/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6869976
by top you mean from above?
photo models can do that. art models are probably worse since they will have less relevant training on this kind of stuff.

>it is even trivial if you use small training dataset.
of course. because then the model barely knows anything else.
and it would be a literal copy machine if it was only trained on one image. but so?
but it's not. very far from it.

>It has been demonstrated you can recover the original images
yeah? at what rate, under what circumstances? with what kind of images?
you know that your claim has a ginormous asterisk next to it. you just choose to ignore it.

>Even a little child can do it.
children can't draw shit.

>The AI cannot because it has no image of top of seagul’s head in the training dataset.
it would have some, because it probably has some seagulls in it, i can probably get them out reliably with cnet too.
but that's beside the point. if it hasn't trained on it, it can't make it, because it lacks an internal representation of that object/idea. yes.
and?
can you draw something you've never seen? can anyone?
we literally study anatomy from all angles to be able to draw it reliably.

>>6869999
>influence = copying
you're saying it's copying, not me. i indeed to call it influence and learning.
you're unable to understand what i'm saying without putting your own beliefs on my arguments. this is just another proof of it.

>le human cannot create unless they learned to do it strawman
yes and do you have anything to say to that?
how is it a strawman exactly? what am i strawmanning here?

>people cannot create the same thing purely on their own
you're saying you can? you think if you never saw anime in your life, you'd be able to draw it?
without master painters influencing you, you'd be able to paint on their level?

getting pretty tired of getting called ignorant by literal retards who don't understand anything about how art actually works in our minds.