3 ms·
>Art created by humans is not entirely original. The catch here is that a human can use single sample as input, but AI needs a torrent of training data. Also w
by GoblinSlayer 1y ago
>Art created by humans is not entirely original.
The catch here is that a human can use single sample as input, but AI needs a torrent of training data. Also when AI generates permutations of samples, does their statistic match training data?
- taneq 1y agoNot without a torrent of pre-training data. The qualitative differences are rapidly becoming intangible ‘soul’ type things.
- wongarsu 1y agoA skilled artist can imitate a single art style or draw a specific object from a single reference. But becoming a skilled artist takes years of training. As a society we like to pretend some humans are randomly gifted with the ability to draw, but in reality it's 5% talent and 95% spending countless hours practising the craft. And if you count the years worth of visual data the average human has experienced by the time they can recreate a van Gogh then humans take magnitudes more training data than state of the art ML models
- startupsfail 1y agoIn case of an ML model either a very good description or that single reference could be added to the context.
- brookst 1y agoNo human could use a single sample if it was literally the first piece of art they had ever seen. Humans have that torrent of training data baked in from years of lived experience. That’s why people who go to art school or otherwise study art are generally (not always of course) better artists.
- collingreen 1y agoI don't think the claim that the value of art school simply being more exposure to art holds water.