The Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 2 days agoDoesn't look like anything to me.lemmy.worldimagemessage-square46fedilinkarrow-up11.01Karrow-down116
arrow-up1991arrow-down1imageDoesn't look like anything to me.lemmy.worldThe Picard Maneuver@lemmy.worldM to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 2 days agomessage-square46fedilink
minus-squareLarmyOfLone@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up9·2 days agoAnd if it could distinguish better, it could also generate better.
minus-squareNatanael@infosec.publinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 day agoNot necessarily, but errors would be less obvious or weirder since it would spend more time in training
minus-squareLarmyOfLone@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up1·13 hours agoWeirder? Interesting, like how for example?
minus-squareNatanael@infosec.publinkfedilinkarrow-up1·9 hours agoWeirder in that it gets better at “photorealism” (textures, etc) but subjects might be nonsensical. Only teaching it how to avoid automated detection will not teach it to understand what scenes mean.
And if it could distinguish better, it could also generate better.
Not necessarily, but errors would be less obvious or weirder since it would spend more time in training
Weirder? Interesting, like how for example?
Weirder in that it gets better at “photorealism” (textures, etc) but subjects might be nonsensical. Only teaching it how to avoid automated detection will not teach it to understand what scenes mean.