Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

10/10. Most of these computer "generated" pieces are not good art. This is painted by a human who knows what it is to be human in the place that is painted: http://turing.deepart.io/t/7.jpg. This is just eh, shit? http://turing.deepart.io/f/7.png.

I am convinced intelligence programming will tackle these issues some day. But apparently not yet.



I thought it was easier to tell which ones were computer generated rather than which were painted by a human. The computer art all seem rather abstract yet uniform.

also the high-fidelity, near-photographic paintings are always human.


I was only 3/10 - so I think it takes an eye for art to beat it. In my mind this is like a chess program getting to 1200. Not enough to beat an expert, but it's on to something.


I'm not an expert by any means and I got 10/10


Perhaps it's what we were looking for?

I suspect that we can be trained to spot fakes too to make it harder. Perhaps there will be some co-evolution?


I wonder about that too. I had 2/10, way worse than chance level.




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

Search: