• agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Philosophical masturbation

    I couldn’t have put it better myself. You’ve said lots of philosophical words without actually addressing any of my questions:

    How do you distinguish between a person who really understands beauty, and someone who has enough experience with things they’ve been told are beautiful to approximate?

    How do you distinguish between someone with no concept of beauty, and someone who sees beauty in drastically different things than you?

    How do you distinguish between the deviations from photorealism due to imprecise technique, and deviations due to intentional stylistic impressionism?

    • irmoz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I couldn’t have put it better myself. You’ve said lots of philosophical words without actually addressing any of my questions:

      Did you really just pull an “I know you are, but what am I?”

      I’m not gonna entertain your attempt to pretend very concrete concepts are woollier and more complex than they are.

      If you truly believe machine learning has even begun to approach being compared to human cognition, there is no speaking to you about this subject.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUrOxh_0leE&pp=ygUQYWkgZG9lc24ndCBleGlzdA%3D%3D

      Every step of the way, a machine learning model is only making guesses based on previous training data. And not what the data actually is, but the pieces of it. Do green pixels normally go here? Does the letter “k” go here?