This is a cool project. The part that I am not so sure about is why don't they just use an artist to paint the missing part? What is the advantage of using an AI?
My guess, even that I hope not, is that people thinks that AI is going to be more impartial, more accurate, less biased. The reality is that an AI, as used in this example, is going to be over-fitting.
An artist can understand Lunden and Rembrant art and use that knowledge to produce something closer to the intention of the artist and the copy.
Cool project, but a dangerous precedent if people thinks that AI provides unbiased reality, that using AI you can show "how it really looked" as something more accurate that any human con achieve. Constructing something from missing data is always guesswork, whenever the intelligence is natural or artificial.
They mention in the video that they could ask a person to make the changes with Photoshop, but the reason they give is: "Then it would be that artist's work, not Rembrandt".
That statement rubs me the wrong way a bit though, because whether you ask a person or a computer model to copy Rembrandt's style, in each case it's still a copy, and I would argue in each case there's still a(n) artist(s) mimicking Rembrandt, just using different tools.
> My guess, even that I hope not, is that people thinks that AI is going to be more impartial, more accurate, less biased. The reality is that an AI, as used in this example, is going to be over-fitting.
> Cool project, but a dangerous precedent if people thinks that AI provides unbiased reality, that using AI you can show "how it really looked" as something more accurate that any human con achieve. Constructing something from missing data is always guesswork, whenever the intelligence is natural or artificial.
I'm not gonna anthropomorphize the AI and say "the AI is the artist", but the AI is definitely an art style.
I see it as just an old-meets-new mashup, craftfully executed. Any artist/technique you use isn't going to be the original Rembrant, so the choice of what artist/technique you use is just a question of aesthetics and taste.
Here we're just exploring a new technique of the 21st century.
Agreed, cool, but more so for the study/analysis/comparison of the composition before and after cropping, revealed by Lunden's copy. Repairing missing/damaged canvases is a understood problem, tackled by reversible inpainting, by an art restorer. I agree, not really sure why the AI approach is that interesting/significant.
My guess, even that I hope not, is that people thinks that AI is going to be more impartial, more accurate, less biased. The reality is that an AI, as used in this example, is going to be over-fitting.
An artist can understand Lunden and Rembrant art and use that knowledge to produce something closer to the intention of the artist and the copy.
Cool project, but a dangerous precedent if people thinks that AI provides unbiased reality, that using AI you can show "how it really looked" as something more accurate that any human con achieve. Constructing something from missing data is always guesswork, whenever the intelligence is natural or artificial.