Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Not to your point,

I advocate for being more precise in the language we use when talking about how these systems function.

These systems do not in any literal way "encode" or index or otherwise store specific images; they have incomprehensibly (to us) distributed representations representing aggregations over their training set.

The thrust of the observation is correct; but the specifics are very different, it's probably a more accurate "lay person" description to say something like, "the system was trained with only a few references for what Noah looked like, and doesn't have much initiative by default to improvise or make inferences, so if it tries in good faith to render Noah it is limited by what it's seen."

The point just being, it's less about making a collage or modifying a source, more about say 'doing its best to recapitulate a set of learned higher-level properties which are specific to the "Noah" concept.'




> it's less about making a collage or modifying a source, more about say 'doing its best to recapitulate a set of learned higher-level properties

That sounds almost ... humane. I bet it will trigger some people who only see copyright violation in it. They don't understand the image is being created "from first principles".




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: