[HN Gopher] Dall-E 2 illustrations of Twitter bios
___________________________________________________________________
Dall-E 2 illustrations of Twitter bios
Author : manesioz
Score : 298 points
Date : 2022-04-08 19:20 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| nonbirithm wrote:
| I'm imaging a future where the top replies to art posted online
| will become "keywords please" or "what model". Hosting sites may
| start to enact "AI treatises" into their terms of service that
| segregate human- and AI- generated content into separate areas
| and ask users to report entries that they suspect do not belong
| in either. Asking "what model did you use" becomes an insult to a
| sizeable portion of artistic creators, a genuine question for
| others, and a phrase whose implications cannot be avoided for all
| people involved.
|
| What belief systems will we form around AI art after it becomes
| clear that it's never going away? Many people say that art is
| subjective. I am thinking that if or when parity between art from
| humans and AI is achieved, some people are going to believe that
| a humanistic quality of some sort will be trampled upon in the
| realization that the two types of art really are
| indistinguishable. Others might believe that AI art is just
| another tool that they believe expresses their thoughts. The
| different beliefs might be fundamentally unresolvable, and this
| may become an unending source of distrust and sadness in certain
| art circles within the next decade.
|
| I do not look forward to how this tech will interact with online
| culture several years from now.
| contextfree wrote:
| The two images from the "young Robert Moses" etc bio are cool,
| but the fact they both have such a similar layout and style, with
| the same "giant hands" framing that doesn't follow from the
| prompt in any obvious way, makes me wonder if there's some
| particular source art that "inspired" both. Couldn't find it on
| Google or Bing images, though.
| JohnBerea wrote:
| The hand symbolize the Red Sea Parting of Moses.
| contextfree wrote:
| interesting hypothesis!
| nicklovescode wrote:
| for that one IIRC I asked for a Robert Moses and one of the
| cooler ones had giant hands so I put that in the prompt then
| took two of my favorite from the next batch
| Nition wrote:
| It would be nice if every AI like this had an option to show
| the 10 closest-matching training images to the output.
| Especially for ones like thispersondoesnotexist.com.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Remember, these are all public domain, at least in the USA which
| does not allow copyright assignments to the artistic output of
| machines.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| No, they're copyrighted by OpenAI. Copyright has to be assigned
| to a human or company owned by humans. The recent kerfuffle
| over copyright was a dumbass trying to legitimize copyright
| assignment to the software itself.
|
| Copyright with dall-e is just like copyright with photoshop or
| any other software. The user of the tool owns the output.
| Subject to whatever other limitations and requirements OpenAI
| wants.
| Mizza wrote:
| This is going to put a lot of artists out of work in a very short
| time. Not happy about that.
| xwdv wrote:
| They will move on to more stable careers.
| drcongo wrote:
| These are amazing!
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| These are so good, it's breaking my brain a little.
|
| They're not just conceptually accurate, but to my eyes they're
| pleasing to look at from a purely artistic point of view. I'd put
| these on my wall.
|
| I already take a fairly bullish position on the potential of AI,
| given a long enough timeframe, but it does feel like we're
| reaching a bit of a tipping point here.
|
| It's starting to prod at the paradigms I hold in my head about
| what I think "art" is.
|
| In a turing-syle blind test of these DALL-E artworks, I think
| most people would be unable to tell the AI generated art from
| that of human artists. And I imagine that it follows that the
| same will be the case for music in the near future too, and
| likely most other artistic endeavours eventually.
|
| I like to write music. I respect the output of other musicians
| (my fellow "artists") and I am driven, by both intrinsic and
| extrinsic rewards to keep trying to get better at my "art". But
| when an AI can produce works that match or exceed my art (based
| on whatever the measures are that we already judge art by) - it
| prompts some interesting questions. Does it lower the subjective
| value of human-produced art by virtue of reducing scarcity, and
| increasing accessibility?
|
| Of course, DALL-E is trained on the output of human artists. But
| art is already recursive in that respect - human artists
| themselves are trained on the output of other artists. So that's
| not so different...
|
| I guess it's the same paradigm as mass production vs hand
| crafting. When we pick the cheaper, mass produced item, we lose
| out on some of the humanity and soul that's baked into hand-
| crafted goods. But history has shown that we'll gladly take the
| cheaper, more accessible, more predictable option in most cases.
|
| The commoditisation of art.
|
| When things are commoditised, I tend to think that the
| opportunity for the creation of value (by humans) tends to move
| up an abstraction level. As technology becomes commoditised at a
| certain level, then the orchestration and management of that
| technology becomes the new speciality where humans are useful and
| can create value. When that orchestration layer is commoditised,
| it's the next level up that we can turn their attention to.
|
| So the new art maybe becomes meta-art. Perhaps human artistic
| endeavours become more about curation rather than creation?
|
| Or will AI art never reach a sufficient level to be considered
| equal to, or better than human-produced art? We can hide behind
| the subjectivity of all this, but something like a blind
| identification test (AI vs Human) removes some of that
| subjectivity fairly easily...
| disqard wrote:
| I thought you might like to know about "Experiments in Musical
| Intelligence" (aka "Emmy"), David Cope's creation, now
| "deceased":
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jul/11/david-cop...
|
| "One day Cope pushed a button on Emmy, went out to get a
| sandwich and when he returned his workaholic creation had
| produced 5,000 original Bach chorales."
