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

1SecondPainting: Generate abstract paintings in one click

1secondpainting.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 145 posts

Re: 1SecondPainting: Generate abstract paintings in one click

#101

Post by staycoolboy »

lokl wrote: post #70

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…

> It is still decoration and not yet art, according to my personal definitions.

This isn't a personal definition. There literally is a distinction in fine arts study.

Re: 1SecondPainting: Generate abstract paintings in one click

#102

Post by gt2 »

Keverw wrote: post #11

Very cool! Wonder how the copyright works on this sorta stuff. Since you fed your AI with actual images of other people art... but a art student would study other people’s art too. So not sure if AI would be seen as a copy or a derivative work. Seems like if you were designing a game and needed random art to fill frames on a wall could be cool to use these. But I feel like the legal part of doing that might be a litt…

Also interested to know opinions on that.

Re: 1SecondPainting: Generate abstract paintings in one click

#103

Post by Fabricio20 »

captn3m0 wrote: post #12

I got this one, which doesn't look abstract: https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/8.png

Looks like this was trained on some weeb gallery, got myself an anime waifu [0] at first click. This instantly made me remember about waifu labs [1].

[0]: https://1secondpainting.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/5.png

[1]: https://waifulabs.com

Re: 1SecondPainting: Generate abstract paintings in one click

#104

Post by pdabbadabba »

sofal wrote: post #92
pdabbadabba wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems backwards. I think GP's point that the critics on HN are themselves being uncharitable towards the site (or maybe just missed the explanation) by acting like it's a nefarious bait and switch, rather than considering the possibility that the author of the site is just trying to save on computing costs. He or she's not lecturing anyone about economics. In fact, if we want to talk about charity, I think that…

The title literally says "generate abstract paintings in one click" and it is not doing that. I clicked on it expecting it to generate abstract paintings in one click, and now my disappointment is uncharitable?

First of all, my post was quite clearly interpreting a prior comment, not making a claim of my own about whether anyone should be disappointed.

But since we're here: the gnashing of teeth on this thread about having been "mislead" does seem to me to be a bit out of proportion. This person really does seem to have developed a cool toy that uses AI to generate convincing abstract art, but many here aren't saying about it because they object to some of the wording on the landing page!

It's their own fault, of course, for writing the page the way that they did. But still...

Re: 1SecondPainting: Generate abstract paintings in one click

#105

Post by ggggtez »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #88
glenstein wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That seems backwards. I think GP's point that the critics on HN are themselves being uncharitable towards the site (or maybe just missed the explanation) by acting like it's a nefarious bait and switch, rather than considering the possibility that the author of the site is just trying to save on computing costs. He or she's not lecturing anyone about economics. In fact, if we want to talk about charity, I think that…

The site title claims that the user can "generate abstract paintings", but really the user can "view prerendered images".

It's misleading. I don't care if they clarify somewhere else on the site. The intention is clearly to mislead from the get go.

Re: 1SecondPainting: Generate abstract paintings in one click

#107

Post by dropofwill »

jameslk wrote: post #89
lokl wrote: post #70

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…

This doesn't sound like it would be unrealistic. I think this can be partially solved by two systems: one that paints and one that finds the best painting to match a current event (in the form of a topic). The latter system could be trained on a set of paintings and corresponding topics or meanings, and then uses this training to match newly generated paintings to topics/meanings.

There are definitely people working on this sort of thing. I recently read this conf paper on generating modified flags based on a topics (e.g. Cyprus + peace):

https://cdv.dei.uc.pt/ever-changing-flags/

Maybe not as technically exciting, as a super generic NN, but I think projects scoped like this are useful to think about.

Re: 1SecondPainting: Generate abstract paintings in one click

#109

Post by glenstein »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #104
sofal wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The title literally says "generate abstract paintings in one click" and it is not doing that. I clicked on it expecting it to generate abstract paintings in one click, and now my disappointment is uncharitable?

First of all, my post was quite clearly interpreting a prior comment, not making a claim of my own about whether anyone should be disappointed. But since we're here: the gnashing of teeth on this thread about having been "mislead" does seem to me to be a bit out of proportion. This person really does seem to have developed a cool toy that uses AI to generate convincing abstract art, but many here aren't saying about…

I think people are just making a normal, perfectly correct and reasonable observation that the description was misleading, because it really was.

But the hallmark of many internet comment threads is to try and get additional mileage out the conversation by subjecting said reasonable observations to the ritual exercise of switcheroos, contrarianism, idiosyncratic distinctions and unusual interpretations. Which leads to the original wisdom being repeated, which makes it seem like it's being blown out of proportion.

But I think the simpler explanation is just that it's a correct observation and that it's not that complicated.

Re: 1SecondPainting: Generate abstract paintings in one click

#110

Post by glenstein »

phalangion wrote: post #79
glenstein wrote: post #29

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.

Agreed. I think that the button gives the implication. I was focusing on the quoted part, but you're right.
Post reply on HN