I don't think it's possible to convince anyone with a closed mind, but sure.
This is doing the same thing as here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKCyk3CeUFY
It is not changing geometry or shapes.
It is changing lighting.
It is changing material properties.
There are no "image generating AI toolchain tech" involved. There is no image generation happening.
To quote the literal title of a previous post, "Nvidia's DLSS 5 AI-infused tech transforms pixels with photorealistic lighting and materials" - but it does not transform geometry. I know this because rather than live in my assumptions, I dared look up more information about it instead of tucking in my presumptions at the end of my comment.
It does involve AI (just like previous DLSS has), and just like previous versions, looks at color and motion vectors. It's outputs are lighting and material properties, "applying a mask". It can be criticized, but for different reasons. It seems to create an uncanny valley effect worse than generative AI would in actual usage, precisely because it is not changing geometry or shapes, "image generating".
It can be confirmed by looking at the examples. I urge you to do the same, but I don't have a lot of hope. MAGA exists because of confirmation bias, and it does not have exclusivity on it. While wrong and being an asshole about it, thanks for at least making some effort of an explanation this time.
I've actually just been corrected, this was referred to employ some form of generative AI by Jensen. It's also significantly different enough to what I generally thought of as AI slop and my issues with it that it could also be said that I am a supporter of generative AI now. I am surprised by the application of the label for the aforementioned reasons, but it does prove me wrong.