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

What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 78 posts

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#61

Post by input_sh »

ceejayoz wrote: post #50
input_sh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People would come up with very specific made up reasons why they hate that plate of chicken as well, so I don't see your point. As for your red vs. white wine comparison, it'd only make sense if one of those was doing its best to pretend to be the other one.

The point is the objections are bullshit. They can’t tell!

Then I guess you've completely missed my point.

If I hand you a lump of gold and tell you it's actually a piece of shit painted in gold, I'm sure you'll find reasons to hate it.

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#62

Post by ceejayoz »

input_sh wrote: post #61
ceejayoz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is the objections are bullshit. They can’t tell!

Then I guess you've completely missed my point. If I hand you a lump of gold and tell you it's actually a piece of shit painted in gold, I'm sure you'll find reasons to hate it.

But if I make up reasons, that's bad!

"No thanks, I don't like shit" is fine.

"Oh yeah, I can definitely tell it's shit!" is not.

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#63

Post by engeljohnb »

dxdm wrote: post #57
engeljohnb wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good thing then that I'm not concerned about how interesting my perspective is to you.

Of course. Sorry. Not your perspective, but the conclusion, if you leave it there. Which you well may.

Okay, didn't mean to come out swinging, just a habit on internet forums anymore I guess.

To try to discuss more productively: I already thought Monet was overrated, and this was a long-held and considered opinion, not just a knee-jerk reaction to this post.

The post seemed to serve as a pepsi-challenge that confirmed what I already thought, but you're right that it's all cherrypicked anyway. That's the part I didn't consider so carefully.

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#64

Post by JKCalhoun »

Geee wrote: post #48
dormento wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I loathe the blasted copyright washing machine as much as the next intellectually honest person, but: > AI can't create anything original. Can we? I mean, don't we base our output on experience and reprocess references + memories of things past to create what we deem as "new"?

Many artists have a distinct, original style. Originality is the ability to create novelty in a way which is aesthetically pleasing. I've yet to see AI create a single distinct style which is beautiful.

In my experience, an artist's original style arrives more or less from the artist having imitated and subsumed bits and pieces from other artists over the course of their artistic pursuit.

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#65

Post by dxdm »

engeljohnb wrote: post #63
dxdm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. Sorry. Not your perspective, but the conclusion, if you leave it there. Which you well may.

Okay, didn't mean to come out swinging, just a habit on internet forums anymore I guess. To try to discuss more productively: I already thought Monet was overrated, and this was a long-held and considered opinion, not just a knee-jerk reaction to this post. The post seemed to serve as a pepsi-challenge that confirmed what I already thought, but you're right that it's all cherrypicked anyway. That's the part I didn't…

That's fair. I on the other hand thought I was reading a dismissal based on nothing but some tweets (of all things), but in the end that was just an assumption I made.

I notice that were doing this underneath these words:

> Hopefully it helps people to at least be more conscious of their bias.

Oh, well. Is this how it feels when it's working?

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#68

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

skeledrew wrote: post #15

Very good. We need more of these experiments in all areas. Hopefully it helps people to at least be more conscious of their bias.

A proper experiment wouldn't have cherry picked the data. This seems more like rage bait than an experiment.

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#69

Post by scrumper »

Geee wrote: post #48
dormento wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I loathe the blasted copyright washing machine as much as the next intellectually honest person, but: > AI can't create anything original. Can we? I mean, don't we base our output on experience and reprocess references + memories of things past to create what we deem as "new"?

Many artists have a distinct, original style. Originality is the ability to create novelty in a way which is aesthetically pleasing. I've yet to see AI create a single distinct style which is beautiful.

It isn't beautiful at all, nauseating uncanny valley stuff in my opinion, but AI images do have a style (or rather one of a number of idiosyncratic styles.) The sort of glossiness and unsettling focus in photorealistic images; the terrifying dreamlike surreality of more impressionist graphics; even the cartoony style used in corporate infographics. They're all quite distinctive to me at least and certainly aren't anything a human would produce. You can see the "influences" (i.e. stolen training data) but it really has come up with something itself.

Not that I think it should have. Kill it with fire and EMPs.

Re: What happens when you post a real Monet and say it's AI?

#70

Post by Geee »

scrumper wrote: post #69
Geee wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many artists have a distinct, original style. Originality is the ability to create novelty in a way which is aesthetically pleasing. I've yet to see AI create a single distinct style which is beautiful.

It isn't beautiful at all, nauseating uncanny valley stuff in my opinion, but AI images do have a style (or rather one of a number of idiosyncratic styles.) The sort of glossiness and unsettling focus in photorealistic images; the terrifying dreamlike surreality of more impressionist graphics; even the cartoony style used in corporate infographics. They're all quite distinctive to me at least and certainly aren't any…

True. AI does have a style but it's more of a bug than a feature.
Post reply on HN