Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 9371322" data-attributes="member: 20564">&quot;how art has always worked&quot; - incorrect.The models use statistical analysis to produce, which is a very different method than the human brain.Let me go for a simpler one for an example, Markov chains.&nbsp; It's early predictive text - if you have this word, what are the words that come next in a corpus and the chances for each?&nbsp; It can do it with more multiple words before as well.&nbsp; It can put together sentences, much like your autocorrect can.&nbsp; Even if you trained it on every book you've ever read, it is not the same way as a human author putting something together.&nbsp; Like you put together your post.It only looks the same when you don't know the middle section of AI art and Human art and since they both have the inputs and outputs think that the middle is the same.&nbsp; It's not.&nbsp; In a way that is very much not &quot;how art has always worked&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 9371322, member: 20564"] "how art has always worked" - incorrect. The models use statistical analysis to produce, which is a very different method than the human brain. Let me go for a simpler one for an example, Markov chains. It's early predictive text - if you have this word, what are the words that come next in a corpus and the chances for each? It can do it with more multiple words before as well. It can put together sentences, much like your autocorrect can. Even if you trained it on every book you've ever read, it is [B][I]not[/I][/B] the same way as a human author putting something together. Like you put together your post. It only looks the same when you don't know the middle section of AI art and Human art and since they both have the inputs and outputs think that the middle is the same. It's not. In a way that is very much not "how art has always worked". [/QUOTE]

Verification