4 ms·

Paintings aren't made at the "pixel" level and I think your distinction is especially humorous considering the context.

tombert 2y ago
I mean a literal PAINTing is made with paint, obviously. If you were to try and create a robot hand that painted as well as humans that would probably comparably difficult to any other task involving a human hand. I was saying that we solve the AI art problem by skipping straight to an end state (pixels) instead of the same mechanism a human might.
- freejazz 2y ago
  > that would probably comparably difficult to any other task involving a human hand Wow, gee. Go figure! I'm curious, have you been to a museum that has good old paintings? I don't think you can replace paintings with pixel art.
  - tombert 2y ago
    You’re being kind of an ass, which is fine but I just felt it should be acknowledged. Of course I’ve been to an art museum. I’m not sure what you mean by “pixel art”? Given enough pixels, you can scan a painting and represent it on a screen well enough. Have you not played with Stable Diffusion or Midjourney or anything? It doesn’t just give you SNES sprites.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      Paintings have texture and are three-dimensional, which I'd imagine you'd have realized having seen them in real life. >You’re being kind of an ass, which is fine but I just felt it should be acknowledged. Very generous coming from the poster that's saying "we can make a thing like the other thing, assuming it's not actually like the other thing in any way that isn't superficial." It's like you're shooting for a gold medal in the obtuse olympics.
      - tombert 2y ago
        It’s not being “obtuse” for me to not see the “three dimensional” aspect as important as you. I doubt I’m alone in that either. Art is “superficial” by definition so that’s not really the own that you seem to think it is. Eta: Sorry, just a bit confused, isn’t focusing on an artifact of the painting, namely the three dimensionality of it, a superficial detail?
        freejazz 2y ago
        The obtuse thing is you were talking about washing dishes and boston dynamics robots and then when I asked about painting, your response was that doesn't matter because of pixel art. >Sorry, just a bit confused, isn’t focusing on an artifact of the painting, namely the three dimensionality of it, a superficial detail? Artifact of the painting? Do you appreciate painting at all? It's fine if you don't, but that's kinda the whole issue in this thread. People who don't appreciating things making value judgments about the things they don't fundamentally care about. I'm not sure how the texture or three-dimensionality of a painting is 'superficial.' Besides the fact that it literally isn't, it's an actual facet of the painting that is objectively there, it just seems to reflect a lack of understanding on your part. If painting is all superficial anyway, what does it matter that a certain element of it is as well?
        tombert 2y ago
        I said we have a workaround with art because we can skip to an end state and then you acted like a douchebag and said it’s not the same and that if I had seen true paintings I would understand.
        freejazz 2y ago
        >I said we have a workaround with art because we can skip to an end state I guess you still don't see the irony of this? > douchebag and said it’s not the same and that if I had seen true paintings I would understand I didn't say anything about "true" paintings, and your own insecurity is your own issue you need not project as accusations coming from others. It's readily apparent if you view paintings that they are not "flat." If you want to be happy with your pixel art approximation, don't let me stop you. It was you who suggested it was an end run around an actual problem and all I did was point out how that's apparently not true.
- glitchc 2y ago
  Why? Plotters do this all the time. It's not hard to imagine something like LLaVA hooked up to a plotter generating whatever the LLM imagines on a paper medium at a stroke level.

I mean a literal PAINTing is made with paint, obviously. If you were to try and create a robot hand that painted as well as humans that would probably comparably difficult to any other task involving a human hand. I was saying that we solve the AI art problem by skipping straight to an end state (pixels) instead of the same mechanism a human might.

freejazz 2y ago
> that would probably comparably difficult to any other task involving a human hand Wow, gee. Go figure! I'm curious, have you been to a museum that has good old paintings? I don't think you can replace paintings with pixel art.
- tombert 2y ago
  You’re being kind of an ass, which is fine but I just felt it should be acknowledged. Of course I’ve been to an art museum. I’m not sure what you mean by “pixel art”? Given enough pixels, you can scan a painting and represent it on a screen well enough. Have you not played with Stable Diffusion or Midjourney or anything? It doesn’t just give you SNES sprites.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    Paintings have texture and are three-dimensional, which I'd imagine you'd have realized having seen them in real life. >You’re being kind of an ass, which is fine but I just felt it should be acknowledged. Very generous coming from the poster that's saying "we can make a thing like the other thing, assuming it's not actually like the other thing in any way that isn't superficial." It's like you're shooting for a gold medal in the obtuse olympics.
    - tombert 2y ago
      It’s not being “obtuse” for me to not see the “three dimensional” aspect as important as you. I doubt I’m alone in that either. Art is “superficial” by definition so that’s not really the own that you seem to think it is. Eta: Sorry, just a bit confused, isn’t focusing on an artifact of the painting, namely the three dimensionality of it, a superficial detail?
      - freejazz 2y ago
        The obtuse thing is you were talking about washing dishes and boston dynamics robots and then when I asked about painting, your response was that doesn't matter because of pixel art. >Sorry, just a bit confused, isn’t focusing on an artifact of the painting, namely the three dimensionality of it, a superficial detail? Artifact of the painting? Do you appreciate painting at all? It's fine if you don't, but that's kinda the whole issue in this thread. People who don't appreciating things making value judgments about the things they don't fundamentally care about. I'm not sure how the texture or three-dimensionality of a painting is 'superficial.' Besides the fact that it literally isn't, it's an actual facet of the painting that is objectively there, it just seems to reflect a lack of understanding on your part. If painting is all superficial anyway, what does it matter that a certain element of it is as well?
        tombert 2y ago
        I said we have a workaround with art because we can skip to an end state and then you acted like a douchebag and said it’s not the same and that if I had seen true paintings I would understand.
        freejazz 2y ago
        >I said we have a workaround with art because we can skip to an end state I guess you still don't see the irony of this? > douchebag and said it’s not the same and that if I had seen true paintings I would understand I didn't say anything about "true" paintings, and your own insecurity is your own issue you need not project as accusations coming from others. It's readily apparent if you view paintings that they are not "flat." If you want to be happy with your pixel art approximation, don't let me stop you. It was you who suggested it was an end run around an actual problem and all I did was point out how that's apparently not true.
glitchc 2y ago
Why? Plotters do this all the time. It's not hard to imagine something like LLaVA hooked up to a plotter generating whatever the LLM imagines on a paper medium at a stroke level.