Artificial Intelligence used to repaint lost edges of Rembrandt painting

[CautiousLurker 19,709]

1 hour ago, FATCAT said:

They probably wanted to do it this way so that the “work” would just be multiplicative of Rembrandt’s work and not additive of someone else’s “fixes”. 

So, my initial response was the length of an article which I doubt you're going to read 

I'll just say this is a pretty uncharitable view and you're also assuming a lot... I'm also gonna guess 'fixes' is in quotes at least in part due to the restoration works that went horribly wrong and blew up because of that - would I be correct in assuming that?

[FATCAT 60,888]

54 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said:

So, my initial response was the length of an article which I doubt you're going to read 

I'll just say this is a pretty uncharitable view and you're also assuming a lot... I'm also gonna guess 'fixes' is in quotes at least in part due to the restoration works that went horribly wrong and blew up because of that - would I be correct in assuming that?

Oh I was just being general, I wasn’t invested enough

[A MESS 3,938]

5 hours ago, CautiousLurker said:

 2) I lowkey think they didn't hire an artist because the novelty of using AI to any capacity will get more clicks, and that's a bit of a shame 
 

This is more of a general notation and not specific of this case but this AI stuff calls for funds - not only in research, but also directly from institutions such as the EU, who's pushing for a faster and broader implementation of 4th industrial revolution technologies

2 hours ago, AVATAR said:

i dont like looking at something thats not supposed to be there... if the artist didnt paint it i dont care about it

I think further reading of the OP is required

[Future Lovers 7,555]

16 hours ago, AVATAR said:

i dont like looking at something thats not supposed to be there... if the artist didnt paint it i dont care about it

Did you read the OP sis KJHBJN

The artist did intend for it to be there, but the painting was cut in the 1700s to fit a door. This AI restored the missing pieces that the artist 100% intended to be there (because when he painted it and first displayed it and for almost 100 years...those pieces WERE there) but someone else decided to discard all those years ago. 

[ladygagafan1234 700]

18 minutes ago, Forbidden Love said:

Did you read the OP sis KJHBJN

The artist did intend for it to be there, but the painting was cut in the 1700s to fit a door. This AI restored the missing pieces that the artist 100% intended to be there (because when he painted it and first displayed it and for almost 100 years...those pieces WERE there) but someone else decided to discard all those years ago. 

how does the ai know what was there though. it cant predict it no matter how advanced it is.

[PussOfYonce 3,657]

19 hours ago, Sneaky Oliver said:

Biology is superficial  

intelligence is artificial 

Submit

Submit

Submit

*demonic screams* 

[Future Lovers 7,555]

10 minutes ago, AVATAR said:

how does the ai know what was there though. it cant predict it no matter how advanced it is.

Girl please read the OP because this is also explained. There is a COPY of the painting that exists that was made not long after the original painting (and likely under the supervision of the original artist) that shows the missing pieces. The AI was simply programmed based off of that copy. They have this copy on hand, but they wanted to restore the original. There was 0 guesswork involved in this, they had all of the pieces they needed but they simply did not want to cut up the copy, itself priceless like the original, just to glue it onto the original because why would they damage another priceless artifact when they don't have to?

[CyanDante 6,238]

AI is simply an algorithm that helps in predicting a pattern based on a huge amount of existing data. 

Search engines like Google have an AI, because of which we get the predictive text when we try to search something. It basically creates a pattern based on surplus amounts of text data.

Here it is predicting a pattern for an image instead of text. 

[CautiousLurker 19,709]

19 hours ago, A MESS said:

This is more of a general notation and not specific of this case but this AI stuff calls for funds - not only in research, but also directly from institutions such as the EU, who's pushing for a faster and broader implementation of 4th industrial revolution technologies

Yeah, that's great and all, but I still think it's a bit of a shame an actual painter was passed on, at least for me - I do have a pretty strong bias here tho... They could have used the AI and still hired a painted to do reconstruction using the image produced, since...
 

19 hours ago, FATCAT said:

Oh I was just being general, I wasn’t invested enough

Well, in that case at least consider that the restored pieces of the painting are not actually painted, but printed... They trained the AI to predict how Rembrandt would put down his brushstrokes, but in the end (at least from what I could find in other articles) you do end up with a print of it, not an oil painting reconstruction which is very different in texture since oil paints are mixed and layered... I just think there's bitter irony in an idea that the best way to go about restoring a painting made by a once living breathing human is to eliminate actual human touch when producing the final piece, and print what is presumably more precise... 

[A MESS 3,938]

4 hours ago, CautiousLurker said:

Yeah, that's great and all, but I still think it's a bit of a shame an actual painter was passed on, at least for me - I do have a pretty strong bias here tho... They could have used the AI and still hired a painted to do reconstruction using the image produced, since...
 

Well, in that case at least consider that the restored pieces of the painting are not actually painted, but printed... They trained the AI to predict how Rembrandt would put down his brushstrokes, but in the end (at least from what I could find in other articles) you do end up with a print of it, not an oil painting reconstruction which is very different in texture since oil paints are mixed and layered... I just think there's bitter irony in an idea that the best way to go about restoring a painting made by a once living breathing human is to eliminate actual human touch when producing the final piece, and print what is presumably more precise... 

Hey...I agree. But this is the way of the world, I am just observing