It’s hard not to antropomorphize DADAGAN, because it’s easy to play ar — Alexander Reben

"GANs are interesting because the output, while in the same style as the input, is almost always surprising and interesting."

"The DADA dataset was very diverse, which can be both a good and bad thing. It’s good because there is a lot of variety to learn from, and it’s bad because it is hard to “converge” on. So, the output that the model generates is quite abstract, however, this aligns with the spirit of DADA."

"There is more that can be done by cleaning up and sorting through the data set. For instance, it can be trained on drawn faces, or many images of a particular style."

"Still, some of the output veers into the figurative. In a relatively short time, it could draw human faces and some creatures that look like animals. How do you imagine DADAGAN evolving?"

"Right now “AI” is not smart, at all. For very thinly defined problems, it works well, but AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is quite far away, if it is ever achieved. Also, the system is not a robot, there is no physical component, there is no way for it to interact with or modify the world."

"People tend to give generated content more credit than they should as far as it’s “intelligence” goes. It is natural for people to want to anthropomorphize technology."