|
|
|
|
|
by pavlov
3516 days ago
|
|
To translate that kind of conceptual aesthetic logic into an algorithm, the programmer essentially needs to become the artist: make subjective creative decisions about the style to achieve, and enshrine those into code. And (as dmreedy wrote in a sibling comment) that's specifically the kind of "old-school" AI approach the current DNN-based work is trying to avoid. I'm not as optimistic as you that the current statistics-driven approaches could ever reach the kind of deep analytic modeling that would be required for a style transfer system to be able to look at a Picasso and infer that there's a 3D->2D mapping at play... And it's a very interesting thought because (to me) it seems to demonstrate how far we are from actual AI that could make that kind of inventive conceptual leap. |
|
The mapping between feeling and images are correlated to each other through experience. Certain images are fundamental to human experience and the human brain through evolution( a mother smiling, scary monsters). Others are learned (ever been hit by a car? bet that every time you see that exact model and color of car you'll feel an emotion)
Here's a thought experiment:
What if we fed the deep learning "painter" tons of 3D animation. Each point in time would be a full 3D Scene. Each point in time would be labelled with emotions "scary", "happy" , "angry"
I bet the algorithm could generate original art and learn new artistic styles by maximizing response to certain permutations of feelings.