Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    TikTok just dropped a new realistic beauty filter

    (twitter.com)
    207 points ZephyrBlu | 23 comments | 27 Feb 23 03:13 UTC | HN request time: 0.536s | source | bottom
    1. hn_throwaway_99 ◴[27 Feb 23 04:33 UTC] No.34952982[source]▶
    Wow, I am so glad I'm not the parent of a teenage girl right now.

    At the same time, I wonder if perfect filters like this might actually result in people rejecting beauty standards like this. I mean, if everyone can easily look this good online, if people start to think that it's impossible to determine the veracity of anything that wasn't done face-to-face, maybe people will just start rejecting it. Kind of like how I never answer my phone anymore from numbers I don't know because there is a 95%+ chance it's spam/phishing/etc.

    replies(3): >>34953194 #>>34953395 #>>34954661 #
    2. userbinator ◴[27 Feb 23 05:05 UTC] No.34953194[source]▶
    I wonder if perfect filters like this might actually result in people rejecting beauty standards like this.

    Maybe it's because I was used to an earlier era, in which photos actually had to be developed and were taken with something called film, but I suspect I'm not the only one who finds this sort of "beauty" very unnatural and even somewhat repulsive, almost uncanny-valley style. It's like they don't look like actual humans anymore, but more like androids pretending to be humans.

    In other words, this filter doesn't look "realistic" to me at all.

    replies(6): >>34953218 #>>34953449 #>>34953672 #>>34954117 #>>34955039 #>>34956583 #
    3. ◴[27 Feb 23 05:09 UTC] No.34953218[source]▶
    4. DuckFeathers ◴[27 Feb 23 05:36 UTC] No.34953395[source]▶
    This one time, a colleague of mine was working from home and we had a meeting and when I joined the video call I thought that we had someone new joining the meeting... except when my other colleague said "Hi [HER_NAME]" and I realized who it was. I was shocked that it was the same person.

    What beauty filters do can be done using make up... except make up is more deceiving because since we see it in front of our eyes, we are more likely to believe it.

    Make up did not change beauty standards and this won't either.

    I am looking forward to the time when everyone will look amazing and everyone can live in it their whole lives, never having to see anyone ugly... when all of us transition to living our whole lives in the metaverse.

    replies(3): >>34953515 #>>34953518 #>>34953574 #
    5. Semaphor ◴[27 Feb 23 05:46 UTC] No.34953449[source]▶
    I found the videos earlier through a blogger. He called it a "barbie filter"
    6. DiscourseFan ◴[27 Feb 23 05:58 UTC] No.34953515[source]▶
    When all these fools go to live in the "metaverse" the rest of us will be laughing.
    replies(1): >>34953623 #
    7. syspec ◴[27 Feb 23 05:59 UTC] No.34953518[source]▶
    > Make up did not change beauty standards and this won't either.

    Make-up literally did change beauty standards though.

    replies(2): >>34953712 #>>34953869 #
    8. foepys ◴[27 Feb 23 06:10 UTC] No.34953574[source]▶
    Make-up does affect beauty standards very much.

    Teenage girls are crowding the make-up sections in my local drug stores and most 15 year olds I encounter are wearing some kind of makeup nowadays. Even boys have started using make-up, although more subtle to conceal pimples and such.

    9. Fervicus ◴[27 Feb 23 06:20 UTC] No.34953623{3}[source]▶
    30 years ago, people would probably say the same thing to the idea of social media and people living their lives on their phones.
    replies(1): >>34961479 #
    10. kurthr ◴[27 Feb 23 06:28 UTC] No.34953672[source]▶
    They've been Yassified.

    https://centennialbeauty.com/yassification-how-this-viral-tw...

    replies(1): >>34955521 #
    11. wiseowise ◴[27 Feb 23 06:35 UTC] No.34953712{3}[source]▶
    Make up won’t save you from ugly facial features or deformities.
    12. saghm ◴[27 Feb 23 07:08 UTC] No.34953869{3}[source]▶
    Yeah, I'm not sure what the basis GP was using for making that claim, but based on the experiences of women I've talked to about this, it's almost universally understood that interactions in almost any social context will be affected if a woman chooses not to wear makeup. I'd highly suggest to any man who doesn't believe this to ask women in their life who would be open to this sort of discussion to honestly ask about this; I think you'll be surprised how much the choice of whether to wear makeup affects even professional life for women. A coworker at a camp I worked at after my freshman year of college who did freelance work during the year said clients would agree to higher rates when she interviewed wearing makeup compared to without makeup. This isn't an isolated thing; a quick google found a reddit[1] threat discussing this topic where server discuss making larger tips based on not just the presence of makeup but also based on specific types of looks (e.g. the shade of lipstick). One commenter even mentioned that they're _required_ to wear makeup to work.

    Makeup quite literally added an extra artificial step that society decided was required for women to be taken seriously in professional contexts. You might be able to make the argument that professional standards are as high for men appearance-wise (although I'd personally be skeptical of such a claim), but if you think that makeup didn't cause the standards to change for women, you're deluding yourself.

    [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakeupAddiction/comments/1ihkf7/que...

    replies(1): >>34954255 #
    13. 2-718-281-828 ◴[27 Feb 23 07:59 UTC] No.34954117[source]▶
    everytime i stumble on those tiktok clips with teenagers dancing awkwardly it seems to me more like humans pretending to be androids.
    14. theshrike79 ◴[27 Feb 23 08:28 UTC] No.34954255{4}[source]▶
    And people (men mostly) don't understand that the "no makeup" look is, in many cases, in fact a lot of makeup applied with skill.
    replies(1): >>34954745 #
    15. throwaway64643 ◴[27 Feb 23 09:51 UTC] No.34954661[source]▶
    After playing with AI generated human photos for a while, now I've come to appreciate (little edited) real photos and people in real life much more than before. I love the flaws, the imperfections, the characteristics, the deviations that make each one of us unique. The AI is so good at creating the 'perfect average' that makes it so boring, monotonous, and tedious. People call it 'soulless'. But when it comes to variation, it starts generating the uncanny valley. It fails hard.
    16. throwaway64643 ◴[27 Feb 23 10:10 UTC] No.34954745{5}[source]▶
    What men hate is excessive, badly done makeup. Most men would prefer the 'natural looking', which is actually makeup, but well done. People wouldn't notice a good makeup, but a bad one they will remember. Most men wouldn't love no makeup.
    replies(1): >>34955078 #
    17. MikusR ◴[27 Feb 23 10:56 UTC] No.34955039[source]▶
    I didn't know there was no manipulation done to photos taken on film. It's not like dodge and burn tools in Photoshop are named after real life process.
    replies(1): >>34956857 #
    18. theshrike79 ◴[27 Feb 23 11:01 UTC] No.34955078{6}[source]▶
    This is the same issue as with plastic surgery. What people don't want is overdone and/or bad plastic surgery.

    Very few people notice the good ones and just think it's natural.

    19. aembleton ◴[27 Feb 23 12:13 UTC] No.34955521{3}[source]▶
    That article feels like it was written by GPT-3. Just something about its writing style.
    replies(1): >>34960362 #
    20. mcphage ◴[27 Feb 23 14:13 UTC] No.34956583[source]▶
    > In other words, this filter doesn't look "realistic" to me at all.

    It doesn't, but sadly this is early days.

    21. userbinator ◴[27 Feb 23 14:34 UTC] No.34956857{3}[source]▶
    The difference is that most people didn't do that for photos back then.
    22. kurthr ◴[27 Feb 23 18:50 UTC] No.34960362{4}[source]▶
    Man doesn't everything generic... there's just a safe tone to HR correct writing that LLMs have?

    I think this is from a couple of years ago so probably not, but things are getting meta.

    23. DiscourseFan ◴[27 Feb 23 20:30 UTC] No.34961479{4}[source]▶
    Well they would be right.