4 ms·

That's because hands and bycicles are complex 3D shapes and it's hard to picture them in your mind from arbitrary angles. It's not because the artist doesn't un

by bakugo 4y ago

That's because hands and bycicles are complex 3D shapes and it's hard to picture them in your mind from arbitrary angles. It's not because the artist doesn't understand what a hand is or how many fingers it's supposed to have.

rcme 4y ago
Someone else posted this article about how people draw bicycles: https://www.booooooom.com/2016/05/09/bicycles-built-based-on-peoples-attempts-to-draw-them-from-memory/ https://www.booooooom.com/2016/05/09/bicycles-built-based-on... You can see that some people have a fundamental misunderstanding about how bicycles work, and this misunderstanding does not stem from the complex 3D shape of bicycles. Don't you think drawing a hand is a bit of an unfair "gotcha" for an AI that can accurately draw thousands of other things? Humans have hands and they're one of the most important parts of the body; humans use hands for everything. And yet, all but the most artistic humans cannot draw human hands accurately. An AI doesn't have hands. Hands make up a small part of its training data. Why should we consider the hand the standard upon which to judge the quality of the AI?
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  Given that there are accurate representations of hands in it's data set, and also given that the AI would have no problem copying or averaging only these accurate representations, it seems the AI doesn't have the evaluative ability to recognize accurate versus inaccurate hand representations.
  - rcme 4y ago
    This seems like a huge leap. Sure, there are hands in the dataset, just like a human artist encounters hands every day of his or her life. Yet there are many artists that cannot draw hands but can easily draw other objects they encounter. Or, going back to bikes, some humans cannot accurately draw a bike despite encountering them frequently. Perhaps hands are simply a complex thing to draw accurately. Perhaps the AI's poor drawing of hands is itself evidence of understanding. Rather than produce an incorrectly oriented hand from its dataset, it "chooses" to draw something less specific as a reflection of its lack of ability to draw hands.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      And this seems like a huge leap to me. You're imputing a very specific human fallibility to a software that isn't human (or even derived from the same neurological underpinnings). I guess it would take someone who can look at and interpret the code to figure it out.
      - rcme 4y ago
        I'm not imputing anything on the AI. I'm asking a question and then offering conjecture as to why the current answers the question are unsatisfying. The question is: Why do we accept that a human understands the concept of hand despite drawing hands poorly while simultaneously saying the AI draws hands poorly because it doesn't understand hands?
        anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        > "Why do we accept that a human understands the concept of hand despite drawing hands poorly" We use hands, recognize hands, some of us can draw or sculpt accurate representations of hands, we can talk about aspects of hands such as grip and fingerlength. All of these things encompass the idea and physical instance of "hand" in much more than just the artistic sense. Also, we certainly know when we draw a hand poorly. Unless we are children, or have a brain condition. And if we are children or have a brain condition other adults wouldn't say that we have a good understanding of what a hand is. Perhaps the AI knows it's drawing hands poorly. Perhaps it can't communicate this to us. Even so this should be in the code run somewhere. > "while simultaneously saying the AI draws hands poorly because it doesn't understand hands?" For two reasons: 1) The AI is just drawing. Even humans draw many things that they don't understand. If we draw something that we completely don't understand (such as through random scribbling) we don't even call it a representation. It's a fluke. I used to scribble and then trace images in my scribbling (if possible). Often I ended up tracing things that looked like a child's bad drawing of Donald Duck, but once, without having to trace particular lines at all, my scribbling was a perfect seeming of a rose flower (with some minor additional flourishes). I recognized the rose flower, but I certainly didn't set out to draw it. 2) I'm assuming the AI wasn't trained on medical and other information pertaining to a hand, the way humans are (even if the training isn't formal). It is trained on images. At best it is trained on images of discrete parts of the body, but this only allows it to understand the shape and relative position of each body part, at best. Not to understand the body part. Ultimately it would take something looking at the code run to determine whether or not the AI brings an understanding of the concept of "hand" into the literal picture. If all it's bringing is #1 then it's not an understanding of "hand".

