Talk:Deep Learning Super Sampling

Article is self-contradictory, lacks verifiability, uses vague, non-descriptive language and is written like an advertisement

The article:

• Contradicts itself by both claiming that the technology is based on deep learning while simultaneously claiming a game with the technology was released without deep learning. Appears to show a deep issue with the sources the article uses or the subject itself.
• Is not verifiable. Core claim of the article is not in the citation given (the claim that by using this technology quality is same with lower resolution than a higher resolution without). Thus the article fails WP:VERIFY. Further it should be questioned if this claim is a fact or an opinion in the first place.
• Uses vague and non-descriptive language. "Video card overhead" is not a meaningful definition of something and does not yield meaningful definitions by searching.
• Uses weasel words, such as in "is said to use machine learning" WP:Weasel -Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated
• Fails to describe the technology from neutral point of view by just presenting it as lower overhead and same quality with lower resolution. Rather it qualifies as advocacy, and as such the article is written like an advertisement as described in WP:PROMO.

I'd suggest this for deletion. 62.248.185.87 (talk)

Why wanting to remove this article? Try to improve it instead. I tried to add a lot of reliable sources. Hervegirod (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

First remark: It may be possible to better clarify, but the first DLSS 1.0 had deep learning according to the sources, the second one (not named) had not deep learning anymore, and the current one has deep learning. I think I clearly stated it in the article. For example: "which this time is said to use machine learning...." Hervegirod (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Second remark: Maybe trying to get a better wording? What do you propose? Hervegirod (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Last remark: advocacy? I tried to get as many reliable sources as I could, the sources all criticized the first versions of DLSS saying that it was not working which is what I wrote in the article, but they for the moment all said that the last version is working very well. Hervegirod (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Appears to me that this article is based on NVidia's claims, and buzzwordy jargon. It is so hip now to do machine learning or deep learning. Does this merit an article separate from Supersampling? Pikavoom (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so, the technology appear to be very different from "simple" Supersampling, the method it uses is completely different. Including this article in the other would make the first one very difficult to understand. And I did not use only Nvidia sources, but a lot of Kotaku, techquila, Forbes, hothardware, Eurogamer, Anandtech sources. Do you think these sources are not reliable? Again if you want to improve the wording, please do so. Hervegirod (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"In 2019, the videogame Control shipped with Ray tracing and an improved version of DLSS, but which didn't use Deep learning": you have put "contradictory", but it's exactly what the source say, the exact text is: "Of course, this isn't the first DLSS implementation we've seen in Control. The game shipped with a decent enough rendition of the technology that didn't actually use the machine learning"(which I quoted). It's exactly what I wrote in the history section. Hervegirod (talk) 09:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

NVidia's claims are reliably sourced, but these sources are mostly rehashing NVidia PR. As for the method, how is this a non-trivial combination of Deep learning and Supersampling?Pikavoom (talk) 09:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

For example the hothardware source, or Anandtech, did not just rewrote what Nvidia said, but made their own benchmarks. And about the fact that it would be a trivial combination of Deep learning and Supersampling, two thirds of the Supersampling article in the supersampling article talk about the method or algorithm, the method in DLSS has nothing in common with the one described in the Supersampling article. It does not work by using AI to execute the Supersampling algorithm at all. Hervegirod (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that is a benchmark of GeForce RTX 20's implementation of DLSS, not the really the technique itself.Pikavoom (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

