3 ms·
I was actually surprised at how good the reflections are, given that the model has no "understanding" of what a reflection is or of the underlying three-dimensi
by mortenjorck 4y ago
I was actually surprised at how good the reflections are, given that the model has no "understanding" of what a reflection is or of the underlying three-dimensional space implied in each image. There are peaks that don't quite match up (the first example is probably the worst, with an entire extra peak), but overall, it's remarkably accurate for having no concrete ruleset for the domain it's working in.
- dahart 4y agoFWIW, I totally agree with this. It’s quite good as a quick ‘impression’, and amazing that it knows to generate something similar in the reflection. This is just one of those things that separates fake from real. Even though it’s subjectively pretty good, it’s not good enough imagery from my perspective to use or to call it indistinguishable from a photo. It all depends on what the goal is, but the title of the piece does make the claim ‘these are not photos’, which from my perspective is establishing the goal posts and easy in this case to argue. The reasons that this is surprisingly good is an example of the story behind the image, it’s surprisingly good when you know how the image was made. In that sense I’m a little bit wrong above about the AI imagery lacking a story. ;)
- spywaregorilla 4y agoIt may have a vague understanding of things that have mirrored symmetry though, as many things do. And so this concept of reflections that sort of have mirrored symmetry is causing it to overassume that it's like other things.