Are "Brilliant moves" in computer analysis just any decent sacrifice now?

Seems like a lot are

https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/78211798071?tab=analysis

I got brilliant rook move

Are brilliant moves rating dependent in game analysis? If so this could explain some seemingly basic moves being considered brilliant.

Who are you

any decent sacrifice is brilliant, such as this:

In this game: https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/78675172945?tab=review

Why do I get brilliants for moves such as a pawn takes pawn or other moves which just look like the best move?

There might be a piece somewhere else on the board that you are sacrificing that you didn't realize

I got a checkmate brilliant-great move combo with a queen and bishop

.

Ok Ik I have a pretty low elo compared to some, but I don’t find brilliant moves to be rare, I get one sometimes once a day, most of the time 2 times a month but it’s normally only a knight sac

I don't know because this move is a 'decent sacrifice' but not classified as brilliant

Off topic but may someone please tech me how to make your chess games like that I’ve been wanting to know because links imo are stupid

Grind in lichess.org puzzles and practice on lichess.org....

This is actually how I do it...

Hi everyone, I've been following the discussion on Chess.com about how rare 'brilliant moves' are in computer analysis. It's fascinating to see the debate on what constitutes a brilliant move in the eyes of advanced chess algorithms.

It's nothing more than a sales gimmick. Good players would laugh at the nonsense described here as "brilliant".

That's because the lower your rating, the more they hand out brilliant moves. I wouldn't think it works as a means to turn people into better players. Only someone who will never make a good player needs that kind of encouragement whereas people who have the capacity to be good players need honest assessments more than anything else. These "brilliant moves" are dishonest, because they are more likely to be handed out if you just made one or two (or more) bad blunders and if your rating is low. Of course, a decent player isn't normally awarded them for simple and obvious moves. It would be insulting. Not that they care too much about that, when they make the review offer, "Let me walk you through the game", when I would probably beat the person who wrote that program.

It's not a sacrifice because you would be completely winning without it.

Here is the current definition:

Brilliant (!!) moves and Great Moves are always the best or nearly best move in the position, but are also special in some way. We replaced the old Brilliant algorithm with a simpler definition: a Brilliant move is when you find a good piece sacrifice. There are some other conditions, like you should not be in a bad position after a Brilliant move and you should not be completely winning even if you had not found the move. Also, we are more generous in defining a piece sacrifice for newer players, compared with those who are higher rated. 

https://support.chess.com/article/2965-how-are-moves-classified-what-is-a-blunder-or-brilliant-and-etc

 / I think you were still completely winning if you had played Nxf4, for example.

How to explain this then?...