Hacker News Reader

Comment by MarinReiter | Hacker News Reader

Are you implying that the process of training the AI with images, which usually involves statistic models, is in any way similar to the process by which a human brain creates images? Or that the way people look up references is similar to the way AIs use images? Because if that's the case, I'm afraid you have a very odd idea of how these AIs function.

Otherwise, you have to agree that we're talking about apples and oranges here.

AIs don't get "inspiration". They get the source images they need to function. An AI also can't produce an output that's outside of the realm of their dataset.

View on HN

I theorize (but cannot prove) that the processes underpinning creativity in the human mind are exactly the same statistical processes that ML models use.

Think about it: you live your life. You experience things. You experience art, and experience emotions or have interactions with other humans grounded in that art. You form connections with certain styles or techniques.

If you then turn around to create art, you form in your mind a general idea of what you want to create. You then draw on your past experiences to actually create the physical art. What process other than statistical extraction from your mind could it come from?

For sure I believe there are things that we don't understand about the human mind. I think the impact of drug use on art creation is very interesting, for example. It indicates that random chemical processes in our brains can play a large determining role in the actions we take (and in this case, the things that we create).

But to say that humans do not use some sort of inbaked statistical world model in the creative process seems wrong to me.

My creative process as a character illustrator is different than the creative process for a watercolor painter or a graphic designer. If I forced you to answer with a yes/no, would you confidently agree that their processes are different enough to be considered "apples and oranges"? I'm not sure what such statements establish, if anything at all.

And if I told you that, as someone who has done art for decades, that the human creative process is very similar to how an AI is trained on existing images, would you believe me and move on?

> Because if that's the case, I'm afraid you have a very odd idea of how these AIs function.

The design of neutral nets, by definition, were derived from the workings of the human brain.

That's the thing - no, they weren't. They were inspired by how neurons communicate with each other. But that's not "the workings of the human brain", you're making an incorrect abstraction, same with these AI.

Why should I believe you and move on? "making art for decades" doesn't make you an authority on any of the relevant subjects: "how art is processed in the brain" nor "how AI processes these images." I don't think you understand the fundamental differences between the process of looking up references/inspiration and kitbashing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com