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| Awesome link.
|
| This bit seems particularly interesting:
|
| > "People tell me they don't hear soul in the music," he
| says. "When they do that, I pull out a page of notes and ask
| them to show me where the soul is. We like to think that what
| we hear is soul, but I think audience members put themselves
| down a lot in that respect. The feelings that we get from
| listening to music are something we produce, it's not there
| in the notes. It comes from emotional insight in each of us,
| the music is just the trigger."
|
| So presumably, we can find "soul" and meaning in computer
| produced art because a large part of the meaning that we
| derive from art comes from within us, not necessarily the
| artist.
|
| This is interesting to contemplate.
| sc00ty wrote:
| This is so interesting. If anyone has played the board game
| Dixit, the images generated here feel like they would fit right
| in. I could totally see this being used for custom decks in
| Tabletop Simulator.
|
| For those unfamiliar, you can see some examples of the actual
| game cards here: https://www.libellud.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2022/03/DIXIT_OV... (PDF warning)
| cwkoss wrote:
| Would be fun to play a game of telestrations/garticphone where
| you get a prompt, select the ai-generated image you think most
| accurately represents it, then the human tries to write a
| caption which captures it most accurately, and you see how the
| work evolves as it passes through multiple players.
|
| (Could also probably generate some fantastic training data)
| sc00ty wrote:
| This is a great idea! Around 13 years ago I played this web-
| based game called Broken Picture Telephone (the site seems to
| be back, but it was shut down for a long time). It had a very
| similar concept to Telestrations. A user would start with a
| phrase or description, the next user would draw what was
| written, and the next would describe it. Repeat until n
| rounds are complete. At the end, everyone can see how the
| game evolved.
|
| I ended up writing my own after it first shut down and even
| though the community was small, it was incredibly fun. Doing
| this with Dall-E 2 sounds like a fun project to bring back
| some nostalgia.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Picture_Telephone
| cwkoss wrote:
| Sounds exactly like GarticPhone - great game: it's free and
| only requires a web browser. It's become the go-to for our
| remote company happy hours.
|
| Several people have reported laughing so hard they were
| sore the next day.
|
| https://garticphone.com/
| jkingsman wrote:
| That was my first thought as well! The directed, purposeful
| illustrations that are open to myriad interpretations feel so
| much like the Dall-E work.
| dweez wrote:
| Oh yeah totally! I want to round up some friends now to play AI
| Dixit. An easy version could be to play sort of "reverse Dixit"
| where one person generates an image from a prompt and everyone
| else comes up with prompts based on the image, then you guess
| which prompt was the real one.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Cruelty Squad vibes
| amelius wrote:
| Perhaps someone can write a HN reader where headlines are fed
| through Dall-E, and the images appear on top of the stories.
| jasonjayr wrote:
| This totally could be coupled with a CMS/Blogging platform that
| automatically adds illustrations from headlines/pullquotes
| a-r-t wrote:
| And coupled with GPT-3...
| Bilal_io wrote:
| This could replace a huge portion of the stock image market.
|
| For example, The Verge writes an article about Microsoft,
| they don't need to pay royalties for an image that has
| Microsoft logo displayed on a building, one can be generated
| for them.
| hans1729 wrote:
| That's an _amazing_ idea.
| TOMDM wrote:
| Or imagine a script to chop a book/podcast into segments to add
| visuals.
| EGreg wrote:
| When will an API be available for the rest of us?
| deltaonefour wrote:
| The trajectory of AI is both amazing and horrifying. Most of us
| are born in an era where we can witness the change and play with
| toy versions of AI products. The next generation of people will
| have their lives truly changed by AI, for the better or for
| worse.
| nonbirithm wrote:
| The scariest thing is that I don't think we can stop ourselves
| from innovating further even if we tried. The authors believed
| that the merit of displaying their progress outweighed the
| implications.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| The quote about jobs comes to mind: "If it's jobs you want,
| then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels."
|
| (full context:
| https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/10/spoons-shovels/)
| cwkoss wrote:
| It will be better! Giving every human the tools to make
| expressive works of art without having to train for years will
| be awesome for society!
|
| I'm playing with some of the neanderthal-relatives of dall-e 2
| and already have several that I kind of want to analog-paint
| copies of so I can hang em on my wall.
|
| I don't even think artists are going to be meaningfully hurt
| from this - in fact, I think this is going to increase demand
| for art, because now the 'patron' can participate in the
| composition process more meaningfully.
| deltaonefour wrote:
| Apply this to everything. AI that takes over all possible
| jobs involving any form of creativity and intelligence.
|
| What are the economic consequences of such a society?
