4 ms·
10/10. Most of these computer "generated" pieces are not good art. This is painted by a human who knows what it is to be human in the place that is painted: htt
by BasDirks 11y ago
10/10. Most of these computer "generated" pieces are not good art. This is painted by a human who knows what it is to be human in the place that is painted: http://turing.deepart.io/t/7.jpg http://turing.deepart.io/t/7.jpg. This is just eh, shit? http://turing.deepart.io/f/7.png http://turing.deepart.io/f/7.png.
I am convinced intelligence programming will tackle these issues some day. But apparently not yet.
- mathattack 11y agoI was only 3/10 - so I think it takes an eye for art to beat it. In my mind this is like a chess program getting to 1200. Not enough to beat an expert, but it's on to something.
- josu 11y agoI'm not an expert by any means and I got 10/10
- mathattack 11y agoPerhaps it's what we were looking for? I suspect that we can be trained to spot fakes too to make it harder. Perhaps there will be some co-evolution?
- c06n 11y agoI wonder about that too. I had 2/10, way worse than chance level.
- Jack000 11y agoI thought it was easier to tell which ones were computer generated rather than which were painted by a human. The computer art all seem rather abstract yet uniform. also the high-fidelity, near-photographic paintings are always human.