Explaining AI products to people is very hard to do.
How would you give a better explanation?
Would this describes it best?
Existing none-AI software uses the existing pixels and colors and shifts them and changes their value.
The limitations is that you can only shift them that much until they lose any meaning.
AI software are trained like human painters with Good pictures, then a blurred out of focus picture and they have to figure out how a blurred picture would look like originally.
This means that AI is like a human painter that looks at a bad picture and creates a brand new picture with brand new pixels and colors a blank canvas making it even better with creative imaginary structure.
I’d describe AI as artificial intelligence that is a poor substitute for actual intelligence. Given the right knobs and levers, a skilled photo editor will always produce a superior image. I’d also describe it as the latest band-wagon gimmick.
Personally I can’t wait for this fad to run its course so we can get back to having a choice of outcome based on a serious selection of tools to do the job instead of an algorithm that presumes to know better.
I agree. But when AI is used to supplant tools, not add to them, and when AI is given priority development over traditional tools, then it diminishes the effectiveness of the whole.
