Can ChatGPT be used to identify a tartan?

[figheadair]

So, now we have TWO problems, one quite generic but possibly VERY interesting; i.e., could an ambitious AI wrangler develop an algorithm that would do a decent job of answering the "what tartan is this?" question (that might be of general use to retailers, customers, and even tartan historians).

The other, far more practical, is "who weaves the Ashyre Gold tartan, and how would one go about obtaining a kilt made from it?" The answer to the second part of that one is probably obvious, except that I know nothing about the retailer that Peter MacDonald identified, or who sews for them, what fabric weights are available, etc., and the email contact I found for the retailer has not triggered any response as yet.

In reverse order; Clyde Kilts appear to be an online retailer and so you would need to contact them. House of Edgar have a link page for Clyde Kilts which suggests that they might be the weavers.

As for the first question. I've yet to be convinced that a machine can, or will ever be able to do what a human can without access to all the source information and then be able to account for the variables of shade and settings.

[jsrnephdoc]

In reverse order; Clyde Kilts appear to be an online retailer and so you would need to contact them. House of Edgar have a link page for Clyde Kilts which suggests that they might be the weavers.

I've learned that it's Lochcarron, and that it's 16 oz fabric. A bit of a surprise, but they're making neckties as well from that heavyweight cloth (evident, of course, from the video of the singer before the Tartan Day Parade.

As for the first question. I've yet to be convinced that a machine can, or will ever be able to do what a human can without access to all the source information and then be able to account for the variables of shade and settings.

There, I suspect, despite almost NO comprehension of the magnitude of the problem nor the tools immediately available to deal with it, I suspect you're underestimating the LLMs. Over the past 4o years, the amount of data that a relatively inexpensive desktop computer can look at simultaneously has increased from 400,000 Bytes to 800,000,000,000,000 (or thereabouts). Our ability to scan that much information on paper or using our own memory, of course, has not. So, obstacles such as thread count, sett size (which can change just because of the thickness of the yarn made to weave cloth) eventually won't be obstacles, and the computer won't "forget" something it's taken into account already in adding more information to an ongoing analysis.

That said, of course I need to defer to others far more knowledgeable than I (barely beginning my own dabbling) about AI who are contributing to this thread as to whether my rumination are in any way actually descriptive of the issues.

[bookish]

There, I suspect, despite almost NO comprehension of the magnitude of the problem nor the tools immediately available to deal with it, I suspect you're underestimating the LLMs. Over the past 4o years, the amount of data that a relatively inexpensive desktop computer can look at simultaneously has increased from 400,000 Bytes to 800,000,000,000,000 (or thereabouts). Our ability to scan that much information on paper or using our own memory, of course, has not. So, obstacles such as thread count, sett size (which can change just because of the thickness of the yarn made to weave cloth) eventually won't be obstacles, and the computer won't "forget" something it's taken into account already in adding more information to an ongoing analysis.

That said, of course I need to defer to others far more knowledgeable than I (barely beginning my own dabbling) about AI who are contributing to this thread as to whether my rumination are in any way actually descriptive of the issues.

I think we encounter the question, not can we do it, but should we do it, and at what cost?

If your interest and aim is to have a bit of fun and make something for yourself that works, then you can ignore the rest of my post. If the aim is to create something that is going to be a product that one expects wide adoption to use, then I have some thoughts.

With more compute power, comes more energy consumption. AI requires a LOT of energy, both for training, and for responding to a user's requests. And, for AI products to be profitable, we generally will see "disruption" business practices, which rely on offering inexpensive services to people so that they will adopt them, scale the services to get large-scale adoption from users, and operate at a loss until enough of the market is captured. Once we reach scale, and adoption is so great that people are locked into the user experience, then prices rise, and the good user experience is sold off at a premium, while those who hold onto their free, or less expensive access, get a continually worsening experience. If you look up Cory Doctorow and "user experience" in the same search engine query, you will get a thesis on that. Meanwhile, scale of AI means so many resources are consumed, the carbon footprint increases, and we are sold on its convenience to keep it afloat, etc.