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| > increase demand for art
|
| Good point. Custom art used to be the realm of only royalty,
| and later only the rich, but soon anybody will be able to
| afford the fifty cents or whatever it is of computing power
| that it takes to execute their vague artistic instructions.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Totally, Etsy has led an explosion of put you/your kid/your
| pet into a work of art type things (many artists create
| reusable templates, where the custom component can be
| plugged in, so help with scale). I foresee this trend
| accelerating as the tooling makes cost of producing this
| sort of thing cheaper.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| > don't even think artists are going to be meaningfully hurt
|
| It might not reduce the number of artists, but it will surely
| change their composition (pun proudly intended). Only those
| flexible enough to adapt to the new landscape will be able to
| support themselves in the new AI art economy.
| troyvit wrote:
| I hope you're right but the feeling I get is that it's going
| to increase the _supply_ of art until it becomes meaningless.
| For instance why should anybody paint an astronaut on a horse
| anymore? It was a great idea and now it's been done.
|
| In the near future when you look at art you won't know
| whether it was created directly by a human or by an AI. What
| will that do to its appreciation?
| cwkoss wrote:
| Why is a human-painting of an astronaut on a horse valuable
| now?
|
| I view this as detangling composition from the mechanical
| skills of art production.
|
| Perhaps this will make a new type of art job - AI wrangler
| - whose job is collaborating with AI to get a good
| composition, then the composition can be handed over to
| someone with the mechanical skills to render it in the real
| world, if humans making the brush strokes is important.
|
| I'd imagine that if we gave these tools to a skilled
| painter to help in their compositional brainstorming
| process, they'd find many good ideas they'd like to
| incorporate into their works in a short period of time.
| But, I'm not a skilled painter, so could be wrong.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > already have several that I kind of want to analog-paint
| copies of so I can hang em on my wall.
|
| I've been doing that with VQGAN-CLIP with prompts of things
| like "line art", "watercolor", "linocut"[1], and "woodcut" -
| have got a stack of things waiting for some free time to
| render into the physical world.
|
| [1] "Dark Souls in the style of linocut" makes some really
| fascinating possibilities.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Ah that's a cool idea. I've been saving a collection of
| images from dream by wombo and nightcafe around the same
| theme, and think I'm going to try to render them into a
| single cohesive acrylic painting. (though my mechanical
| abilities will probably leave me disappointed)
| karmasimida wrote:
| When Copilot and similar service gets this DALLE level of
| accuracy regarding coding ...
|
| It is going to be very relevant to the current software
| engineers, maybe just in next 5 years.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| I'm skeptical.
|
| The thing about art is that so much qualifies as good.
| Something very close to a beautiful painting is probably also
| a beautiful painting.
|
| But an algorithm very close to the right way to count votes,
| or launch a rocket, or decide whether to lend to someone, is
| probably not the right way.
| deltaonefour wrote:
| There are already exists machines that can produce
| beautiful art: Humans. More than any other technology the
| physical existence of human intelligence itself implies
| that it such intelligence can exist, which implies it can
| be built.
|
| Something like interstellar travel or even a civilization
| on mars is actually much less realistic due to the lack of
| examples in existence.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| You're right, the existence of humans strongly suggests
| that artificial general intelligence is possible.
|
| But the existence of DALL-E 2, which is not AGI and
| nonetheless produces beautiful art, does not convince me
| that software will be writing reliable software before
| AGI happens.
| ulnarkressty wrote:
| I wonder if this is how people born in the early 20th century
| felt about going from first flight to moon landing in a few
| decades. It took some serious conflicts for things to evolve to
| that point though. I'm not looking forward to the AI wars.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| >going from first flight to moon landing in a few decades
|
| And then nothing.
| boplicity wrote:
| Actually, space technology, via literal objects in space,
| impacts almost everyone's life (especially in wealthy
| countries), pretty much constantly. It's simply become so
| woven into our day-to-day lives that we don't even think
| about it.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Progress is hard to quantify. We developed language, what,
| hundreds of thousands of years ago? And then very little
| seemed to happen, but it was a slow-burning fire that
| eventually exploded. Our use of computers seems almost sure
| to be similar.
|
| But that said, there are certainly structural factors
| inhibiting innovation. Scale problems make it nearly
| impossible to challenge someone like Google or Facebook
| (although TikTok did manage the latter). Were there more
| competition, one imagines there would be more innovation.
| Patents are likely a net drag. Laws, esp. tax laws, could
| be simpler. I'm sure I'm omitting other important factors.
| deltaonefour wrote:
| Yes. You omitted physical limits. It is very likely that
| Humanity will not achieve much of technology implied by
| science fiction.
|
| The only exception looks to be AI, because although we
| haven't created an AI that matches human intelligence...
| the existence of human intelligence itself implies that
| building an AI to the level of human intelligence is
| possible.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| I'll try to remember that the next time I listen to Sirius
| while using GPS to navigate.
| sanman811 wrote:
| This tweet provides important context:
| https://twitter.com/nickcammarata/status/1512119623315075081...
|
| They weren't just copying/pasting prompts there was human
| creativity involved as well
| educaysean wrote:
| Ah, I wish this fact had been highlighted better. Not a
| criticism of the tweet author; it's just that twitter threads
| really aren't designed to convey context.
| recuter wrote:
| Of course not. I'm no longer surprised just how eager people
| are to believe an "AI" will read their minds or has magical
| qualities and a mind of its own. Even on HN.
|
| Jiggle the imagination just a little bit, dangle some progress,
| and we're off to the races.
|
| This is "I'm feeling lucky" on google image search + style
| transfer + trial and error.
|
| If you think I am being dismissive try a few of these twitter
| bios as searches and see for yourselves.
|
| I guess it fits with the times we live in. Reward shallow
| plagarism. Outsource your mind.
|
| It isn't theft if you can automate it.
