Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Edge detection doesn’t explain line drawing

aaronhertzmann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 174 posts

Re: Edge detection doesn’t explain line drawing

#161

Post by dredmorbius »

detourdog wrote: post #159
dredmorbius wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quote Investigator traces variants back as far as 1626, though it evolves over time. A "rocks all the way down" variant dates to 1838, "tortoises all the way down" to 1854: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2021/08/22/turtles-down/ > The version I'd first heard attributed the story to a lecture by Bertrand Russell and an audience Q&A, though it seems clear that that couldn't have been the first instance.

Your source story sounds like the story I heard/read Kurt Vonnegut tell,

Agreed, though I don't believe that's the context I first heard it.

I've run across the Vonnegut variant more recently. I don't recall where or when I heard the earlier version for the first time, though I suspect it came up in conversation without attribution. Likely sometime ~1980 -- 1999.

That variant may well trace to Vonnegut, though I suspect it had been passed through numerous mouths and ears by the time I heard it.

Re: Edge detection doesn’t explain line drawing

#162

Post by krisoft »

DonHopkins wrote: post #123
krisoft wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> turtles all the way down was literal Was it? What evidence do you have for that? If anything it sounds like the kind of verbal slapdown someone in authority would subject someone trying to be a smart alec. It is short. Easy to understand. And closes the kind of questioning. I would be very surprised if someone have considered it the literal truth, but of course have seen stranger things. > heavenly clockwork and co…

The "we're living in a simulation" theory is silly and self indulgent. If it's a simulation, then a simulation of WHAT that is REAL and exists OUTSIDE of a simulation? You still have to explain THAT. It's just as stupid and self-justifying and needlessly complex and arbitrarily made-up as any religion. That is different from "we're living in a computational medium", which doesn't claim it's simulating something else,…

I’m sorry. Writing select words with all-caps and calling the idea names is not making your point more persuasive.

> You still have to explain THAT.

I see your point there. Sadly the universe is not obliged to be easy to understood. “If X then I have further questions, therefore not X.” Is not a logical reasoning I recognise.

What I am saying is that you can’t argue that we are not in a computer because that would bring up a host of questions.

> That is different from "we're living in a computational medium" which doesn't claim it's simulating something else

Interesting. The way I use these they are synonymous in my mind. I don’t claim that there is something else out there which the simulation mimics. If you have some state representation and some rules to describe how the state propagates then I would describe a computer program which calculates new states based on the old one a simulator. This is the sense how I use the word when I say “we might be living in a simulation”. If this bothers you feel free to just imagine that I am saying “we might be living in a computational medium”.

> and is the only level of existence

Now, why exactly do you belive that? Why not 2 levels? Or 3? Why do you feel believing that there is only one level of existence is more justified than those other arbitrary numbers?

Re: Edge detection doesn’t explain line drawing

#163

Post by johnwalkr »

6D794163636F756 wrote: post #96
arketyp wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author comes across as ignorant at best, but then to present his own work as the Realism Hypothesis of Hertzmann, it leans more towards arrogance.

There is a subset of the tech bro that believes everything can be reduced to a problem with clearly defined taxonomy and as such every problem can be solved by an engineer with no subject knowledge. This article very much reads like one of those people wrote it.

To me that’s the very definition of tech bro.

My favorited comments on this site are mostly this phenomenon. It’s annoying because there’s a built in default assumption that one is such a great thinker there’s no need to waste time seeing if an expert has already solved the problem. One of my favorite examples is the software engineer that spent significant time testing his shower mixer valve and writing a “manifesto”[1] on how to make a better one. A few minutes of googling would lead him to realize why a mixer valve might have such a wide range (inlet temperatures and pressures are not a given) and also to the actual, existing solution (thermostatic mixing valve).

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34611335

Re: Edge detection doesn’t explain line drawing

#164

Post by timacles »

regularfry wrote: post #59
timacles wrote: post #52

As a person that has been practicing and studying line drawing for 15+ years, this article seems like its way off the mark. Its just not asking the right questions. The brain uses all kinds of context sensitive cues to try to link what its looking at to whats its already seen before. If you happen to look at something thats completely new, it doesnt matter if its a line drawing, 3d 4k image or whatever, your brain wi…

The last picture in the article is an interesting counter-example: a line drawing that's constructed in a fairly natural way that is nevertheless almost impossible to interpret. I'm sure there are "line art rules" that picture breaks which are almost second nature to someone who's been in the game for as long as you have; the interesting thing is how that translates to the visual cortex and why those rules work.