Here is my bias showing, of course. Another aspect to my bias is that searching for simple answers with such a tool seems like overkill when we have great tools already to find the answer. I'd say try out the search functionality at the Scottish Register of Tartans website, and with a registered account, you can request sett information. If the tools seem lacking in some way, and you have a feature request to make it better, they might take feature requests into account. Another option is building a relationship with someone that has specialized knowledge to help you learn to identify tartan better.

I have a lot of concerns about AI, as I have mentioned. Not that it can't or wouldn't be able to do a thing, but should it do every little thing and answer our every little question? You might be underestimating human potential.

[OC Richard]

For sure that's what computers are good at, storing and accessing vast amounts of data.

I don't doubt that it could be done. The devil is in programming the thing to recognise the right things.

For example, it would have to be able to recognise a wide, but not too wide, range of colours as being equivalent for the purposes of tartan recognition.

This throws off humans often enough! How many would be able to see all these kilts as being the same tartan?

(It's Bruce of Kinnaird.)



Or see these as not being the same tartan?

[jsrnephdoc]

For sure that's what computers are good at, storing and accessing vast amounts of data.

I don't doubt that it could be done. The devil is in programming the thing to recognise the right things.

For example, it would have to be able to recognise a wide, but not too wide, range of colours as being equivalent for the purposes of tartan recognition.

This throws off humans often enough! How many would be able to see all these kilts as being the same tartan?

(It's Bruce of Kinnaird.)

I'm coresponding with an absolute wizard when it comes to Apple ecosystem information technology. At first he assumed that "Machine Learning" rather than a "Large Language Model" could be used, but he actually delved into how the registry is constructed and concluded (as you so nicely just demonstrated) that "appearance" would never be enough to identify a tartan. His summary analysis statement concluded

" I'm not sure what you think AI or ML might contribute: you can't map between appearance and thread count. All those lovely old books showing examples of different tartans are largely irrelevant, as you can't judge by the way they look, just as you can't catalogue a person's genome from their face."

And, of course, that's not the end of the issue. I would guess that the number of times some INDIVIDUAL sees someone else wearing a kilt he admires and would like a kilt in the same tartan for himself dramatically exceeds the number of times someone is playing with a computer program that can create a new tartan description hoping to register it, and many, many of the "fashion" tartans are not registered but are still protected somehow by intellectual property law.

And it's also interesting that in the instant case, the selfsame guy who spends a great deal of time plumbing the historical register was the first to recognize the tartan I inquired about, AND did so BASED SOLELY on its appearance!

[Canadian Vet]

Can a Cuttlefish or a Chameleon match a tartan?

Just wonderin'

[jsrnephdoc]

Can a Cuttlefish or a Chameleon match a tartan?

Just wonderin'

Maybe an Octopus would be more successful but oh, my, which of those eight invisible shoulders would host the piper's plaid brooch?

[OC Richard]

You can't map between appearance and thread count...you can't catalogue a person's genome from their face.

Thread counts won't do. We can recognise these as being "the same tartan" but each has a unique thread count. (I know, I generated the images.)



It's the old "I can't put it into words, but I'll know it when I see it."

About faces, I was disgusted by a television programme attempting to use a computer program to quantify how much pairs of human faces resembled each other.

It was preposterous. They were looking only at "features": to what extent the eyes, mouths, and noses were alike.

Anyone who knows faces knows that you can identify a person quite accurately with all the features covered or blurred out; you identify a person by the shape/contours and proportions of their head and face. Note that you can spot a person you know only seeing the back of their head! Or when they're wearing sunglasses and a mask covering their mouth and nose.

It's how you can tell so-called "identical twins" apart. They're never identical. The differences usually aren't in their "features" but in extremely subtle proportions of their head and face, generally the area around the cheekbones. (Goes to show that identical DNA expresses itself slightly differently in each iteration.)

[jsrnephdoc]

Thread counts won't do. We can recognise these as being "the same tartan" but each has a unique thread count. (I know, I generated the images.)

I'm not sure I understand (actually, I'm sure I DON'T understand). Each of those "electronic swatches" bears a label. The three are all different. I'm going to assume that these are registered designs, and if so, isn't it the case that the different thread counts makes them different tartans?

Again, I don't know all about the Registry, and I thought (as I think you're trying to imply) that designs seeking to be registered as different but which actually LOOK identical are not permitted, yet if these ARE all registered as different, they seem to have survived that fuzzy logic "what does it look like" inspection.