DLSS is only available on this family of video cards, it's for the moment specific to these Nvidia cards. Hervegirod (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"Benchmarks on Control tend to show that the resulting image at a 1080 pixels resolution upscaled from a 720 pixels resolution have the same quality as a native 1080 pixels resolution but retain the 720 pixels resolution performance" I think I forgot to put the source I found for this one, I will search for it. Hervegirod (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember where I found it, I replaced by an equivalent PC gamer one, which is also based on a very recent benchmark performed by PC gamer.Hervegirod (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If after about a month and half you don't remember where you've found a key argument for a technology for which you've exclusively written an article for, and the citation you've given for it directly contradicts the claim you've put in, then the claim clearly can't be in the article. 62.248.185.87 (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you ever read what people answer to your questions? I explained that I replaced the part where I forgot the source by a sourced PC gamer article. It appears that you now removed it. Your behavior is bordering vandalism. Hervegirod (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Neither of the claims you wrote in that sentence was in the cited article, in fact the article pretty much said neither of them were true. You wrote that the performance doubled on the game control on quality preset double the native resolution performance, the article showed it did nothing of the sort - on the table in the article it says performance moved from 57 fps to 91. You wrote that the quality was the same resulting image... have the same quality as the native - the article went out to point some of the shortcomings, such as Hair's still a sticking point, however, and aliasing where the AI has struggled to upscale the source material and while the article does go on to conclude there were little to no expense, particularly the little part of that is not the same as the statement same quality, which you insist on putting on the article. Furthermore none of the testing in the supposedly source material of these claims even is at 4k output resolution! Rather description under the table says Control benchmarks were carried out at 1440p. What is the actual source for your claims? It clearly isn't this article. Also I already noted most of this in the edit summary, which you've conveniently ignored only to go on to rather launch further attacks against my character, which at this point include asking "do you ever read", accusations of vandalism, and stating that I had not read an article which I've spent hours commenting on. These repeated baseless accusations while refusing to read or address edit summaries is not even remotely close to good faith participation. 62.248.185.87 (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestion this article should be deleted: It's reasonable to raise that issue here but when there is opposition the only recourse would be to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AFD. Such a nomination would almost certainly fail because Google shows lots of different sources talking about the term in the context used by this article. Accordingly, notability is established and talk about deletion is a waste of time. As an uninvolved administrator, I am merely reporting standard procedure and have no opinion on the merits of this article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There is still a [contradictory] tag in the article. I am trying to focus attention on the issues while staying uninvolved so am asking if contradictory still applies. The justification for the tag appears to be "Contradicts itself by both claiming that the technology is based on deep learning while simultaneously claiming a game with the technology was released without deep learning." The article says "Nvidia advertised DLSS" at launch in 2018 and a particular game was issued in 2019 where deep learning was not used. Is the tag justified? Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I tried to discuss the remarks about deep learning in this talk page Hervegirod (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Contradictions fixes

Previously one editor said that the article contradicted itself because DLSS is said to be based on AI, but the second version was not based on AI. It was not clear enough, partly because they did not change the release version between this one and the last recent one (the two of them are all named DLSS 2.0 by Nvidia). It think I clarified it, also because I added a history chapter. So I removed the banner about the clarification at the top of the article. Hervegirod (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are you removing contradictory tags when the article still contradicts itself? The article can't at the same time claim in the lead section that it's a technology based on Deep Learning, which is a form of AI, while insisting later that a game shipped with the technology which doesn't use Deep learning or AI for it. I've added the contradictory remarks back in. 62.248.185.87 (talk) 10:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the article and the sources, it is explained, but you obviously did not. It is not contradictory. Hervegirod (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I read the article. The article can't at the same time claim the technology is based on deep learning and then say that it's not. Only one of these statements can be true at the same time. Saying it's technology based on deep learning is exclusionary language that closes the possibility to say later that it's not based on deep learning. Also your method of participating in the conversation is not in good faith - there was no reason to accuse me of not having read an article I've commented this much on. 62.248.185.87 (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

See #Remark about Deep learning / Not Deep learning issue Hervegirod (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Weasel words

The sentence is: "which this time is said to use machine learning and don't need to be trained on every game it is applied to". If somebody could find a better wording... Hervegirod (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I changed the wording. Hervegirod (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I have put again the weasel words tags in front of the text because I mistakingly removed it while trying to improve the text. I don't think that it still valid, but then people can assess with the current sentence. Hervegirod (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I now changed the wording on this sentence, so ultimately removed the tag. Hervegirod (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

About Nvidia claims

DLSS 2.0 seems to be working really well with the last 2.0 version, as it has been confirmed by independent and reliable sources which did their own benchmarks. However, what we still don't know is if the technology is really working well on any game which use the Nvidia provided API, or if it only works on the specific games which enable it for now. Nvidia explained that DLSS 2.0 is not trained specifically on every game, but as only a few games use the latest version of this technology, we still don't know if it works effectively on any game which use it. I would have added this on the article, but I can't for the moment, because I could not find any source for that. Only time will tell if the "generic" term used by Nvidia is really true. Hervegirod (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "video card overhead", again

The phrase "video card overhead" has no established definition, and does not yield meaningful search results.

