You literally just said that it's likely that
"someone would have spotted the lightsabers long before anyone in the public was able to look at them"
Correct. That would happen long after they've created the issue, and long before someone like you would get to see it. Your point?
So when that happened you're suggesting that they decided to create a whole back story for them rather than changing the images, either by manual work or by tweaking the AI algorithm.
Well, that is evidently what happened. You can agree or disagree with their decisions, but I doubt they'll pay much attention to your opinion as expressed on the Flat Earth Society web forum. But yes,
after they found out that their model produces images with lightsabers, their options were to either invest years into redevelopment over something hardly anyone will care about, or to just run with it. They chose option 2, because they're not complete mouthbreathers.
The latter doesn't sound beyond the wit of man.
Right. Except no one cares what it "sounds" like to you. I already suggested that you should familiarise yourself with how these models work, but I guess that's too much to ask, so I'll throw you a bone: the tasks you're asking for here is for someone to manually sift through the very large training dataset and selectively remove or edit pictures, and then to retrain the model from scratch, test that that didn't break anything, and then proceed as normal. Under optimistic assumptions, you're asking for months, if not years, of delay. Of course, for all you know, the new model will then start spitting out pictures with Buzz Aldrin's left arm all over the place, but I guess if that happens we'll just redo everything from scratch again.
Meanwhile, in the opposite corner of the ring we've got putting out a couple of low-effort articles and videos that you'll happily eat right up and callling it a day.
You seem to be suggesting they used Star Wars images with lightsabers in to train the AI. I mean, they could just...not do that?
Yes, they could have simply not made an error. Astutely observed.
Why use images from Star Wars anyway? As I've seen other conspiracy theorists point out, Martian terrain doesn't look that different to certain terrains on earth so just use them.
Again, a basic familiarity with the subject would have helped you here. You need a very large dataset covering all aspects of the images you want to generate, and it needs to be appropriately annotated. Star Wars is convenient for both of these.
I'll leave out your box set of false equivalence logical fallacies - in each of them you talk about a complicated issue to solve. I'd suggest this is not that difficult to solve. Just don't use images with sodding light-sabers in when you're training AI to generate images of terrain which is supposed to be real and not part of the Star Wars cinematic universe.
Christ, give me patience.
Your brilliant observation boils down to "If they hadn't made a mistake, they wouldn't have a problem to solve". The issue here isn't that you're incorrect - it's that you're stating something that is completely useless. It's the logical equivalent of saying that the solution to climate change is simple - lmao, like, my dude, why emit greenhouse gases when you could just... not do that? Uhhhhhm why have a gun problem if you could just... not give people guns????? Errrrrmmmm, why have hungry people when you could have just set up society differently in the first place?
Exercise a little bit of humility. Just because you didn't understand a word of what I said does not mean the logic was fallacious.
But the issue with all these things is the claim is that NASA are simultaneously competent enough to generate data from space exploration missions which fools "the world", and they're incompetent enough to make mistakes which random people on the internet can spot.
Ah, yes, "the claim". That claim that people have made. People who aren't you. Yes. The Claim™. Mmm, quite.
How about we discuss something you didn't make up on the spot? Here, let me get you started: They're competent enough to fool people who aren't particularly bright, or who don't pay particularly much attention. That's generally how conspiracies go, which is also why most of them ultimately fail. People aren't competent, they aren't perfect, and they get found out. You're really not covering any new ground here, you're just echoing the fact that you don't personally find a NASA conspiracy to be likely.
I mean, the moon landings are a good example of that
I don't give a crap about the Moon landings. We're talking about the potential source of the images presented in the OP.
But they were stupid enough to label one of the rocks "C" (as is one of the "Apollo was fake" claims). I mean, really?
As before, I am
especially disinterested in claims that nobody here has made, and which you didn't even bother to coherently described. "Wow, someone somewhere said something about a letter. I mean, rEaLlY?" Stop tilting at windmills.