Live data from Hacker News

Generating faces of cats using Generative Adversarial Networks

ajolicoeur.wordpress.com

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Generating faces of cats using Generative Adversarial Networks

#55
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't do this here.

Why not? Because of extreme nipple fear? It would most likely be the #1 application of this technique if it worked in general.

No, it's because the cost it inflicts on the commons exceeds the benefit of an adolescent sex joke. If we get lots of the the latter, it will turn off and drive away some of the people we want here. Then more good users may start to leave as more good users start to leave—a vicious circle which it's basically our #1 job to (try to) make sure HN doesn't get caught in. So we're a bit hypervigilant about this.

Re: Generating faces of cats using Generative Adversarial Networks

#57

This is maybe the most important question for mankind that has ever been asked, so let me ask it: Would it also be possible to use this method to generate new images of attractive, half-naked female humans on the basis of an existing database of such images?

So a Minecraft for adults? Automated content generation?

Re: Generating faces of cats using Generative Adversarial Networks

#58
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And likewise, how do you know when a human is being creative? Isn't all art derivative of our training and influences? I believe something like that was an argument by one of the random paint splatter artists: that randomness was the only thing truly creative.

Pollock?

Why is Jason Pollock now offensive?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock

Bunch of Avantgarde denialists!

If its not a painted photo, its not art? If i dont understand it, its not art? If its meta its not art?

Re: Generating faces of cats using Generative Adversarial Networks

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pollock?

Why is Jason Pollock now offensive? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollock Bunch of Avantgarde denialists! If its not a painted photo, its not art? If i dont understand it, its not art? If its meta its not art?

There is a popular conspiracy theory than nobody actually understands it and avantgarde artists are in fact con artists.

Not that I care enough to be offended, though.

And hell, if this is that "meta" meaning in their art, I must confess that I haven't got the joke until now :)

Post reply on HN