4 ms·
VERY interesting - as soon as I read the title, I thought "finally, this will really tell me whether deep earning is bullshit or not!". Why? Because my unders
by logicallee 11y ago
VERY interesting - as soon as I read the title, I thought "finally, this will really tell me whether deep earning is bullshit or not!". Why? Because my understanding is that colorization is basically magic, like, how can you possibly get the color of a telephone handset out of a black and white image? In fact, you can't! Here's the set of the Addams Family:
http://www.fastcodesign.com/3021327/asides/the-addams-familys-living-room-was-pink http://www.fastcodesign.com/3021327/asides/the-addams-family...
Totally all over the map. So I thought this would be such a fantastic, fantastic way to compare my knowledge of the world with a punk algorithm's.
I didn't read the key/legend/explanation - as soon as I saw the first set of 3 images, I knew the middle lamp was the true color, and the right lamp was generated; because lampshades overwhelmingly look like the middle picture (in my mind) - https://www.google.com/search?q=lampshade https://www.google.com/search?q=lampshade not that weird blue color.
"Ha, stupid algorithm", I thought. "Who has a blue lampshade". this algrithm doesn't even come close.
Then I kept scrolling with that assumption, and it got worse and worse - wow that photographer's color is like blood orange, the algorithm doesn't even know it's a person! This is terrible. Where does that truck get that green trim, nobody would choose that, straight out of left field.
Until I got to the field with wolves. Why are the flowers' colors missing from the middle picture? This doesn't look right at all.
Then I read the caption. The middle images are the generated ones; the right-hand images are reality.
For five 5 of 6 images, I thought that the generated image was "obviously" an actual photo, and much more plausible in colors than the right-hand real photos. Continuing to scroll, for the park bench also I think the middle image is much closer to how I imagine it.
So we are at the stage where an algorithm generates a much more plausible view of reality, with rare exceptions, than actual reality. This is pretty impressive.
- platz 11y ago> an algorithm generates a much more plausible view of reality, with rare exceptions, than actual reality Queue Baudrillard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation
- thenayr 11y agoI believe your first assumption was correct: "The output is the middle image. The right image is the true color"
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- logicallee 11y ago(edited that one part in my comment, but I think what I wrote is clear - I assumed the middle image was reality and the right-hand generated.)
- TheOtherHobbes 11y agoI had completely the opposite take-away - but then I have some experience of photography, and sadly, brightly coloured lampshades no longer surprise me. I think it's a good illustration of the limits of statistical approaches, and why "It's harder than it looks" applies. This is about as good as it's going to get without genuine object recognition, knowledge of real-world lighting and colour, and awareness of photographic styles. It might be possible for a system to learn all of the above, but it's going to need a bigger and probably pre-partitioned training set, and a much more complex model.
- logicallee 11y agoI'm curious, for you is the difference obvious? (is the right-hand one obviously reality in each case?)
- eutectic 11y ago[citation needed]
- Houshalter 11y agoTo be useful, it doesn't have to be perfect. It can have humans provide it with reference photos, select colors for different parts, or look at several different versions of the same image and decide which one looks best.
- gmt2027 11y agoThis suggests a colorisation "Turing test" where website visitors have to tell which image they think is real.