HOME | DD

Description
A 'digestive' summarization by Ron Chan of the difference between human-made art versus AI's quote-a-quote art.
Here is the original: twitter.com/RonDanChan/status/…

With the original caption is as follows:
"Ai art defenders are still trying to use the tired argument of "humans and Ai are both influenced by previous art, explain to me why it's worse for Ai to do it huh" like some kinda gotcha, so here's a handy illustration of how they are different"

And pretty much my summary:
Humans need a visual influences to therefore interpret those specific influences into their art. Art is a unique attribute almost exclusive to humanity without assistance outside the nature world. AI is not a living being other than an algorithm with coding utilities to perform given subject with preexisting data given to them - of humans.
Artists don't steal the replica of Mona Lisa and then scan it to the machine to make somewhat familiar "drawing" of a Mona Lisa.

AI, on other hand, will:
“perform two sequential processes. They ruin images, then they try to rebuild them. Programmers give the model real images with meanings ascribed by humans: dog, oil painting, banana, sky, 1960s sofa, etc. The model diffuses that is, moves them through a long chain of sequential steps. In the ruining sequence, each step slightly alters the image handed to it by the previous step, adding random noise in the form of scattershot meaningless pixels, then handing it off to the next step. Repeated, over and over, this causes the original image to gradually fade into static and its meaning to disappear.”

Wait, what's that? That's because I copied from some AI bro's terrible argument and I thought that was so funny how it summarized everything to the bottom - and the perfect description and equivalency of digestive system but for AI training.
At least he acknowledges that AI ruins human artwork by turning it into meaningless static.

Anyways, this is kind of quirky way of replacing “I stole art and dissolve them to resemble that stolen art” and to replace with “I ruin images, then they try to rebuild them” like some kind of Disney dystopian villain arc moment.

Description
A 'digestive' summarization by Ron Chan of the difference between human-made art versus AI's quote-a-quote art.
Here is the original: twitter.com/RonDanChan/status/…

With the original caption is as follows:
"Ai art defenders are still trying to use the tired argument of "humans and Ai are both influenced by previous art, explain to me why it's worse for Ai to do it huh" like some kinda gotcha, so here's a handy illustration of how they are different"

And pretty much my summary:
Humans need a visual influences to therefore interpret those specific influences into their art. Art is a unique attribute almost exclusive to humanity without assistance outside the nature world. AI is not a living being other than an algorithm with coding utilities to perform given subject with preexisting data given to them - of humans.
Artists don't steal the replica of Mona Lisa and then scan it to the machine to make somewhat familiar "drawing" of a Mona Lisa.

AI, on other hand, will:
“perform two sequential processes. They ruin images, then they try to rebuild them. Programmers give the model real images with meanings ascribed by humans: dog, oil painting, banana, sky, 1960s sofa, etc. The model diffuses that is, moves them through a long chain of sequential steps. In the ruining sequence, each step slightly alters the image handed to it by the previous step, adding random noise in the form of scattershot meaningless pixels, then handing it off to the next step. Repeated, over and over, this causes the original image to gradually fade into static and its meaning to disappear.”

Wait, what's that? That's because I copied from some AI bro's terrible argument and I thought that was so funny how it summarized everything to the bottom - and the perfect description and equivalency of digestive system but for AI training.
At least he acknowledges that AI ruins human artwork by turning it into meaningless static.

Anyways, this is kind of quirky way of replacing “I stole art and dissolve them to resemble that stolen art” and to replace with “I ruin images, then they try to rebuild them” like some kind of Disney dystopian villain arc moment.