which is fair.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that, in your own prescriptive school of thought, beauty evaluation is a scientific endeavor in my view, and therefore it is never really complete. It's actually a fundamental principle of the philosophy of science that no theory will (or even could) ever be 'perfect'. And if you think it's more like math, which is 100% logic based and rigorous, then you're in for a treat, because even in mathematics, there are certain paradoxes and weird things that prevent it from being 'complete'.

I am quite pragmatic, theory will only take you so far. Certain things are impossible to narrow down to perfection like coloring and phenotype since both are subjectively preferred. But you can find a perfect face for every pheno and coloring out there, like a blond blue eyed nordic and making something mathematically unbeatable out of that.

 

[TheTakeoverHasBegun]

FOGGED!
View attachment 2459360

Holy photoshop

 

[andy9432]

I would be okay with her being a chinlet if she wasn't insecure about it. Her jutting is VERY noticeable in motion, though I guess she can fraud it in pics

Another photo, this one a candid, where she wasn't jutting
View attachment 2459522

Holy shit i didnt know it was this bad. Witch tier side profile

 

[HarrierDuBois]

Holy photoshop

Nope, it's a real candid.

 

[cytoplasm]

That's clearly a different angle

Its almost the same angle so you can compare and see that the pic you posted is edited. The one i posted is legit

 

[DelonLover1999]

I am quite pragmatic, theory will only take you so far. Certain things are impossible to narrow down to perfection like coloring and phenotype since both are subjectively preferred. But you can find a perfect face for every pheno and coloring out there, like a blond blue eyed nordic and making something mathematically unbeatable out of that.

I'm sorry but you can't be completely pragmatic and idealistic at the same time. Pragmatism means cutting corners when necessary.

I get your whole idea about one for every pheno, it's definitely an interesting one. People have been experimenting with AI in that front, creating 'perfect faces' for certain races. But what makes you think there is ONE perfect face for every one of them? And how could you go about establishing this 'perfection'? You're just gonna have to wing it and compromise, i.e. cut corners. This isn't perfectionism.

Also, what makes you think that only coloring and pheno are subjectively preferred? Almost anything, from eye-shape to jaw width, becomes subjective once you clear a certain threshold.

 

[It'snotover]

View attachment 2459365
View attachment 2459366
View attachment 2459363
View attachment 2459364

Spoiler: .

From hunting animals and escaping predators to survive and continue the bloodline to dancing like a idiot doing stupid faces on a clown social. The evolution of humans in a nutshell. Tik tok is so cringe

 

[TheTakeoverHasBegun]

Nope, it's a real candid.

No it isn't
Skin doesn't look like that

 

[HeightPilledum]

Its almost the same angle so you can compare and see that the pic you posted is edited. The one i posted is legit

It's not legit, it's a different photo from another angle.

Though I did find a low res version of that one

Doesn't look edited, it just looks high resolution and with brightness all the way up

 

[HarrierDuBois]

I'm sorry but you can't be completely pragmatic and idealistic at the same time. Pragmatism means cutting corners when necessary.

I get your whole idea about one for every pheno, it's definitely an interesting one. People have been experimenting with AI in that front, creating 'perfect faces' for certain races. But what makes you think there is ONE perfect face for every one of them? And how could you go about establishing this 'perfection'? You're just gonna have to wing it and compromise, i.e. cut corners. This isn't perfectionism.

Also, what makes you think that only coloring and pheno are subjectively preferred? Almost anything, from eye-shape to jaw width, becomes subjective once you clear a certain threshold.

One perfect human face cannot exist since people prefer different phenos and colorings. But you can reach a hardcap on every phenos potential.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

No it isn't
Skin doesn't look like that

Good skin does.

 

[Deleted member 33079]

Show me the original

 

[DelonLover1999]

But you can reach a hardcap on every phenos potential.

How? Your best bet would be AI, but there's no way of knowing if that hard-cap is even real or just a limitation of the system.

 

[HeightPilledum]

View attachment 2459550

As I was saying, looks just the high resolution version of it, maybe done with AI with brightness up

 

[HarrierDuBois]

How? Your best bet would be AI, but there's no way of knowing if that hard-cap is even real or just a limitation of the system.

