EDIT: LINK - https://reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/yodmju/i_really_thought_this_was_a_brilliant_satire_at/
The uber-cool techbro is in the comments giving us such gems as:
I stand by what I said. People will implement it soon, if they haven’t already. Aesthetic rating networks are a thing, and image generators are capable of combinatorial generalization, so it’s probably possible to use search (or maybe even gradient descent) to find images that are better than the ones in the training set (according to the metric), and then train it with those. The success of these techniques depends on the critic not being goodharted, so the results might be inferior to training it with human-curated data, but that is more expensive. Is there any flaw in this reasoning?
When asked what in the living hell is an “aesthetic rating network” he replied:
Take a set of prompts. Generate many images for each. Select the best ones according to the network as long as they are sufficiently realistic (according to the generator or other net) and still match the prompt. Finetune on those. Or something like that
My criteria for best image is whatever someone considers the best image. This varies between people, but models can take this into account. Other areas of art (all of them?) also follow the pattern of there being a data structure that people can prefer over others, and optimizing it is a problem that machines will eventually basically solve.
I’m not mistaken. People have preferences over trajectories reality can take. Part of that considers whether what they see is pretty (but obviously art is about more than that). If you want to solve art (or understand it properly at all) you need access to that rating function. You can do it by either studying the brain directly or by observing human behavior (like the score they give to an image) and fitting a model to reconstruct that part of their minds. I’m pretty sure the vast majority of artists don’t think about art this way, but that’s how you study it in mathematical terms.
:chefs-kiss:
I love techbrains. They’re so unused. Completely fresh and wrinkle-free.
I didn't know CGP Gray had said something so monumentally stupid
haven't seen his 'monarchy makes money for the UK' shit or his Big Brain 'I want to be immortal' shit?
I have a friend who is obsessed with his channel and sent me that shit when I said the monarchy should be abolished :deeper-sadness:
i dont care about their public finances i care that these dessicated corpses have unelected authority over multiple nations :lenin-rage:
principles have you fucking heard of them :anglo-burn:
(and as wise skull-boys have pointed out the monarchy does not actually break even)
you know if it was a tiny country who got a massive grift out of having a guy with a cool hat on a 'throne', that's one thing
but the whole argument that americans visit english castles because its an actual monarchy rather, you know, the blokes speaking english and britain having a tad more influence than, say, le france is a bit weird
France, Italy, Greece, Germany... Countries famous for being completely shunned by tourists.
Tourists doesn't visit palaces because there are "real" royals in them. They visit them to see the art and architecture and feel closer to important historical events by being in the place they happened. In fact, having inbred racist nonces live in those palaces for free means that there is less palace to show to the tourists. "That fancy building? Yeah, there's tons of cool stuff you can see inside" is a much more attractive offer than "That fancy building? You can't go there, king Bob lives there"
Share him Shaun's response to cgp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE2DLqJB8U
Seen the monarchy one, it was just standard liberal brainworms. Don't remember the immortality one but I assume it's standard techbro "we will upload our minds to computers" bullshit.
But dismissing the science of linguistics entirely because... we have shitty machine translation that works good enough to smooth over transactions? Another fucking level of stupidity altogether.
Another good example is his how to solve traffic problems which is a) autonomous cars, allthough I feel that can be forgiven, and b) doesn't include a single mention of any traffic participants but a car and would make literally every single intersection impossible to cross without being in one