Is it regionally common somewhere to call a "jigsaw puzzle" just a "jigsaw"? Or is this just done by fanatics? From the title I couldn't figure out what this was going to be about.<p>I notice that Wikipedia[1] says "with context, sometimes just jigsaw" but as jigsaw owning American who doesn't do jigsaw puzzles I don't think I've ever heard it used this way.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigsaw_puzzle" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigsaw_puzzle</a>
I feel like using AI to make optical illusions have been some of the more interesting things to come out of the generative image AI thing.<p>I suppose when it comes down to it, image AI could be viewed as a fancy way to interopolate between human meaningful images where the inbetween values are still human meaningful. I wish that the AI discussions had more of a focus on that, as it seems unique and novel, and much more interesting than the tired moral panic around "what is art?"<p>There was a post a while back about making QR codes that look like other things that was also super cool.
Not remotely the same idea, but the Magic Puzzle Company [1] makes fantastic puzzles with "two solutions." They're traditional puzzles with hand-drawn art, but the first solution is in four distinct pieces that can be reassembled to make a slightly larger rectangle with a hole in the middle. (Similar to Sam Loyd's Missing Square puzzle. [2])<p>Then, a second set of pieces (in a separate envelope) allow you to fill in the hole with an image that (typically) wildly alters the interpretation of the original image.<p>[1] <a href="https://magicpuzzlecompany.com/" rel="nofollow">https://magicpuzzlecompany.com/</a>
[2] <a href="https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Sam_Loyd%27s_Missing_Square" rel="nofollow">https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Sam_Loyd%27s_Missing_Square</a>
It’s kind of a shame they had to use AI to get the images to tessellate properly. Seems like there should be some math there.<p>Escher would do something more with this if he were alive.
Similar theme: <a href="https://dangeng.github.io/visual_anagrams/" rel="nofollow">https://dangeng.github.io/visual_anagrams/</a>
Decades ago, I had fun with jigsaw puzzles where <i>all</i> pieces were exactly the same shape, so you could combine them any way you wanted! The goal was to actually produce an image that made sense.<p>The shape of each piece was a salamander, well-known from M.C.Escher's works.<p>I've just searched the name of the company, and the website is still up: <a href="https://shmuzzles.com/" rel="nofollow">https://shmuzzles.com/</a>
It seems like there's a simpler, lazier solution to having a puzzle with just two solutions.<p>Just make two corners diagonal from each other interchangeable, then simply print "this side up" on one of the corner pieces and have the image be a rotational illusion that look like different items when rotated 180°
Check out Stave Puzzles if you want to get into insanely difficult jigsaw puzzles with multiple solutions. Some have multiple solutions (3+) and some go 3 dimensional. I have one that is either a 3 or 4 leaf clover.
This could probably be extended to more than two images. Don't know how far you can push it before the images look too contrived to be interesting.<p>In thinking how I would start, I imagined starting with only one kind of shape, except filling/flattening out the edges/corners. Then come up with a dual picture that depends on 2 arrangements of the pieces. Finally adjust the edges of the piece shapes without breaking the 2 selected arrangements but allowing all the other possible arrangements to collapse down.<p>It's like making a repeating/tiling shape where you start with a blank tiled plane then start drawing anywhere, all the repeated places also get drawn in, and you keep drawing/undoing until you like what you see. i.e. 'maintain the constraint from the beginning'. The tricky bit is in the drawing/painting. I imagine the same could be done with this jigsaw, blank the pieces, show both arranged blanks, and let someone paint on the pieces updating both as you go. When you like what you see, you're done.