Average out a lot of faces of the same pheno, then just chaddify all of it with knowledge a la PSL and you're done.

 

[cytoplasm]

It's not legit, it's a different photo from another angle.

Though I did find a low res version of that one
View attachment 2459546
View attachment 2459548
Doesn't look edited, it just looks high resolution and with brightness all the way up

Its def edited his mouth and skin doesnt look that good

 

[DelonLover1999]

From hunting animals and escaping predators to survive and continue the bloodline to dancing like a idiot doing stupid faces on a clown social. The evolution of humans in a nutshell. Tik tok is so cringe

agree. but at the same time, look at the marvel of technology that is the device we use to record and share these videos

we live in interesting times, paradoxes and boredom at every corner

 

[DelonLover1999]

Average out a lot of faces of the same pheno, then just chaddify all of it with knowledge a la PSL and you're done.

how do you know there's not a better way? another method that yields far better results?

 

[TheTakeoverHasBegun]

Good skin does.

No skin looks like that
It's literally not possible
That is a real candid that has been heavily altered
There's entire instagram accounts with post of photoshoping celebrities this specific way
If normies can detect that this is photoshop, how can you not

 

[HarrierDuBois]

how do you know there's not a better way? another method that yields far better results?

Humans respond best to high averageness so step 1 is to get a perfectly average face, after that make it perfectly striking.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

No skin looks like that
It's literally not possible
That is a real candid that has been heavily altered
There's entire instagram accounts with post of photoshoping celebrities this specific way
If normies can detect that this is photoshop, how can you not
View attachment 2459559View attachment 2459561

Femcel calls stacy photoshopped, oh boy.

 

[TheTakeoverHasBegun]

View attachment 2459550

Little differences with the main being much lower quality photo
We cannot compete

 

[HeightPilledum]

No skin looks like that
It's literally not possible
That is a real candid that has been heavily altered
There's entire instagram accounts with post of photoshoping celebrities this specific way
If normies can detect that this is photoshop, how can you not
View attachment 2459559View attachment 2459561

Becky seething when she has a filter in her pfp

 

[colton myers]

View attachment 2459365
View attachment 2459366
View attachment 2459363
View attachment 2459364

Spoiler: .

If I saw her in streets, I will not even check one more time, she is just mid like other tiktoker

 

[TheTakeoverHasBegun]

Femcel calls stacy photoshopped, oh boy.

*Femcel calling a photoshopped photo what it is

Pictures above with the same editing tool/style
Do you think these are real pictures?
Man, are you retarded?

 

[TheTakeoverHasBegun]

Becky seething when she has a filter in her pfp
View attachment 2459564
View attachment 2459566

Which would just highlight why she can detect photoshop pictures so well..

 

[Deleted member 19453]

didn't mean for this to turn into an autistic morphing/photoshop thread but thanks for bumps

 

[HarrierDuBois]

*Femcel calling a photoshopped photo what it is
View attachment 2459569View attachment 2459570View attachment 2459571View attachment 2459572
Pictures above with the same editing tool/style
Do you think these are real pictures?
Man, are you retarded?

Those pictures are edited, this one is not.

 

[It'snotover]

agree. but at the same time, look at the marvel of technology that is the device we use to record and share these videos

we live in interesting times, paradoxes and boredom at every corner

That is true, I am not one of the people that necessarily thinks technology sucks, it was actually one of the best things the man ever made. But seeing it used that way is a big waste. Imagine if the owners of jew tok would invest some of the huge amount of money they have into something useful for most people, that would be a good use of technology.

 

[TheTakeoverHasBegun]

Those pictures are edited, this one is not.

It is edited too
You lost your mind over a heavily altered picture and now you're coping
Original vs fake

Again
Skin doesn't look like that
She literally looks computer generated in the photoshopped picture

Either get your eyes checked or stop being retarded

 

[DelonLover1999]

Humans respond best to high averageness so step 1 is to get a perfectly average face, after that make it perfectly striking.

How many ppl are you going to use for the initial averaging part? Maybe there is an ideal range for that figure. Maybe if you only select people with good development, the result will be better. Maybe it will be worse. What if in the process of chadifying, the order in which you change features matters, for harmony purposes?

Your method is pretty clever, but there's no guarantee it's the best one out there. I would even argue that pure Artificial Intelligence will do it better than your way, and God knows what tf is going on inside those neural networks.

The fact that you seem to think you've completed looks theory in 2023 is what's bugging me the most. So many compromises and yet you insist on calling the results 'perfection'. And that's not even getting into things like fixed parameter ranges for certain features. You once said that 1mm UEE is ideal and gave your reasons, but what if someone shows that it's actually 2mm? or 0.5mm? Or that it's case dependant. There's simply too many variables to account for imo, so this DIY approach, albeit good, it's nowhere near perfect.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

It is edited too
You lost your mind over a heavily altered picture and now you're coping
Original vs fake
View attachment 2459581View attachment 2459582
Again
Skin doesn't look like that
She literally looks computer generated in the photoshopped picture

Either get your eyes checked or stop being retarded

Not gonna lie I'm kinda denying that picture on the lefts existance.

How many ppl are you going to use for the initial averaging part?

10 handsome face.

What if in the process of chadifying, the order in which you change features matters, for harmony purposes?

If it's just a fixated front view picture I don't think the order would matter, for a 3D perspective however it would.

Your method is pretty clever, but there's no guarantee it's the best one out there. I would even argue that pure Artificial Intelligence will do it better than your way, and God knows what tf is going on inside those neural networks.

A robot has a redundant view on human attractiveness.

The fact that you seem to think you've completed looks theory in 2023 is what's bugging me the most. So many compromises and yet you insist on calling the results 'perfection'. And that's not even getting into things like fixed parameter ranges for certain features. You once said that 1mm UEE is ideal and gave your reasons, but what if someone shows that it's actually 2mm? or 0.5mm? Or that it's case dependant. There's simply too many variables to account for imo, so this DIY approach, albeit good, it's nowhere near perfect.

1 mm assuming caucasoid male.

 

[TheTakeoverHasBegun]

Not gonna lie I'm kinda denying that picture on the lefts existance.

Instead of doing that you just could admit you were wrong and I was right
I doubt Lima would like knowing people think she needs perfecting and then go out of there way to do it
But here's an instagram account dedicated to that photoshop style https://instagram.com/vsmodels?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==
It's uncanny as fuck
Don't know how people like looking at those pictures
Puke tier

 

[cancercell]

That picture is literally 7.25 PSL and peak facial aesthetics of all time, find me ANY photo of anyone who looks better.

i think these are also on that level

 

[DelonLover1999]

10 handsome face.

You’re gonna need much more than that. True averageness will only start to appear if you use thousands of faces or more.

If it's just a fixated front view picture I don't think the order would matter, for a 3D perspective however it would.

A robot has a redundant view on human attractiveness.

1 mm assuming caucasoid male.

The robot is being trained by what humans find attractive, it’s merely a means to an end. Have you seen those AI generated faces? Some of them look insanely good.

The bottomline is: Even if you optimize everything to the absolute brim, there’s ZERO guarantee that there isn’t a better way that will blow yours out of the water and create much better faces. To think otherwise would be incredibly naive.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

These pictures reach 7 PSL;
View attachment 2459586View attachment 2459592View attachment 2459593View attachment 2459594View attachment 2459605View attachment 2459606

.

These do not reach 7 PSL:
View attachment 2459591View attachment 2459610View attachment 2459604View attachment 2459598View attachment 2459611View attachment 2459596View attachment 2459608View attachment 2459595View attachment 2459599

Yes I know I rated the same De Poot picture differently but frankly his eyes looked different in both.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

You’re gonna need much more than that. True averageness will only start to appear if you use thousands of faces or more.

There aren't thousands of faces of any specific pheno good looking enough to even make the threshold of being added to the list.

The robot is being trained by what humans find attractive, it’s merely a means to an end. Have you seen those AI generated faces? Some of them look insanely good.

The bottomline is: Even if you optimize everything to the absolute brim, there’s ZERO guarantee that there isn’t a better way that will blow yours out of the water and create much better faces. To think otherwise would be incredibly naive.

Perfection will be established.

