This is so fucking cool. Technology is truly amazing. Definitely a thing people in the future will take for granted though. Littke shits.
Anyway, who even needs artists anymore now? We're getting to the point where we'll let AI create art.
deepart.io
The intersection of the set of all art and the set of all AI-created stuff is [math]\emptyset[/math].
The Op image was created by an AI
Just like how calculators and computers replaced mathematicians, right?
Oh boy, I can't wait for the semantics nitpicking bullshit that's about to ensue. I already know what's coming, and I've written the response in advance.
AI can only follow a set process, smart programmers in the future will make robots with problem solving and learning algorithms that can allow them to seem near-human, but the one thing a computer will never do is have an original idea. The illusion of creativity in AI is only possible through random values.
Nice armchair faggot
think of counterargument then, nigger
Counterargument to what? Nothing you said means anything, it's just a bunch of shit you pulled out of your ass. Try reading a book.
Well I'm a programmer focusing on AI, do I have to explain it in more detail?
An artist needs to be sentient being which understands the concept of art, and is capable to appreciate their own work as such. So far, AI certainly isn't at that stage. For that bot that created that image, it's just a matrix of values which it arrived at by munching some algorithms, and nothing more.
Maths is a lot more complicated than art
Go ahead post it
If I'm not mistaken deepart still uses the older implementation of this work. There has been an improvement published a few months ago using CRF rather than gram statistics as the 'style statistic' which works much better but takes much longer to optimize.
This, I won't accept a computer as an 'artist' unless it can at least look at pictures and accurately describe the contents, which is still yet to be achieved
>The illusion of creativity in AI is only possible through random values.
Isn't that the same as humans?
Hahaha yeah and I've got a PhD in Machine Learning also I've got a 6ft dick and my dad could beat up your dad, do I have to explain it in more detail?
>accurately describe the contents
That's what deepart pretty much does though to understand the style of a picture to copy it.
Really the only thing missing is deepart mixing styles trying to find its own style
So you"re saying a piece of work created by an autist who is not really aware of his artwork is not real art? No matter how unique and beautiful it is?
googleresearch.blogspot.com
This research is two years old so you can bet it's gotten a lot better. Kill yourself.
>That's what deepart pretty much does though to understand the style of a picture to copy it.
You are a moron and you have no idea how any of this shit works.
So many retards in this thread.
no I mean some part of the program somehow comprehends the idea that it's drawing a picture of Einstein as opposed to a big table of numeric values or a series of vector lines
oh, /b/ ambassador, you should've told me it was you
I think that art must be created conciously, if it's the result of a random and involuntary process, it's hard to classify it as such. You probably wouldn't describe a mountain range or objects in space, or even anything that was made by an animal as art, despite any possible quasi-artistic qualities that their view might have.
It literally breaks the image down into content and style to work out how images are supposed to be drawn in the style. How does it not fill the criteria "accurately describes qhat's in the picture"?
Maybe you shouldn't choose so poorly arbitrary and retarded definitions to decide what art is
So far it still requires human input, so doesn't that still make it art?
Oh bullshit, that article is theory and speculation, if the technology exists it has not been released publicly
I guess it depends on your interpretation of art... would you consider a program that generates a random chord progression and a melody to follow it to be an artist if all the user does is tell it what key and scales to use?
If it's beautiful, sure. Art is entirely subjective. Public consensus is the only thing that decides what art is and what's not. Reminder that during Van Gogh's life time everyone thought his artworks were pieces of trash
so i dunno the sauce of op image but its been trained on van gogh right
and then fed a picture of einstein
i mean at best thats a slightly jazzier version of sampling
no great shakes, art has been fucking around with convolution forever anyway
The source link is literally in the OP
right so you upload as training image ('style image' as they call it)
and then an image to transform
this is literally photoshop-filter tier
then I guess the argument is over whether it requires creativity to be an artist, this is sure to be the headlines in 10-15 years
Photo was taken by a human. Style was defined by Van Gogh.
Except that it breaks down the style of one image and the contents of the other and recreates the image in the new style.
