4 ms·

> That's how human brains work too. TL;DR: Brains and diffuse AI work very differently, and it's short sighted that the meme is so often repeated. It's really

> That's how human brains work too. TL;DR: Brains and diffuse AI work very differently, and it's short sighted that the meme is so often repeated. It's really not. Human brains don't categorize inputs by a set of keywords and then use other keywords to compose an output collage of inputs with the same keyword. Humans are lossy, and so our brains are actually quite good at filling in the blanks contextually. We also don't think of keywords, we think of objects. A banana is an object to us with lots of context other than how it looks, whereas it's just a tag to an AI. Which is all to say, if an AI doesn't have a reference for a particular artists' method of doing a specific paint stroke, it can never create that paint stroke. A person can - they can re-create a paint stroke from everything else they've studied about an artist and style and what kinds of paints they had available to them at the time. There's a reason that producing decent pieces of art out of an AI can take tens of hours and hundreds of prompts. It's still the human brain driving the final output. They've just handicapped themselves to just using keyword prompts to avoid learning a specific skill set.

XorNot 2y ago
No one knows exactly how AIs work. It's an active area of research, you can go and look the papers up. This statement here: > Which is all to say, if an AI doesn't have a reference for a particular artists' method of doing a specific paint stroke, it can never create that paint stroke. This is unsupported at best. You don't know. Pre-eminent experts in the field don't know. But this is simply a restatement of the weird "it just interpolates" fallacy people constantly spout about AI, which isn't even true of simple mathematical interpolation A simple example: finding a way to interpolate between points (1,1) and (2,4) would be something like y = 2x. Fairly obviously, that equation will easily tell you how to work outside that range, the distinction is you don't have any more data to verify if this is real. Replace the point geometry with the abstract "paint stroke" algorithm, and an AI model can do exactly the same thing.
- falcolas 2y ago
  An AI can only work with the inputs it has, modulo a random seed. That is, it can't interpolate using anything more than two axes (to use your example). A human can interpolate in 4 different axes (if not more). And let's be frank, the whole "the AI can do the exact same thing" is a disingenuous assertion with nothing backing it other than "we don't know that it can't." I could also be a god, since you don't know that I'm not a god.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

XorNot 2y ago

No one knows exactly how AIs work. It's an active area of research, you can go and look the papers up. This statement here: > Which is all to say, if an AI doesn't have a reference for a particular artists' method of doing a specific paint stroke, it can never create that paint stroke. This is unsupported at best. You don't know. Pre-eminent experts in the field don't know. But this is simply a restatement of the weird "it just interpolates" fallacy people constantly spout about AI, which isn't even true of simple mathematical interpolation A simple example: finding a way to interpolate between points (1,1) and (2,4) would be something like y = 2x. Fairly obviously, that equation will easily tell you how to work outside that range, the distinction is you don't have any more data to verify if this is real. Replace the point geometry with the abstract "paint stroke" algorithm, and an AI model can do exactly the same thing.

falcolas 2y ago
An AI can only work with the inputs it has, modulo a random seed. That is, it can't interpolate using anything more than two axes (to use your example). A human can interpolate in 4 different axes (if not more). And let's be frank, the whole "the AI can do the exact same thing" is a disingenuous assertion with nothing backing it other than "we don't know that it can't." I could also be a god, since you don't know that I'm not a god.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]