5 ms·
Neat article, but I'm skeptical of machine learning to make art easier. I spent some time using PaintsChainer, a ML tool to autofill colors based on a few star
by searine 8y ago
Neat article, but I'm skeptical of machine learning to make art easier.
I spent some time using PaintsChainer, a ML tool to autofill colors based on a few starting choices and the results were... rough.
The problem with ML art, is that it lacks the ability to polish. 90% of the impact of art is in the the last 10% of work, where the artist meticulously refines the piece to turn it from a loosely colored sketch, into a cohesive and complete picture.
Many of the tricks and tools to create this polish are heuristics that are not quantifiable or teachable via image sets. They come from an understanding of the "Gestalt" of a picture, or what the "gestalt" should be and then doing the necessary steps to get it there.
The other problem is you can't teach an ML algorithm about the hidden volumes in art. Much of drawing/painting is about tricking the eye into perceiving volume when none exists. An ML algorithm can perceive volume and identity after color/light have been applied, because those categories carry data. However, an ML algorithm can't infer what color/light a circle should have to give it the correct volume/perspective. A circle can be a doorknob, a pie, a ball, an eye. Each needing different data applied to it, which the ML algorithm doesn't (and won't ever) have.
Personally, I'd welcome a tool to make painting easier. It'd be amazing. However, I don't think we are all that close to a machine creating polished artwork.
- sulam 8y agoEvery time someone makes a statement, or series of statements that involve the words "can't" or "not" (or others) regarding the capability, adoption, or just general progression of technology to do a particular thing or reach a particular goal, my spidey sense starts tingling and I think to myself "well that's going to happen." Unless it involves basic physics, then I think "okay, probably not going to happen, but you never know."
- tomc1985 8y agoI didn't read very far but the article didn't seem to spend much time considering art theory, which seems odd when I would think that codifying those rules would build better AI. This paper builds a mechanical assistant to the mechanical act of drawing, which, I guess, is good, but like you say that AI will never be able to get the work to 100%. Which means real artists won't have much more to be concerned about. Also that Marshall Mcluhan quote sounds more appropriate in a bitcoin thread. The world don't need a cult of A.I.
- blanche_ 8y agoWhy do you assume that neural network would be unable to understand (or classify) 'Gestalt' of the picture? I would not make those assumptions about perspective, because in the end ml could make 3d model of the picture and KNOW the exact perspective.