Please refer to the third paragraph of my post. If tech makes something worse it's not absolved by virtue of something being bad in the first place.
It generates new images and presents that as the frame for the user. The input it uses to generate those images is the colour data (i.e the 2D rasterised frame you'd see with DLSS5 off) and motion vector information (the directions things in that frame are moving). That is the sum total of the data it uses to infer anything it generates. It doesn't know anything not in the FoV like where a light may be, nor does it know anything the engine itself knows such as what material an object is made from and how that should interact. When it alters lighting and whatever else that's all inferences on DLSS5's part. It's also not going into the game's files and altering model meshes or textures but it is image generation and the images it generates are different than the original 2D input frame.
For a general user the technical steps that take place to result in the final presented frame are irrelevant. The frames they are shown are what matter because that is the end product and that is what people will be experiencing and interacting with. So when a general user says "this changed XYZ" it truly doesn't matter if X, Y, or even Z, were changed because what they're saying is "XYZ now look different". Which is obviously true. The new frames do look different. Zeroing in on how their initial phrasing of the complaint is actually incorrect from a technical perspective doesn't actually address the complain itself. They're not wrong for not liking how a thing looks nor for perceiving changes between the input and output frames. It's great to educate people on how this stuff works but they're not actually incorrect about it from an experiential standpoint and that's the entire basis of the complaint. Ignoring that at best misses the point, and at worst is deliberately misleading. Given the rest of that guy's video the latter seems more likely.