That one isn't a line drawing, its a shadow relief drawing with depth removed. Then with with outlines applied to the shadows.

Even then, the only reason why its so "confusing" to us is because they applied some kind of random black shape to the background which extends above his head to the left.

The black background blends with the man's body making an amorphous blob. If it was removed you'd be able to instantly tell thats a bald mans head.

You are correct about the "line art rules" they're all just basic visual rules that the brain uses that artists have been playing with for 100s of years. Its no different than those illusions that look like a Grandma or young woman at the same time. All it takes is one conspicuously placed shape and your whole perspective can be thrown off.

No different from how camo works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_coloration

Anyway, my point being, this isn't some new phenomenon, its a well understood at this point.

Re: Edge detection doesn’t explain line drawing

#165

Post by ben_w »

mahathu wrote: post #102
ben_w wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to lose one’s temper Huh, never thought about that one before. Linguistic stuff like this is fun to find; these days I mostly spot it via learning German as a second language, so the artifice in artificial intelligence becomes “Künstliches Intelligenz” where “Kunst” is artist and “Kunststoff” is plastic, and in Middle Low German “kunst” is knowledge and ability. > coined Deliberate choice to exemplify your point, o…

> where “Kunst” is artist and “Kunststoff” is plastic, and in Middle Low German “kunst” is knowledge and ability. Kunst means art, and an artist is a "Künstler" in German. (and Intelligenz is grammatically female, so there is no trailing s in "künstlich" in "künstliche Intelligenz". Its a difficult language.

Danke.

I was very surprised when I first found out about the local phrase, "Deutsche Sprache, schwere Sprache".

Re: Edge detection doesn’t explain line drawing

#166

Post by seabass-labrax »

detourdog wrote: post #142
seabass-labrax wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really has piqued my interest. Would you care to share an example or two, please?

It's hard to think of any concrete examples but I will set the scene as best I can and recommend listen to some of the 6 or 7 hour audiobooks narrated by Jonathan Cecil. I just went searching through a bunch of quote lists to try to find examples. I grabbed some just to show the breadth of metaphors and analogs used. What I think I realized is that some of the best examples are probably descriptions of the scenes. I'…

Thank you very much for finding these! I find it surprising that I remember these quotes from the 90s Hugh Laurie and Steven Fry television adaptation 'Jeeves and Wooster' - few TV programmes are faithful enough to their original book to include the dialogue verbatim!

Re: Edge detection doesn’t explain line drawing

#168

Post by mrguyorama »

AndrewOMartin wrote: post #54
ben_w wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to lose one’s temper Huh, never thought about that one before. Linguistic stuff like this is fun to find; these days I mostly spot it via learning German as a second language, so the artifice in artificial intelligence becomes “Künstliches Intelligenz” where “Kunst” is artist and “Kunststoff” is plastic, and in Middle Low German “kunst” is knowledge and ability. > coined Deliberate choice to exemplify your point, o…

Something I've heard a few times is that computer "logs" refer to ships log books, but log books themselves refer to the actual wooden logs that would be thrown out of the back of ships to help determine their speed.

Modern submarines still have a "log" which is a pole and sensor that extends outside of the hull to measure the speed through the water and other important measurements.

Re: Edge detection doesn’t explain line drawing

#169

Post by mrguyorama »

HPsquared wrote: post #38
bregma wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give two very different things the same name and soon enough many people will believe them to be the similar in nature. If you repeat the lie often enough if will become the truth.

Not really a lie, just biomimicry. The full name is "artificial neural network" after all. It's a lot closer to biology than the steam engine or clockwork watch.

There is zero relation between a "neuron" in neural networks and a real neuron. It's entirely marketing. The field of "AI" has always been quick to market their work as magic rather than be open and honest about the reality, which is why we have been through at least 3 AI winters already.

Re: Edge detection doesn’t explain line drawing

#170

Post by mrguyorama »

radicaldreamer wrote: post #114

Figuring this out is one of the central questions of phenomenology... how is it that after seeing a couple of trees, we can recognize almost any kind of tree from any angle? What is intrinsic about a tree that makes this possible? What (or is) there a pure form of a tree?

Since definitions aren't concrete, and language is explicitly a popularity contest, you are not learning "what makes a tree a tree", but rather "what people call a tree"

You are re-deriving an existing definition, not an actual physical reality. This is a great example actually, because there is no genetic or biologic definition of a tree, and what we call a tree is matched better by some idealized representation of info like "has a trunk maybe". Also that the definition you develop is rarely rigorously tested in practice, so you only need about 80%, and basic pattern matching can get you that really easily.

Post reply on HN