|
| Autotune for the deaf, Dall-E for the blind.
| campground wrote:
| I tried what you suggested for a bunch of the twitter bios
| and found nothing except links back to this thread. I also
| reverse image searched a bunch of them to see if DALL-E was
| just kind of pasting together large chunks of images, but
| never found anything close. I do think you're being
| dismissive but please post any examples of what you mean. I'm
| a skeptic and have been waiting to find out that this is just
| a glorified parlor trick, but so far it seems like DALL-E is
| doing everything the authors claim, which is remarkable.
| recuter wrote:
| I don't want to be dismissive of Dall-E itself or its
| authors. Just the implications that this changes everything
| or how it is much more than it really is.
|
| https://twitter.com/nickcammarata/status/151212306780334489
| 9...
|
| Prompt: "expressive painting of a man shining rays of
| justice and transparency on a blue bird twitter logo"
|
| You have to break the concepts up apart (which is one of
| the things Dall-E improved on).
|
| As such: "expressive blue bird"
|
| In google image search, type clipart, and I even get pill
| tags to further narrow it down to illustrations for animal
| paintings and so forth. Google's classifier knows the
| concept of a "blue bird" and expressionism too.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=expressive+blue+bird&tbm=is
| c...
|
| The same for "ray of light". In fact the top results there
| I get pngs of sun beams on a transparent background. Which
| is perfect.
|
| Neither the birds nor the rays of light in the pictures it
| produced are truly its own creations but lifted from bits
| of pictures in its training set. I bet you could find the
| exact bird from the second row online in many places for
| example.
|
| Composite those things together manually and add a style
| transfer you'll get similar results to DALL-E as that is
| what it is doing more or less.
| joshcryer wrote:
| I think your last line is what stands out more than
| anything. You've just described creating something
| without "compositing those things together manually."
|
| Note that in that example the "twitter bird logo" is
| actually _expressed_ in 6 out of all of those images.
| Look for the small bird, that looks like the Twitter
| logo. It 's there. It's doing the thing.
| rndphs wrote:
| Yeah I just tried google image searching to find something
| like the pikachu photo from https://mobile.twitter.com/gott
| apatchemall/status/1511777860...
|
| But I can't find anything close to the realism that DALL-E
| 2 achieved here.
| recuter wrote:
| There was an abomination of a live action Pikachu movie
| some time ago. When I google "realistic pikachu" I get
| images exactly like this from the movie but not gross.
|
| In fact this photo is _exactly_ what you get when you
| photoshop the face of an ugly chihuahua unto a Pikachu
| plushie head and add a yellow brushed hamster body. And a
| cape.
|
| It understood your prompt and amalgamated the right
| source photos into this nightmare fuel. Jesus wept.
| joshcryer wrote:
| It's fascinating how in our hubris we were thinking that
| art would be the last thing for AI to tackle, but it
| appears to be the first (Sam Altman made a similar
| statement on the launch of DALL-E). Which makes art _more_
| meaningful to me, for some reason. There 's _something_ in
| the billion parameters and exabytes of data that this
| neural net had to process and it was so ... easy. Natural.
| Because it is us. It is our expression. Our creativity. Our
| outpouring of data, and all it is doing is reflecting us.
| It 's beautiful.
| recuter wrote:
| There is something about clouds. Facial recognition
| software frequently finds faces in clouds just like we
| do.
|
| This thing will kill art dead.
| andybak wrote:
| I've coincidentally just been watching Rick and Morty and
| this really fit read in Rick's voice.
|
| Is yawning at everything astonishing not just exhausting?
| Everything is "just" made up of less impressive things. But
| is this really not worthy of a little wonderment?
| gfodor wrote:
| A proposition for your consideration: what if you're wrong?
| recuter wrote:
| What if you're in a cult?
|
| Two more papers down the line who knows what Dall-E 4 will
| be capable of. It is a step in the right direction that the
| image output is now "stable", which is what this is
| demonstrating.
|
| But it can't read your mind despite the eerie feeling you
| get, that is an illusion. Kismet in api form.
|
| The next steps is to open this black box up and actually
| make its internal pipeline tweak able so it can become a
| useful tool.
|
| It may end up an amazing super useful tool or a clipart
| plagiarisor/generator on steroids.
|
| You can't even use it yet and you're already so eager to
| believe.
| habitue wrote:
| It is important context, but just to push back against people
| over-correcting on this, my guess is that the ones he rejected
| also looked approximately this good.
|
| I think the primary reason people are wowed by this thread
| isn't attributable mainly to the subtle effect of the cherry-
| picking he did, but in fact to the overall quality of any image
| generated by DALL-E 2.
| nicklovescode wrote:
| Yeah that's right. There were very few strictly-bad ones
| across the entire thread of generations
|
| The rejections were most commonly
|
| 1. Kind of just slightly boring or literally drawing the
| thing rather than being cool and artistic
|
| 2. Cool but similar to the artistic style of bios near it in
| the thread, whereas I wanted to keep it diverse (surreal
| followed by literal, oil followed by sharp lines etc) so it's
| more fun to scroll through
|
| Whereas a few years ago generative models (GANs etc) would
| often render like static noise sometimes or completely wrong
| things. I've only seen that problem once with DALL-E across
| hundreds or thousands of images now (it generated a fully
| white image)
| recuter wrote:
| That's very cool but once you have stable image output how
| do you define good image output when it comes to art?