It goes far beyond a mere filter and requires deeep processes.
You don't seem to grasp how much of a feat that is
og
no i definitely do
but what i'm saying is that it's useless without the input data ie vincent van gogh
Are you literally retarded?
Google "automatic image captioning" to find mountains of this stuff. Here's something from this year:
arxiv.org
The same holds true for humans. Theyy just mix a lot of input data.
Blind people can't draw pictures either
>Art is entirely subjective
I've heard enough of this.
i get that it can endlessly spit out pics that people might think were van gogh
altho to me it looks like it was trained on his still life and landscapes
but whatever, its possible for it to imitate an artist i like, and that's incredibly cool
but that's all it's doing, whereas van gogh had a unique style which he came up with (mental illness notwithstanding)
which is infinitely more valuable (there are already tons of human van gogh copycats as you alluded)
Then give me an objective value of art.
For all we know everything we consider art today might be considered poor trash tomorrow.
can a person accurately describe all the contents of a picture? i don't think so. he or she can on a certain level describe most of the content, but not everything.
Oh shit I found /g/
What makes you think subjectivity even exists?
Now it's getting retarded
>it can at least look at pictures and accurately describe the contents
Lol. Show deepart.io
see
when it at least possesses the image identification capability of a 6 year old then maybe we can start talking about artistic merit
...
You mean sapient. A sentient being is not sufficient condition to create art, but a necessary condition.
One could argue that point. In the same way that there's no such thing as a completely original song as everything stems from inspiration. everything is a product of its environment to put it simply. We can only choose what to do with our influences.
Wow. It figured it's a "painting".
>who even needs artists anymore now?
Well I am not an expert but I know deepart.io for example needs input from actual artists before it can do anything meaningful. It also requires some level of artistic aesthetic to decide which buttons to press and which images to upload. Overall the site is just another tool for artists to use, master, and subsequently discard when it stops making unique and interesting pieces.
do we really know enough about the brain to justly answer this question?
...
This. Even ancient raster graphics processing programs like old Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro had stuff like "artistic filters", which were really a much more rudimentary version of the processing that deepart is doing to the processed images.
We really don't. Neuroscience and psychology are relatively new compared to other branches of study. Consciousness in definition is still not really understood. Is it own thing or the result of all the mechanisms currently active within our mind? I think it's the latter but would like to know for sure some day.
For all you know the universe could be totally uniform, all matter contiguous.
For all you know nothing could be said to have existed at all, since science cannot prove being to be qualitatively different from non-being, in much the same way that it cannot alone distinguish between life and non-life.
True, people see things differently, but why do you think that this fact means there cannot be an objectively knowable reality?
My answer to your question is that whatever exists attains an objective quality via both its participation in contingency as the single principle of existence and its participation in the intellect of the one observing it.
Mathematics is abstracting from matter, but artistic knowledge (intuition) is abstraction from sense-perception, hence the tastes of a highly adept artist may approach a metaphysical ground in being itself, inasmuch as being is ordered to potentiality and is therefor called good.
So if our consciousness experience were like a radio frequency there could be one main station frequency that could be considered the 'one ' as in reality there would be objective.
wut
...
image recognition can easily recognize most stuff by now. I just picked a random free software.
Well, there was that whole pre-scientific era of lots of superstition, philosophy, and religion so we have a pretty firm baseline to measure from.
If you brain can formulate a mind that conceives of what the brain is truly capable of then you have become the very thing that is capable of comprehending what a brain is capable of. If we can't become that comprehensively self-aware, then it stands to reason that we're physically incapable of actually knowing.
It is at this exact point that you realize the question won't make sense until you can express it as a self-replicating Turing machine.
And I don't think you're the next Von Neumann.
lel
>fashion
Why is Microsoft ai so obsessed with Giraffes?
It changes the pixels are makes it blurry. Truly amazing.
You're retarded. Like no joke, that's the level of intelligence of my dumbest facebook friends
Think this is interesting. You could probably use a similar construction to create a generative "art model" that is capable of simulating (to some degree) the process of inspiration in the mind of an artist.
