11–20 of 54 posts
Here's something similar from The Guardian, but without the ads:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/18/natural-...
Can someone build a classifier that will tell is which of these images was drawn with a living, dead, or (charitably) dissected specimen?
As an example, all the drawn butterflies seems to be drawn as if they were alive, not dead (https://www.emilydamstra.com/please-enough-dead-butterflies/).
Remember when it was totally controversial that Ted Turner intended to colorize classic films such as Casablanca , and how technology was going to ruin artistry in this way? Good times.
I'm assuming it is quite nice, but terrible adverts popping up all over the place and distracting from the overall experience, so I only skimmed through it before I closed the window (on a work computer hence no adblock!) Here's something similar from The Guardian, but without the ads: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/18/natural-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not only did AI tools then help him unearth needed sources and fill in visual gaps I think that's clear
I took that to mean filling in the gaps on the source data, not literally filling in pen and ink gaps in the drawing. If so, that's a shame. It pollutes the original and isn't what counts as restoration.