81–90 of 145 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel the same way about many human-produced works, regardless of critics' views, so the fact that I'm aware these are produced by NN is probably not the only explanation.
Yeah, it sounds like in that case your criticism may be more about abstract art as a style than it is about whether a given piece was produced by a human or a machine.
As a digital abstract artist who also does generative art, I find making the tiny images sort of funny. How about making a 30x30 inch painting? If it takes 1 second to make a tiny 250 pixel image how long would it take your system to make a 9000x9000 image?
The emotion and intentional abstraction of imagery no longer exists.
However, a deep net can absolutely generate more literal artworks, such as portraits, scenery, etc..
Judging by the URL of the images themselves these seem to be pre-generated, which makes me think there might have been some human selection process to filter out the badly generated ones. Still some really cool looking art in there, though. I'd be perfectly happy hanging some of these up in my apartment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would say that the part you quoted suggests it's not generated on the spot. However,the sentence in the huge font right before the one you quoted could be reasonably interpreted to suggest it's generated on the spot. And as you mention it just looks like a gallery of images that was already generated. It's still cool, but I'm a bit irked at the misleading framing. Gwern's website showed us amazing text generation f…
The fact that the link says “Try Now” instead of “next image” or something like that is implying that you are using the AI generation when you click the button.
I think AI is currently able to generate images I find pleasant to look at, but they have no impact on me beyond that momentary enjoyment. It is still decoration and not yet art, according to my personal definitions. When I can tell an AI to make an image about the Spanish Civil War and it produces Guernica, then I will be impressed in the way human artists impress me. And then we will have a powerful new tool to com…
I'm curious to know from the people commenting on this thread that they would buy one of these generated paintings whether they would still be interested if the paintings were artworks made by people. I'm guessing that there are two distinct markets here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fine-print at the bottom explains it: "On a Tesla T4, it takes on average 0.173 seconds per novel generation." I don't think you can expect someone to pay for T4 instance 24/7 for some hobby project.
>I don't think you can expect someone to pay for T4 instance 24/7 for some hobby project. That's a needlessly uncharitable interpretation of what is happening here. The site is giving the misleading impression that these images are generated on the spot, and then walking it back in the fine print. It's a valid criticism, and lecturing people about the economics is not a charitable engagement with that criticism.
He or she's not lecturing anyone about economics. In fact, if we want to talk about charity, I think that accusation is about the least charitable thing I've seen so far on this thread!
I think AI is currently able to generate images I find pleasant to look at, but they have no impact on me beyond that momentary enjoyment. It is still decoration and not yet art, according to my personal definitions. When I can tell an AI to make an image about the Spanish Civil War and it produces Guernica, then I will be impressed in the way human artists impress me. And then we will have a powerful new tool to com…