Very very misleading.
First, article tried to assess information capacity in Shannon style, completely disregarding what signal is (a) two-dimensional and (b) highly redundant, that is, ignoring the traits of being an image.
Second, article taken too much liberties while mixing photorealistic and pixel-art images. The latter is really an art, since there is no formally defined ("machine") transform between these two types. And last but not least these types have significantly different information density profiles.
No DSP curiosity here.
The introduction has lost me completely: such a long winded way to say that 32x32x3 bytes can represent 2^(32x32x3x8) different values.
I sort of came at the combinations of small images from a slightly different angle when I was a teenager, I was imagining that if there was a movie of your life (and everyone elses, in fact every possible life you could live) then you could produce every still image of that video if you restricted the bounds of the image to something small but understandable. I was very quickly was disappointed at how big the numbers get :)
Up to infinity ? (depends of person interpreting it - "a picture is worth a thousand words")
I was hoping this was an article about packing different executables into images like I saw on Twitter.
wonderful, it looks like people are talking with Zoom, kidding. a image can contain lot more information if it is designed by an professional artist. an image have an message for everyone.
Would this be a good way to avoid censorship. Encode an image by mixing it with a private key image, maybe xor the cells or something like that. Post online. Anyone with the key image can decode.
N^M, clearly.
Such nonsense drivel. How much an image contains can be inflated by doing some dishonest BS like creating a unique encoding to optimize for what each image is representing in RGB.
You can clearly see with steganographically encoded images that there is a limit if you want the image to remain and image - and still be able to store whatever arbitrary data in it. Being bound to the arbitrariness of data that can be stored is against the implications of the title, which is why this should be deemed nonsense.
If you want to look at the deeper questions the title invokes, this is the scam of how ThisPersonDoesNotExist and DALL-E work.
They deliver information to the brain, not actual pictures.
What they have created is amazing, but other than fooling other AI's their use is limited. They won't scale, they have gone the direction of information over fidelity.
> "Machine learning tries to do by math what we are able to do by instinct"
...except that we also do it by math. It is just so fast and optimized, that we refer to it as instinct.
Many moons ago, I wondered what it would look like if you iteratively generated every possible image. It doesn't sound very useful at all (and it certainly isn't) but I learned C++ and SDL that way.
This is probably terrible code by anybody's standards but maybe someone wants to take a look: https://github.com/svenstaro/infinerator