3 ms·
I disagree, because the machine is still using human generated input for creating these images. Not to take away from what's been created here because it's inte
by pmyjavec 10y ago
I disagree, because the machine is still using human generated input for creating these images. Not to take away from what's been created here because it's interesting to look at, but an image filter could be considered an attack on our uniqueness because it takes an existing human art work and can potentially create something more interesting, but most people wouldn't consider it an assault.
I get this is a "neural net", which makes people think these paintings are created by the terminator, but these images still have very real human inputs which is why we can relate to them.
- Houshalter 10y agoWhat human input? I mean the pictures were taken by humans. But they weren't drawn by humans, they weren't meant to be art, and no one intended the output of the network to look the way it does. There is very little human input here.
- gridspy 10y agoIf I pick a shell I find beautiful from the shore, did the beach create the shell, or did I? Computer algorithms produce a lot of trash. Just because the human didn't wield a brush, as long as we're seeing filtered and tuned results, a human had a hand in creating these.
- WhitneyLand 10y agoYes humans were instrumental, but we can acknowledge that while still accepting their role as separate from artist: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/movies/how-creative-artists-court-the-muse.html http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/movies/how-creative-artist...