by bakugo 4y ago

rcme 4y ago

Someone else posted this article about how people draw bicycles: https://www.booooooom.com/2016/05/09/bicycles-built-based-on-peoples-attempts-to-draw-them-from-memory/ https://www.booooooom.com/2016/05/09/bicycles-built-based-on... You can see that some people have a fundamental misunderstanding about how bicycles work, and this misunderstanding does not stem from the complex 3D shape of bicycles. Don't you think drawing a hand is a bit of an unfair "gotcha" for an AI that can accurately draw thousands of other things? Humans have hands and they're one of the most important parts of the body; humans use hands for everything. And yet, all but the most artistic humans cannot draw human hands accurately. An AI doesn't have hands. Hands make up a small part of its training data. Why should we consider the hand the standard upon which to judge the quality of the AI?

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
Given that there are accurate representations of hands in it's data set, and also given that the AI would have no problem copying or averaging only these accurate representations, it seems the AI doesn't have the evaluative ability to recognize accurate versus inaccurate hand representations.
- rcme 4y ago
  This seems like a huge leap. Sure, there are hands in the dataset, just like a human artist encounters hands every day of his or her life. Yet there are many artists that cannot draw hands but can easily draw other objects they encounter. Or, going back to bikes, some humans cannot accurately draw a bike despite encountering them frequently. Perhaps hands are simply a complex thing to draw accurately. Perhaps the AI's poor drawing of hands is itself evidence of understanding. Rather than produce an incorrectly oriented hand from its dataset, it "chooses" to draw something less specific as a reflection of its lack of ability to draw hands.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    And this seems like a huge leap to me. You're imputing a very specific human fallibility to a software that isn't human (or even derived from the same neurological underpinnings). I guess it would take someone who can look at and interpret the code to figure it out.
    - rcme 4y ago
      I'm not imputing anything on the AI. I'm asking a question and then offering conjecture as to why the current answers the question are unsatisfying. The question is: Why do we accept that a human understands the concept of hand despite drawing hands poorly while simultaneously saying the AI draws hands poorly because it doesn't understand hands?
      - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        > "Why do we accept that a human understands the concept of hand despite drawing hands poorly" We use hands, recognize hands, some of us can draw or sculpt accurate representations of hands, we can talk about aspects of hands such as grip and fingerlength. All of these things encompass the idea and physical instance of "hand" in much more than just the artistic sense. Also, we certainly know when we draw a hand poorly. Unless we are children, or have a brain condition. And if we are children or have a brain condition other adults wouldn't say that we have a good understanding of what a hand is. Perhaps the AI knows it's drawing hands poorly. Perhaps it can't communicate this to us. Even so this should be in the code run somewhere. > "while simultaneously saying the AI draws hands poorly because it doesn't understand hands?" For two reasons: 1) The AI is just drawing. Even humans draw many things that they don't understand. If we draw something that we completely don't understand (such as through random scribbling) we don't even call it a representation. It's a fluke. I used to scribble and then trace images in my scribbling (if possible). Often I ended up tracing things that looked like a child's bad drawing of Donald Duck, but once, without having to trace particular lines at all, my scribbling was a perfect seeming of a rose flower (with some minor additional flourishes). I recognized the rose flower, but I certainly didn't set out to draw it. 2) I'm assuming the AI wasn't trained on medical and other information pertaining to a hand, the way humans are (even if the training isn't formal). It is trained on images. At best it is trained on images of discrete parts of the body, but this only allows it to understand the shape and relative position of each body part, at best. Not to understand the body part. Ultimately it would take something looking at the code run to determine whether or not the AI brings an understanding of the concept of "hand" into the literal picture. If all it's bringing is #1 then it's not an understanding of "hand".