City Does Not Exist
thiscitydoesnotexist.com
thiscitydoesnotexist.com
An oval mouse mat with a beautiful illustration of a mouse sitting on a mat, with "Ceci n'est pas un mousemat" as the caption.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/157766793165878650
Apologies for the pinterest link; not many photos of this. And even this one is (like mine was) discoloured from decades in the light.
C'est la vie.
Examples: https://cdn.openai.com/dall-e/v2/samples/animal_concept_tran... https://cdn.openai.com/dall-e/v2/samples/animal_concept_tran... https://cdn.openai.com/dall-e/v2/samples/animal_concept_tran...
But it does seem like there is a critical distinction between 'this is not a pipe' and 'this pipe does not exist'.
The original targets the distinction between the image and the 'reality', the difference between the map and the territory and our linguistic/perceptual confusions as to such.
In this case however, this 'pipe' does exist. It can't be said to exists in terms of reference to an object outside of the image, but the image itself is as extant as any image. We could argue about issues of permanence---what happens when I turn my device off and the data representing such in memory and on the screen evaporates?, etc---but likewise the universe (at least according to current scientific understanding) is likely to 'evaporate', so in that regard the 'real' world is just as permanent as the image on a screen that is only a temporary electrical phenomena interacting with human perception.
Maybe I've missed something or am overthinking it.
(And yes, it's just a joke website, but if a joke can't lead one to spiraling into existential despair at the nature of existence, what's the point?)
That doesn't exist. :-)
Edit: TBH I'm not sure why they put that picture of a pipe there, just a bit of decoration I suppose. :-D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
My artist girlfriend shared this with me once, and I'm happy to be able to pay it forward. haha
A picture of an imaginary pipe means the pipe it represents does not exist.
At the same time, a picture of an imaginary pipe is not itself a pipe.
They are two separate statements that aren't connected to each other - it's just that they are both satisfied independently by this website, so it's a happy and fun coincidence.
That's presumably the same training the AI had :p
Because the problem seems to be in the details. The GAN is great at the global picture but the details are off. And this problem benefits from the fact that a picture of a section of a city should also be recognized as a picture of a city.
At this level of detail it's hard to tell if the generated city is implausible, because cities are shaped by many factors that aren't visible on the map (history, soil, location within larger region, economic and social policies, etc.) So a clump of buildings near a river avoiding mountains is a good guess every time.
Off-topic^2: @dang, If you're reading this, what is the proper way of notifying you of minor stuff like this (if at all)? And how exactly do you see these comments? Do you just read ALL comments, or is there a system that detects mentions or stuff like that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network
My follow-up question is whether anything will work with an M1 yet. I'm guessing nothing from NVlabs. :-)
https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/backends.html
Whether or not it would be prohibitively slow is another question, however.
Some shapes that seemed like roads but had small river deltas fanning out.
Deniable cities, so to speak.