3 ms·

Maybe another way to think of it is that the error correction part of image generation models is offloaded to the human visual cortex which is a very old evolut

by uh_uh 4y ago

Maybe another way to think of it is that the error correction part of image generation models is offloaded to the human visual cortex which is a very old evolutionary construct and thus had time to become very resilient? In case of text generation, maybe the error tolerance of the human brain is less developed as human-level language is a newer evolutionary invention. It'd be interesting if the parameter/complexity requirements are actually similar once you examine the system as a whole, meaning machine _and_ human brain.

Codesleuth 4y ago
> image generation models is offloaded to the human visual cortex which is a very old evolutionary construct and thus had time to become very resilient This is a very important point. A group of my colleagues (who are not tech people) are much more impressed with the image generation models than with the chat interface, even though the images are often whacky or just wrong. Yet the fact that it tried is impressive to them, with their minds managing to fill in the blanks. I wonder how this compares to how a toddler speaks vs. paints/draws, which is typically better in the former than the latter. I'm both cases, we fill in the blanks in our minds.
- v01dlight 4y ago
  Toddler speaking gets impressive/surprising quite fast, whereas the drawing usually does not. The most surprising thing about most toddler drawings is listening to the kid describe it or tell you about making it.
  - glomgril 4y ago
    The consistency of descriptions is particularly surprising to me. Like you got a roughly circular collection of seemingly random scribbles, but they can tell you exactly which parts of it correspond to the person's nose, hair, arms, eyes, etc. And the descriptions seem to stay the same if you ask about the same picture on different days. Still not sure what to make of this phenomenon but it is fascinating.
spacebanana7 4y ago
I wonder whether video and metaverse generation models will be even smaller than an image model because of this mechanism. The mapping and motion parts of the human brain are also old evolutionary constructs that could error correct the output of models.

by uh_uh 4y ago

Codesleuth 4y ago

> image generation models is offloaded to the human visual cortex which is a very old evolutionary construct and thus had time to become very resilient This is a very important point. A group of my colleagues (who are not tech people) are much more impressed with the image generation models than with the chat interface, even though the images are often whacky or just wrong. Yet the fact that it tried is impressive to them, with their minds managing to fill in the blanks. I wonder how this compares to how a toddler speaks vs. paints/draws, which is typically better in the former than the latter. I'm both cases, we fill in the blanks in our minds.

v01dlight 4y ago
Toddler speaking gets impressive/surprising quite fast, whereas the drawing usually does not. The most surprising thing about most toddler drawings is listening to the kid describe it or tell you about making it.
- glomgril 4y ago
  The consistency of descriptions is particularly surprising to me. Like you got a roughly circular collection of seemingly random scribbles, but they can tell you exactly which parts of it correspond to the person's nose, hair, arms, eyes, etc. And the descriptions seem to stay the same if you ask about the same picture on different days. Still not sure what to make of this phenomenon but it is fascinating.

spacebanana7 4y ago

I wonder whether video and metaverse generation models will be even smaller than an image model because of this mechanism. The mapping and motion parts of the human brain are also old evolutionary constructs that could error correct the output of models.