• elbucho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I love SIGBOVIK - truly some insane projects are presented there. Like Tom Murphy’s projects of creating a hard drive from pings, or using AI to create uppest and lowest case letters. Or reverse emulating a Nintendo (which is a particular favorite of mine).

    One other project that I really love was presented at the 2021 Sigbovik: Fontemon, created by Michael Mulet. It’s a full-blown choose-your-own-adventure game in a font. Truly insane. Here’s a short video showing the basics of how it works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY1hDQMeU3A

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 months ago

    Aka our OCR software is insanely inaccurate.

    It’s interesting that mapping random noise to characters via OCR generally produces valid perl… but I always hated how they phrased the title of this experiment since it’s obviously bullshit. Essentially, a good interesting experiment made less interesting by a sensationalist title.

    • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      Perl programs are, by definition, text. So “paint splatters are valid Perl” implies that there’s a mapping from paint splatters to text.

      Do you have a suggested mapping of paint splatters to text that would be more “accurate” than OCR? And do you really think it would result in fewer valid Perl programs?

      • Ethan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        “Feeding garbage to OCR” is a really boring way of generating text. I was assuming it would be something more interesting, like creating a symbolic representation of the splatters and generating text from that. Using OCR is basically piping /dev/urandom to perl and seeing what happens. The fact that they’re valid perl programs is worth a laugh but the generation method is totally uninteresting.

        • BatmanAoD@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          I agree that a symbolic representation of the splatters would probably be more interesting. The whole point is that random character sequences are often valid Perl, though, so changing the generation method wouldn’t change that aspect.

          • Ethan@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            The whole point is that random character sequences are often valid Perl

            When I read the headline I also assumed “valid Perl program” meant it did something interesting. I was expecting to read an article about an interesting image to text conversion process that produced non-trivial Perl programs.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Whimsical is awesome - but be upfront about what’s going on. It’s interesting enough without an overly sensational title.

    • mox@lemmy.sdf.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think it’s okay to relax a little when we’re just having a bit of fun.