Anyone else get the sense this is more of a Mad-Libs style fill-in as opposed to the sort of AI-generated content found in other thisXdoesnotexist sites?
> From this story, though it was the shortest and the most simple too of all those I have recorded in this book, I feel that I learned several things of some importance. First of all, how much of our speech, which we think freshly minted in our own mouths, consists of set locutions. The Ascian seemed to speak only in sentences he had learned by rote, though until he used each for the first time we had never heard them. Foila seemed to speak as women commonly do, and if I had been asked whether she employed such tags, I would have said that she did not---but how often one might have predicted the ends of her sentences from their beginnings.
You could look through the various sets of samples and the more extreme psi examples and the interpolation videos and perhaps get a better idea of the extent to which the StyleGAN 'understands' faces and is being creative: https://twitter.com/gwern/status/1093701790971953152
It's true it is hard to define what art is. But I'm pretty sure /dev/random isn't an artist, even if a human artist can produce random things.
You're asking that rhetorically, assuming people will just agree there's a difference because a human artist did it and a computer doing it isn't an artist, but you know a lot of people would be happy to take one of those forks.
I really enjoyed the videos that transition through the different options for Holo.
It's cute but less interesting than, say, thisdoesnotexist.
If I didn't know it was an experiment, I'd think it was a bot-driven ad-fraud popup site or something.