 

[DelonLover1999]

View attachment 2459586View attachment 2459591View attachment 2459592View attachment 2459593View attachment 2459594View attachment 2459595View attachment 2459596View attachment 2459611View attachment 2459608View attachment 2459605View attachment 2459598View attachment 2459599View attachment 2459603View attachment 2459604View attachment 2459606View attachment 2459610

i think these are also on that level

lucky blue smith? Lmaooo

 

[cancercell]

You’re gonna need much more than that. True averageness will only start to appear if you use thousands of faces or more.


The robot is being trained by what humans find attractive, it’s merely a means to an end. Have you seen those AI generated faces? Some of them look insanely good.

The bottomline is: Even if you optimize everything to the absolute brim, there’s ZERO guarantee that there isn’t a better way that will blow yours out of the water and create much better faces. To think otherwise would be incredibly naive.

"x is ideal" is so stupid

all of these faces are close to 8 PSL, and they have some overarching similarities sure, but they all look different to one another. completely different mouths, jaws, eyes, ratios, etc...

 

[cancercell]

lucky blue smith? Lmaooo

he looks good there. he doesn't look as good in other pictures but he is like 6.5-6.75 PSL there.

everyone has bad pictures and great pictures

 

[DelonLover1999]

There aren't thousands of faces of any specific pheno good looking enough to even make the threshold of being added to the list.

you may as well just pick one then, 10 faces isn’t enough to create any sort of meaningful ‘averageness’ boost. You’re just gonna pick 10 high tier models of that pheno and call it a day, I know it.

Picking even just 1000 random faces, but controlling for a base level of good development and overall health, and then chadifying will mog this other method to utter death when it comes to wide appeal.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

"x is ideal" is so stupid

View attachment 2459625View attachment 2459626View attachment 2459627View attachment 2459628View attachment 2459629View attachment 2459630View attachment 2459632

all of these faces are close to 8 PSL, and they have some overarching similarities sure, but they all look different to one another. completely different mouths, jaws, eyes, ratios, etc...

Half of these faces are nowhere close to 8 PSL.

 

[cancercell]

Half of these faces are nowhere close to 8 PSL.

what's off about them? and don't say alien

 

[HarrierDuBois]

you may as well just pick one then, 10 faces isn’t enough to create any sort of meaningful ‘averageness’ boost. You’re just gonna pick 10 high tier models of that pheno and call it a day, I know it.

Picking even just 1000 random faces, but controlling for a base level of good development and overall health, and then chadifying will mog this other method to utter death when it comes to wide appeal.

Large samples are ultimately the most important but there aren't 5000 tall skulled doli supermodels with baltic/slavic eyes and lips to choose from there are 2, Chico and Eriksen.

 

[DelonLover1999]

Large samples are ultimately the most important but there aren't 5000 tall skulled doli supermodels with baltic/slavic eyes and lips to choose from there are 2, Chico and Eriksen.

You don’t need to worry about that, those things can be fine tuned in the chadifying phase

What i’m claiming is that the results will be much better this way, measurably so. I’m even willing to attempt this and try to compare the two methods. The problem is that in yours, you’ll need to handpick people based on your judgment, which is obviously unideal scientifically.

For example, you think Eriksen mogs Hexum. I think the opposite.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

what's off about them? and don't say alien

View attachment 2459625
Too wide short forehead, high gonial, round mandible, round chin, bad lashes, goofy ears.
View attachment 2459626
Rounded forehead, too wide bigonial, too large lips and bad lip ratio, bloated expression, overtrained masseters, asymmetric canine fossa.

View attachment 2459627
Good, although lopsided narrow mouth.
View attachment 2459628
Good, although slightly too short forehead, droopy exocanthion, and ethnic lips.
View attachment 2459629
Good, although slightly too wide PFL (can't believe I'm saying that), bad ICD, asymmetric mouth, bad lip seal, large ears, too high gonial and rounded jaw.

Can't do the other two bc on phone rn.

 

[HarrierDuBois]

You don’t need to worry about that, those things can be fine tuned in the chadifying phase

What i’m claiming is that the results will be much better this way, measurably so. I’m even willing to attempt this and try to compare the two methods. The problem is that in yours, you’ll need to handpick people based on your judgment, which is obviously unideal scientifically.

For example, you think Eriksen mogs Hexum. I think the opposite.

Eriksen mogs Hexum objectively due to less tangible failos and more striking halos.