/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6438118
Fair warning, whenever something like this comes up the shills will resort to the "well it's just overfitting, if it weren't overfitting then it would be okay" argument.
"Overfitting" is what happens when you get output that's selected from a point that's *too close* to the original datapoint(s) within the latent space, thus creating output recognizable as the original image data. This most generally happens when there's not enough data points to interpolate between, meaning that it has to pull from one wholesale. But you'll even see this happening *completely by accident*, as you can see with the example in picrelated.
The thing you should all keep in mind is that overfitting is not the problem, it is a SYMPTOM of the system's inherent flaw- it relies entirely upon the interpolation of images, and thus cannot meaningfully change any of its input, only obfuscate it by blending it with enough similar inputs.

>>6437092
The only reason anyone thinks that any of the images output by AI are "new" is because they are not aware of the source images. However, if you knew what the source images of each output was, then you would be able to put the puzzle pieces together and see what part comes from where. It's like photobashing but without any of the transformative ability of a human being.

>>6395927
>>6395939
AHAHAHAHA NO FUCKING WAAAAY HOLY SHIT IT'S KEANU REEVES