Hacker News Reader

I think it's poor taste to judge art by how much money someone else is willing to pay for it. It's like judging software by how much money it can to extract from its users, or by how many people know the name of its authors. Both measures ignore the actual value that is provided.

View on HN

Definitely.

What defines art is whether or generates a visceral, human response. Is it evocative? Does it spark emotion or memory?

An ML algorithm can luck out and get this right, provided enough training data. But would it sustain if its audience knew there was no human element? I think the machine behind the curtain would throttle any emotional response.

As to this implementation, I have to agree it doesn't produce much interesting from the sample images. I haven't dug into the code to know if this is implementation related or a symptom of its input.

As far as visceral human responses to abstraction go, open_nsfw nailed it.

https://open_nsfw.gitlab.io

But will it matter if they don't know it's machine generated? A sort of Turing test would be interesting here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com