In this thread: I trained an AI on interior design photos. None of these photos had any humans. And yet these ghosts haunt my outputs.
A small percentage of the outputs were dark, spooky living rooms. AI seems to misunderstand that some rooms are dark because it's night while others just have dark walls. The result is a liminal lighting from the nether zone.
A poster is a glossy rectangle on a wall.
A window is also glossy rectangle on a wall.
The classic "Banana Problem" in AI: It knows how to spell banana but not when to stop. In this case, it knows "modern interior design has chairs, right? More chairs means more design! MORE CHAIRS!"
You can see how the AI wasn't entirely sure of the difference between a bed and a couch if the photo has 1-pt perspective. Both are vaguely trapezoid with squarish cushions on top. I love the bedroom on the last image with three complete beds side-by-side.
It's common for the photos to depict greenery outside windows, but also large potted trees and plants inside. This confuses the AI, blending interior and exterior elements. In image 1, the ceiling blends into a cloudy sky. In image 4, a tree grows through the floor.
A selection of empty frames, which I assume were meant to be mirrors.
More grey rooms and rectangles.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I trained an AI on public domain bird illustrations from old books. Ornithologists and birders, I'd LOVE it if you were able to still ID some of these weirdos. I'll share some of the "normal" results first, the ones that kinda sorta look like real birds.
Since birds often appear in the context of flowers, leave, and branches, there were often some odd blends of all three. I'm surprised it didn't occur more often, to be honest. It's pretty good at knowing leaves and wings go together. The beaks and heads give it trouble though.
Given the widely varying morphology, I feel ill-equipped for judging the success of the AI's training. I just have a gut sense of what's "plausibly bird." The best I can do is like "Uh... Beak? Yeah, somewhere. Wings? At least 2. Funky plumage? Yep. Plausibly bird. Next!"
Thread: Common instances of passive voice in rules text that can be clearer with more direct voice.
But first: Why do we so often write rules in passive voice? Outlining the "laws" of our game feels like a very formal position with an of aloof authority. Avoid that voice.
"THE PLAYER"
Question any instance of "the player" in a sentence. If you are addressing one player, address them directly in the first sentence of the paragraph and use "you" thereafter.
"If you are the first player, you may X, Y, then Z. If you X, see next page."
"HAVE/HAD/HAS/'D/"
Examine any of these words or contractions. There is usually a more succinct way of phrasing that sentence in the present tense and direct address.
"The player who has just moved must..."
vs.
"After you move, you must..."