4 ms·
Your concerns regarding averaging and the lack of specifics are both addressed in the article. In short, it's a mistake to judge AI art by its current capabili
by fleddr 4y ago
Your concerns regarding averaging and the lack of specifics are both addressed in the article.
In short, it's a mistake to judge AI art by its current capability. It's about to go on an exponential tour.
- 1dry 4y agoWell, the author says they keep up on "the latest papers" and whatnot, which leaves me as yet unconvinced of the artistic quality of the future output from these models. We will see. While I'm still rambling on about this – the author states: “In a strictly mechanical sense, yes, an artist can still create, knowing that the art could be done faster and better by AI.” The art cannot necessarily be done better by an AI, and the speed with which art is created does not matter, artistically.
- throwaway1851 4y agoAs with vehicular autonomy? We all heard predictions like that about 4-5 years ago.
- Filligree 4y ago> In short, it's a mistake to judge AI art by its current capability. It's about to go on an exponential tour. It's been going on one for the last five years. Two years ago it would have been difficult to generate a picture that's recognizably anything at all, using any non-specific engine. Now we're down to complaints that mostly don't matter that much. Two years from now..?
- 1dry 4y agoSo, what matters?
- goatlover 4y ago> It's about to go on an exponential tour. The Singularity is ever near because exponential growth!