Remix clone Hacker News

new | show | ask | jobs Github

▲

bongodongobob 3 days ago

I don't see why you wouldn't use the highest quality possible for both.

▲

npinsker 3 days ago | parent [-]

But they didn't do this at all. They picked the most human-like AI images (usually high quality), and the most AI-like human images (usually mid).

The anime pictures are particularly poor and look much worse than commercial standard work (e.g. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FwWPeNhXoAQZGW8?format=jpg&name=...) -- but of course those would be too easy to classify, wouldn't they? I wouldn't fault anyone for thinking the provided examples are AI.

▲

viraptor 2 days ago | parent [-]

> They picked the most (…) the most AI-like human images

Why do you think so? I didn't see that explicitly claimed in the post (or did I miss it?)

	▲	npinsker 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's my opinion, but... him saying he "[took] prestigious works that had survived the test of time" isn't so believable, when he starts off with something from /r/ImaginaryWarhammer and immediately follows it up with a piece from "an unknown Italian Renaissance painter". Part of it is he's handicapped by having to avoid famous pieces -- but you can still easily find work that outshines these examples. For digital fantasy, art for card games like Magic: the Gathering. For anime, the art for gachapon games is wonderful. For landscapes, he chose a relatively weak Hudson River School painting, and many have more striking composition and lighting that seem very hard to mistake for AI (e.g. https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/api/collection/v1/iiif/1...).