Hacker News Reader

Comment by quadcore | Hacker News Reader

Human artists/writers are influenced by each other all the time.

The flaw in this argument is the word "artist". If you remove all the pictures from the data source, the AI isnt capable of generating anything. Because it's not an artist.

View on HN

Can a human "generate anything" beyond what essentially equates to random noise if they have never had any sensory input? Comparing a "trained" human brain with a "newborn" model seems strange if we actually want to delineate between what is and isn't art.

Ignoring the straw man argument here yes actually there are plenty of examples of individuals with no outside influence of art styles or references creating artworks. It's called outside art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsider_art

First, it would be great for you to explain how it is a strawman argument. In my eyes the strawman is comparing one system which has had years of training data and time with a system that has a rough structure, but misses everything beyond it. You'd have to at least give them comparable amounts of training data. Even a newly born baby has already had some sensory inputs in the womb, and starts to have a LOT afterwards.

Second, your Outsider Art is something completely different, funnily enough a strawman. Surely you're not claiming that the creators of outside art have literally never had any sensory input in their lives? Or do you really think that one painter in two timelines, in one blind and in the other not, would paint exactly the same stuff?

So if you were born blind, you can draw pictures?

I can assure you I absolutely could. Myself to start with - and possibly better than you could :)

Only a bodyless, artificial brain cant draw anything, blind.

Citation needed :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com