You would train the network to be in the 'state' of an artist's mind (by using his exhaustive works) and then allow it to generate sequences of art ad infinitum. This would be interesting because it could give us a visual 'hint' as to the kind of artistic images that might flash through an artist's own mind as he creates art. Similarly, we might be able to feed such a network a set of images that act as inspiration, giving us further hints about how the world informs creativity.
Very intredasting application of deep learning.
So this is probably a retarded question - but what makes this "artificial intelligence?"
Are they saying that the computer is making it's own decisions as how to create the picture? One of the first AI's as far as I remember was Deep Blue. It was able to "think" and "plan" in real time to defeat a chess champion.
This seems to be a new type of AI, I guess? It's "thinking" about how to create a picture? What makes it so much more cutting edge and revolutionary to Deep Blue? Is it just the complexity of what it's doing?
Not an argument
It's pointless to argue with you because you don't understand what's happening on a fundamental level
it is specialized in a different field than deep blue
Deep Blue is a chess program.
This is a program that analyzes the style and contents of a picture
Lmao why are you so defensive about this program? It's a photoshop AI kid, nothing more.
You're completely unaware what technological feat that is, are you?
it's garbage AI
>He didn't realized that he has been talking to an AI program all along
>The AI program was trying to defend his artist friend
Truly the end of human kind.
hmm
I think we have the solution to the war on terror.
By what standards? No program has ever been able to do this before
Can't wait till all my hentai doujinshis are redrawn in the original artstyle!
I am hentai bot, I am make shitty art of your animu
Feed me
...
Tree was created by god
Pencil by factory number 5
Hurr durr
So that's it then? Deep Blue plays chess in 1996 and 20 years later we have an AI that can paint? Doesn't seem like much of a leap given the technological progress we've made in 2 decades.
So this is really just like an advanced image-rendering process, right? It is software that can convert an image into what looks like a painting using a selected art style?
It sounds similar to an image upscaler called waifu2x, which has to guess and make up new detail every time you upscale. This site does it all for you if you link it a picture:
waifu2x.udp.jp
You can download the software for that and upscale images locally if you want; it's pretty fast if you have CUDA. I wonder if you would need expensive hardware to use something like deepart, or if one could slowly convert images on their own PC?
It seems like you can run it yourself. It uses CUDA and is written in Python
github.com
THIS IS NOTHING!
You guys wait, in a couple of years these neural networks will be able to generate meshes for objects from photos and then generate the textures which can be artistic in their own right.
Want more? They will probably be able to animate them too. Oh boy, I can't wait for the butthurt from game artists.
unconventional clothing and lots of skin?
looks like fashion to me. Not the kind of fashion you wear but the kind of fashion designers are all over about
Veeky Forums has a knack for overreacting to "breakthroughs".
Honestly this shit isn't impressive at all.
yeah i know, fashion recognition isn;t a thing yet
it will be though
job interviews are going to be awful in the future
Chess isn't that complicated. It's got a limited amount of moves and if AI didn't beat it we'd simply do it by brute force simply making computers powerful enough.
Just recently a human was beaten in GO which is much more impressive.
And the ability to break down art into its components is a HUGE step. There were and are a lot of people that believe that art is what would forever seperate a human from a computer, but we aren't that far away from AI creating its own, completely original art.
Maybe if you're below average intelligence. Just as the OP said, this is technology future kods will take for granted not realizing what a huge step it is.
You know what will be cool? Video Games that are automatically created and expanded by AI. Like Sword Art Online
Oh shit the future is gonna be awesome
>Estimated wait time 6 days
kek
Better create your artistic memes now
or just do it on your own computer, if you have an nvidia card
see gotta know how to install all those python dependencies though
Humans never have original ideas either. Anything you imagine and think is creative and new is just a recombination of things you have already seen. Maybe these recombinations of already given information can be so complex that it seems like an original idea, but it never is.
What kind of garbage website is that, that they actually milk such a small insignificant gimmick for money?
Show me the results. I doubt they'll look as good