3 ms·

What I think would be interesting would be to add a human discriminator test: Can you tell genuine cubist art from computer-generated cubist art?

by gwd 7y ago

tartoran 7y ago
What would the point of that be may I ask? Something to do with a Turing like test? Lets not forget that the would be cubist model is actually fed tons of cubist images and all it does is regurgitating that back. Art done by people is somewhat similar but it does take place in a context that which AI could not yet understand.
- gwd 7y ago
  Well, I'm personally curious. When I looked through this thread several hours ago, there seemed to be two very distinct camps: "This is really cool you should see if you can sell these", and "This is just random stuff mashed together; there's clearly no artistic intent". The first group, it seems, sees no "artistic intent" in real cubist art, and so sees no difference; the second claims to be able to see real "artistic intent" in real art, and to note its absence here. I have to admit I'm rather in the first camp. I have spent time in art galleries, but not a huge amount; I have opinions about art, but 90% of what I hear said about paintings seems to me to be nonsense. I know a lot about music; and so far I've always been able to distinguish 100% of computer-generated musical snippets from genuine classical snippets. And specifically, the key difference is exactly what is claimed by the second group -- that computer-generated melodies are just piles of similar musical ideas mashed together, without any apparent intent or direction. One of the claims of skeptics of art is that there really is nothing there, and that all the "art critics" are just doing a wetware version of GPT-2. If someone trained in art can really distinguish a cubist painting with artistic intent from one generated with this neural net, then it's 1) proof that there really is something there, and 2) it's maybe worth learning about.

What I think would be interesting would be to add a human discriminator test: Can you tell genuine cubist art from computer-generated cubist art?

by gwd 7y ago

What I think would be interesting would be to add a human discriminator test: Can you tell genuine cubist art from computer-generated cubist art?

tartoran 7y ago

What would the point of that be may I ask? Something to do with a Turing like test? Lets not forget that the would be cubist model is actually fed tons of cubist images and all it does is regurgitating that back. Art done by people is somewhat similar but it does take place in a context that which AI could not yet understand.

gwd 7y ago
Well, I'm personally curious. When I looked through this thread several hours ago, there seemed to be two very distinct camps: "This is really cool you should see if you can sell these", and "This is just random stuff mashed together; there's clearly no artistic intent". The first group, it seems, sees no "artistic intent" in real cubist art, and so sees no difference; the second claims to be able to see real "artistic intent" in real art, and to note its absence here. I have to admit I'm rather in the first camp. I have spent time in art galleries, but not a huge amount; I have opinions about art, but 90% of what I hear said about paintings seems to me to be nonsense. I know a lot about music; and so far I've always been able to distinguish 100% of computer-generated musical snippets from genuine classical snippets. And specifically, the key difference is exactly what is claimed by the second group -- that computer-generated melodies are just piles of similar musical ideas mashed together, without any apparent intent or direction. One of the claims of skeptics of art is that there really is nothing there, and that all the "art critics" are just doing a wetware version of GPT-2. If someone trained in art can really distinguish a cubist painting with artistic intent from one generated with this neural net, then it's 1) proof that there really is something there, and 2) it's maybe worth learning about.