Searching for the phrase in google yields me 5 pages of results and total of 48 links.

• The first link gets you straight back to this article
• 26 are copies from this article like Wikipedia mirrors or short copies for SEO spam purposes
• 5 do not use the words together but google has picked due to there being a line change or otherwise (such as in a formatted document)
• 3 are pure SEO-spam without being copies
• All in all 73% of the results are the article or copies of it, SEO spam, or mistaken results
• 2 of them is the same comment to physical clearance from a connector
• 1 refers to video card memory usage in a unclear manner, either way an unrelated concept
• 1 refers to saved performance in a headless installation
• 1 refers to non-utilized performance of a video card while the video card still is performing something
• 1 refers to delay in a video stream caused by a video card
• 1 refers to someones computer crashing if their video card is stressed
• 1 is about the general concept of running software consuming performance

There's one single reference in a book about 3d modelling software Maya seemingly using it in the way used in the article, which appears 4 times. But even that doesn't really specify what it means more than as lost performance.

Curiously there is a single reference in a gaming access weekly article written 3 days ago about this technology, however this article doesn't define it.

This seems to count as WP:Weasel as well, but whether it does or doesn't either way I don't think matters as it's not language that should be used on a Wikipedia article as it doesn't convey meaning. 62.248.185.87 (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I replaced "overhead" with something that might work better. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, although as you would know, the original is standard terminology: Overhead (computing). Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware. It doesn't seem to be the right term/concept here, though I note that a source did use it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Remark about Deep learning / Not Deep learning issue

I just read the contradict tag added again by User talk:62.248.185.87 with this summary : "If they called it DLSS before it had deep learning then the article can't say it's a technology based on deep learning". It's not me who called it "Deep learning super sampling" but Nvidia, furthermore the sources I found state that:

• It used deep learning for DLSS 1.0, and learning was processed on a per game basis. So when Nvidia first promoted their technology, it used deep learning
• The first version did not work well, so Nvidia did not used Deep learning anymore for the first iteration of DLSS 2.0. I'm writing first iteration because it seems that they did not change the release number of their technology between this one and the current one. However the sources explain why this version was very different from the "current" DLSS 2.0 one
• The current version uses deep learning again, this time with a generic learning not specific to a game, for the current iteration of DLSS 2.0

I tried to clearly say and source that in the article, especially on the "Release history" chapter. It's not my fault if Nvidia was not always clear on their promotion of their own technology. Maybe the wording could be improved to make it clearer (it seems clear in this article for me, but I am the one who wrote the "Release history" chapter originally) Hervegirod (talk)

In summary what you have described is that DLSS is not necessarily based on deep learning. Thus describing it as a technology which uses deep learning, as is done in the lead section, is not correct. Nvidias failure to name only technologies that use deep learning as DLSS is perhaps a problem for their marketing team, but not for Wikipedia, and means this article can't say DLSS is based on deep learning in the introduction.

Also I don't think anyone claimed it's your fault. My edit summary was in response to earlier edit by Dicklyon, which removed the tag with the commentary "yes they might have called it DLSS even before it had DL" - hence the response "If they called it DLSS before it had deep learning then the article can't say it's a technology based on deep learning".

If Wikipedia allows technologies which are not necessarily deep learning based to introduce them as deep learning then soon half of the technology articles will be saying they are deep learning technologies. 62.248.185.87 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That's not up to us to decide, many sources say that the first and last iteration were / are deep learning based. Hervegirod (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)