|
| The stuff on deviantart is pretty good too and neatly
| tagged and classified by art style.
| nicklovescode wrote:
| I'd often send like six images to the person who's bio I
| was making and ask them to choose two :)
| AntiDyatlov wrote:
| Can you ask DALL-E to draw itself?
| babyshake wrote:
| Does OpenAI have a GUI that you're using or is that a CLI?
| amilios wrote:
| https://twitter.com/nickcammarata/status/1512123067803344899.
| ..
|
| You're absolutely right, here he displays the full set for a
| given prompt. They all look fantastic!
| tragictrash wrote:
| I've been sitting here with my mouth wide open for 5
| minutes unable to move past what you just showed me. I
| can't fathom that this exists.
| gfodor wrote:
| DALL-E 2 isn't the first superhuman AI, but it is the
| first capable of teaching the whole world of just what
| that means for all of us.
| tragictrash wrote:
| I've been casually following this space for a while (as a
| full stack web/mobile engineer, nothing to do with ai)
| and this feels substantially different than what I've
| seen before.
|
| Would you have names or links for some other projects
| you're aware of? Would love to check them out.
| andybak wrote:
| GPT-3 is surely as jaw dropping as this?
| gitfan86 wrote:
| You cannot absorb words as fast as pictures. GTP-3 is
| more impressive as it seems to have auch broader depth of
| understanding context. The disadvantage of GTP-3 is that
| it is sometimes very wrong like with simple math problems
| nwienert wrote:
| Having worked with Nick extensively, take what he says with a
| grain of salt. He's well known even by close friends to be a
| reality distorter, to put it softly.
| recuter wrote:
| If only James Randi was around. What a fantastic example of
| cold reading.
|
| Gather round, gather round, give me a text, any text at all
| and I will produce you an image of some kind. And you will
| call it "good" if it looks like anything at all.
|
| Because all art is subjective and your mind will work
| overtime to connect it back to the text you provided.
| babyshake wrote:
| Even if the text just serves as random entropy, it's
| alright for people to feel a subjective connection
| between the artwork and the text.
| fay59 wrote:
| Someone should make an online version of Mysterium that uses
| Dall-E to make the picture cards!
| munk-a wrote:
| So where can we common plebs go to submit paragraphs for
| generation?
| donkarma wrote:
| Incredibly misleading, he didn't directly paste bios into the
| description and they were massively curated.
| educaysean wrote:
| Yeah, learning this fact definitely dulled my initial
| astonishment. These are still really fantastic results, but
| it's hard to feel too excited without the knowledge of just how
| much curative efforts took place behind the curtain.
| platers wrote:
| As a lower bound we now know a non artist can produce
| passable art in a few minutes. There is indeed a large
| practical difference between a few minutes and a few seconds,
| but I trust in the power of incremental progress.
| [deleted]
| nicklovescode wrote:
| Hey everyone, Nick here creator of the linked thread. I just
| wanted to link to another tweet I have with some details of how I
| made it.
|
| TLDR it's not just the bio pasted directly into dall-e and the
| images are cherry-picked but dall-e is basically doing 95% of the
| work here. I have no ability to make art myself, and I found I
| could illustrate basically any bio I wanted in a couple minutes
| of playing around. My goal was to create illustrations for my
| friends not create a dall-e gallery but I'm glad it ended up
| being a good example of what dall-e can do
|
| https://twitter.com/nickcammarata/status/1512119623315075081
| drcongo wrote:
| I'm very conflicted here, because on the one hand these are
| absolutely fantastic and that's really exciting, but on the
| other hand, some of these are of a level that I could genuinely
| call "art" and now I'm questioning everything.
| zaking17 wrote:
| These are evocative images. I love a bunch of them! Knowing that
| this model was trained on a huge corpus of existing images makes
| them feel a bit like the output of a visual search engine --
| finding relevant pieces and stitching them together. But it's
| more than that, because the stitching happens at different
| levels. They are often thematically and aesthetically cohesive in
| a way that feels intelligent.
|
| Maybe we're just search engines of a similar kind.
|
| An additional aspect of human art is that it (usually) takes time
| to make. The artist might spend many hours creating and
| reflecting and creating some more. The artist's engagement with
| the work makes its way into the final product, and that makes
| human art richer. Could future Dall-E version create sketches and
| iterations of a work; is there a limit to this mimicry?
|
| I'm feeling future shock; heavy future shock.
| rndphs wrote:
| Human artists also do a whole lot of mimicry. One could look at
| art produced by many artists and say that it is just things
| stitched together from pre-existing art.
|
| "Good artists copy, great artists steal."
| inb4_cancelled wrote:
| I'm genuinely terrified.
| educaysean wrote:
| Wow, okay. I'm kind of blown away at how authentic these
| paintings look. Even with a very conservative prediction of how
| these tools could evolve and improve over the years, the signal
| is strong that our relationship with the meaning of "art" itself
| will have a fundamental shift.
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| Dall-E will be really good for my creators on https://dulst.com
| (card game platform)
| hwers wrote:
| "We've made the scarce resource abundant, finally the scarce
| thing is democratized!"
|
| "Wait why doesn't anyone care about the scarce thing anymore?"
| danuker wrote:
| According to the book "Abundance", everything gets devalued
| over time, meaning cheaper and easier to make, leading to some
| sort of utopia where everyone can afford more and more.
| nonbirithm wrote:
| But the hard biological limit of 16 waking hours to consume
| all those things is unlikely to change anytime soon. With the
| cheapest yet best methods readily available to anyone, maybe
| the majority of what we will want to budget our attention
| spans on will be permanently crowded out by the AI-generated
| options.
| danuker wrote:
| I limit Internet browsing due to its addictiveness. I could
| have a similar rule for content created by computers.
| Allower wrote:
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Is there a way normal humans like me can do stuff like this. Like
| is there a Dall-E 2 app I can download?
| benlivengood wrote:
| Weren't the last AI-is-impossible holdouts hanging onto
| creativity as the domain of true intelligence?
|
| I disregard the narrow-AI-only folks almost on principle;
| Terrence Tao, Albert Einstein, Mozart, and Van Gogh couldn't do
| each others' jobs.
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| Is this creativity, or is it remixing pieces of the creativity
| from the authors in the training data samples? Would it come up
| with anything that seems creative if the training data isn't
| creative in the first place? I guess it's a philosophical
| question, how to define "creativity".
| psyc wrote:
| Putting on my visual artist and composer hats, I assert that
| all creativity is synthesis. When a listener finds one of my
| compositions surprising, it's because they don't know all the
| sources of the micro elements of the composition. But I often
| do. If I thought about it harder, I could say I usually do.
| 22c wrote:
| > or is it remixing pieces of the creativity from the authors
| in the training data samples?
|
| I think you just described the majority of what is (for many)
| the "creative process".
| TOMDM wrote:
| Artists that produce something truly new currently seem to be
| once in a generation geniuses.
| 323 wrote:
| It will just be goalpost moved again: "I'll believe it when AI
| makes a number 1 on spotify hit song". After that happens
| they'll say "a human still selected the song from the 10
| created by AI". Or something similar.
| The_rationalist wrote:
| donkarma wrote:
| still can't do hands, and has to be told what to do
| function_seven wrote:
| I'm hanging on to _folding clothes_ as my litmus test of AI :)
|
| Or driving a car everywhere I can.
| kingcharles wrote:
| https://foldimate.com/
| disqard wrote:
| https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/23/18512529/laundroid-
| laundr...
| function_seven wrote:
| The last update to their blog was in 2019, so I think it's
| safe to say this is dead. When I click on their FAQ, I get
| the message, "This HappyFox account is expired. Please
| contact Administrator."
|
| I did find a video[0]. It's just an automated version of
| the doohickey you see at any clothing store. Seems to
| require a lot of human input and orientation.
|
| When I say "folding clothes" as a challenge for AI, I mean
| a device that is smart enough to take a pile of laundry,
| straight from the dryer, and fold each piece correctly. So
| if it's a t-shirt, then fold the arms inward, then fold
| that in half so the front is visible. If it's a pair of
| trousers, then fold each leg along the creases, match them
| together, and fold over the knee.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcKz63DGHrA
| disqard wrote:
| I'm with you :)
|
| (see my sibling comment)
|
| FWIW, it's probably going to be the case that some AI
| will be able to correctly produce the _picture of what an
| item will look like, once it is folded_.
|
| (and when that is pointed out, it will be met with
| counter-arguments of "goalpost moving")
| platers wrote:
| Folding clothes is more of a robotics problem than an AI
| problem. Paralyzed people are just as intelligent as everyone
| else!
| dymk wrote:
| They're talking about the motion control and planning,
| which is certainly in the scope of what ML/AI is solving
| nowadays.
| function_seven wrote:
| I'm sure that the physical part of this problem is also
| hard. But I have a lot more faith in robotics people coming
| up with the right "hands" with appropriate sensors on them
| to grasp a single piece of clothing and separate it from a
| pile, and then to manipulate that item on a large work area
| until it is folded. Maybe some delicate load sensors in the
| fingertips to adjust gripping force appropriately between
| the silk blouse and the corduroy trousers. Maybe no fingers
| at all, and just vacuum-and-pneumatic fabric handling
| devices. Or some other combination.
|
| The things I've seen on assembly lines are beautiful and
| clever. But they all rely on a sort of consistency of
| input.
|
| So yeah, that part is hard. But I think the intelligent
| control of whatever apparatus is used is harder still. To
| be able to recognize the different items, know when to turn
| them inside out, know when to bring the unbuttoned halves
| of a dress shirt together, etc. That's all very hard! Going
| from a chaotic pile of mixed clothing to a neat stack of
| folded garments is something a child can do easily, but no
| AI controlled robot in the world can do at all.
|
| And if it fails on fitted bottom sheets, I won't dock it
| any points. Even _I_ can 't do that!
| TOMDM wrote:
| I don't think robotics are the part holding back a clothes
| folding robot.
|
| If you hooked up some basic manipulators to a VR
| controller, I'm pretty sure I could fold some shirts.
|
| Not particularly well or quickly, but to a level that I'd
| be happy to see from a first generation shirt folding
| robot.
| joshcryer wrote:
| The thing is, I really think you could train a folding robot
| if you had the dataset to do it, just hire a few hundred
| clothes folding people who work for a large industrial
| laundry to wear eye tracker things and full body movement
| trackers. It'll probably 'just work' just like this and we
| still won't have an idea how, heh.
| hwers wrote:
| Hang on to NP complete problems instead, that one will stick
| around for a while I expect.
| thenerdhead wrote:
| These are pretty cool. They remind me of magic the gathering art
| and some are quite visually accurate!
|
| At the same time I fear for my illustrator/digital artist
| friends.
| jl6 wrote:
| One could argue that image generation has been possible for
| years, using tools like Photoshop, but the prospect of mass
| automated production of images to order catapults us into a whole
| new world where our concept of evidence is severely undermined.
|
| "Dall-E, generate a collection of images showing plausible war
| crimes from the current conflict"
|
| "Dall-E, take this image of Dallas in 1963 and infer a new angle
| showing the real shooter"
|
| "Dall-E, generate a photoshoot showing a supportive crowd
| rallying round the leader cheering his latest policy. Work with
| GPT-3 to generate plausible Twitter profiles, timelines and memes
| with 3 to 8 year history for each one of the supporters,
| including fake arguments, 78% of which are won by the pro-leader
| account."
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Seems like that's where we're headed.
|
| One end-game I imagine would involve more reliance on written,
| cryptographically-signed testimony, and people having to keep
| track of whether their sources are fallible (whereas certain
| media outlets today seem to be able to routinely tell whoppers
| and not get punished for it).
| jl6 wrote:
| A world where everybody should be checking the digital
| signatures and chain of custody of tiktoks... but nobody
| does.
| divbzero wrote:
| Reminds me of the reputation-based filtering system that Neal
| Stephenson described in _Anathem_ for their version of the
| Internet:
|
| "Anyone can post information on any topic. The vast majority of
| what's on the Reticulum is, therefore, crap. It has to be
| filtered.... When I look at a given topic I don't just see
| information about that topic. I see meta-information that tells
| me what the filtering systems learned when they were conducting
| the search. If I look up _analemma_ , the filtering system
| tells me that only a few sources have the provided information
| about this and that they are mostly of high repute.... If I
| look up the name of a popular music star who just broke up with
| her boyfriend, the filtering system tells me that a vast amount
| of data has been posted on this topic quite recently, mostly of
| very low repute."
|
| Our Internet's search engines already do a limited version of
| this, but there's room to make the reputation-based filtering
| stronger and more transparent to users.
| user3939382 wrote:
| We can be fairly certain of this future extrapolating from the
| world we live in now, where it is common for non-technical
| society to suspect the veracity of photos and videos because
| CGI can be practically indistinguishable from reality.
| babyshake wrote:
| I have a young child. I think about this almost every day and
| how I'm somehow going to need to start navigating through this
| type of world and help my child navigate through it.
| recuter wrote:
| Those are great examples of prompts it wouldn't be able to
| produce.
|
| It could potentially spew out a grainy black and white photo of
| a shooting of somebody by someone somewhere. But it would not
| be Oswald and JFK and not the real Dallas.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| Yet, anyway. For the jfk example, it's not implausible that
| you could use a nerf type system to generate the 3d scene,
| then use physics and ballistics models with a CLIP style text
| interchange to produce statistically verifiable results from
| natural language queries. These models are too big and
| unwieldy right now to allow for much finesse, but in 10 or 20
| years, that will change. We're barely scratching the surface
| of Transformers potential, and radical new algorithms or
| optimizations are likely - a huge amount of human brain power
| is focused on these things.
| recuter wrote:
| All the more impressive that the CIA was able to fake those
| videos without any computing power ;)
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| Of course plenty of folks have made homegrown versions of
| Dall-e and GPT-3 and it would be a matter of time before they
| replicate this a well.
| status200 wrote:
| If you read OpenAI's disclosures, they explicitly programmed
| around the concerns that you've raised.
|
| >Our content policy does not allow users to generate violent,
| adult, or political content, among other categories. We won't
| generate images if our filters identify text prompts and image
| uploads that may violate our policies. We also have automated
| and human monitoring systems to guard against misuse.
| yur3i__ wrote:
| OpenAI might have but the next people to make this might not.
| Imagine Russian/Chinese gvt misinformation cells with these
| capabilities for example.
| Evidlo wrote:
| I'm surprised how coherent most of these drawings are, instead of
| some warped monstronsity like you see from deepdream or
| thisanimedoesnotexist.
|
| Most of them have a theme that makes sense, too.
| tempestn wrote:
| This comment in another thread suggests why that's the case:
|
| > In other text-to-image algorithms I'm familiar with (the ones
| you'll typically see passed around as colab notebooks that
| people post outputs from on Twitter), the basic idea is to
| encode the text, and then try to make an image that maximally
| matches that text encoding. But this maximization often leads
| to artifacts - if you ask for an image of a sunset, you'll
| often get multiple suns, because that's even more sunset-like.
| There's a lot of tricks and hacks to regularize the process so
| that it's not so aggressive, but it's always an uphill battle.
|
| > Here, they instead take the text embedding, use a trained
| model (what they call the 'prior') to predict the corresponding
| image embedding - this removes the dangerous maximization.
| Then, another trained model (the 'decoder') produces images
| from the predicted embedding.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30933091
| drcode wrote:
| I also read somewhere that this system has special logic
| added to it that judges how humans would aesthetically judge
| the final image, so in a way the impressive aesthetic
| qualities of these images isn't totally coincidental.
| Evidlo wrote:
| OK, it looks like there is still some weirdness if you look at
| it too closely, like extra fingers or gross faces.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| I can't help but be suspicious since there is not site to try it
| out, and I can't think of a good reason as to why there isn't
| one.
| educaysean wrote:
| The tool seems to be not open to public "yet". Nothing
| nefarious. You can join the waitlist here:
| https://openai.com/dall-e-2/
| MintsJohn wrote:
| Needed computing power seems a good enough reason to limit it.
| But I agree it looks too good to be true, only real use will
| show how well it really works.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| some of these are quite beautiful... I've seen AI-generated art
| before, but these are outrageously better, I couldn't really
| distinguish a lot of these from human-created art
|
| this is going to absolutely obliterate some markets for
| illustration and stock photography, unfortunately
| klaussilveira wrote:
| The fact that this is behind some bizarre invite-only pay-to-
| experiment exclusive club is disappointing and sad. Funnily
| enough, it brings me nostalgic memories of the days where I had
| to wait for hours just to get a chance to use the school's only
| computer for 30 minutes.
| joshcryer wrote:
| ElutherAI or others will probably recreate it based on the
| paper they released. the main innovation is CLIP and how they
| changed how it approaches turning text into images.
| TOMDM wrote:
| Creative industries are on the cusp of a massive upset.
|
| Relatively soon, there will be commercial models of this quality
| for music/code/text/speech/images/3d models etc.
|
| Once these AI generated assets flow like water into the hands of
| creators, it will significantly change the way people work.
|
| I'm sure some people in this thread have had a taste of this
| working with Copilot. For me, it's most useful as an un-sticking
| tool, to get me moving again, or providing half remembered syntax
| for a language I don't use as frequently.
|
| There's no reason to expect that similar use cases won't make
| their way into other industries.
|
| - Rapid prototypes of models/textures for video games.
|
| - Quick and easy samples for musicians.
|
| - Emotive speech for audio books and transcriptions.
|
| It won't replace everything, but so much of our media uses art as
| noise, to fill a gap, and with this, it can be done almost
| everywhere on the cheap.
| [deleted]
| arriu wrote:
| Is there a future for art with this type of thing getting more
| advanced each year?
| jstummbillig wrote:
| The future of art is for you. Just as with every other
| occupation.
| sharps_xp wrote:
| The generated art is impressive, but there is no drawing
| that'll replace the one my daughter draws for me. AI generated
| art can reach and perhaps push the boundaries of what is
| considered beautiful, but it will never replace the art created
| by a human. Yes, there is a future for art.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Yes, just like there was a future for art once the photograph
| was invented. Certain parts of art contracted, but overall art
| changed and expanded.
| dharmab wrote:
| There are artists who use AI art as an instrument or medium.
| They do considerable work tuning the inputs and post-processing
| and contextualizing the output.
| whateveracct wrote:
| The ability to draw, paint, etc will still be highly valuable.
|
| In fact, in a world where the average artwork is AI derived,
| the value of skilled artists may even go up. There's more to
| art than technically putting lines places.
| smrtinsert wrote:
| Almost unbelievable. I'm randomly reminded of the chess
| automaton.
| kache_ wrote:
| I've had my head in the sand for a while regarding generative AI,
| but now I'm getting pretty scared
| alcover wrote:
| I'm in disbelief.. Scared also - why not ?
|
| Someone knowledgable in this thread, please tell us it's
| possible to backtrace such an illustration to its learning set
| sources.
|
| If these things are not just a controlled average(?) of real
| drawings, then something gigantic has been unlocked.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| There's a sense in which they're a controlled average of real
| drawings, but it's not any more useful of a lens than the
| sense in which you're a controlled average of your
| experiences.
| gfodor wrote:
| I'm gonna go with unlocked on this one.
| zuzun wrote:
| Oof. Editorial illustrators are about to get automated.
| tantalor wrote:
| No, you still need humans involved (with artistic ability) to
| work the machine and sort through the chaff.
| rsanek wrote:
| The colloquial usage of "automated" isn't literally "no
| humans are involved at all" but rather more along the lines
| of, the effort involved or expertise required is orders of
| magnitude lower than it was previously. I think for this
| case, it holds.
| Permit wrote:
| > with artistic ability
|
| With artistic taste, not ability. For example the author
| likely couldn't have created any of these images himself.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| And even if the author could have created them himself, he
| couldn't have done it in the span of a few minutes each
| like he did for the thread.
| schroeding wrote:
| But how many humans will still be necessary, in comparison to
| the status quo? How much will this affect the "market value"
| of normal / non-famous illustrators?
|
| But on the plus side, even small publications will get really
| pretty, custom illustrations! :)
| ALittleLight wrote:
| Maybe, maybe not. A different model could predict whether
| candidate images are or aren't a good fit and beyond that you
| could generate multiple options and A/B test them generating
| new permutations on the fly based on engagement metrics.
| hwers wrote:
| They'll just be A/B tested from out of a collection of
| alternatives. (After all isn't that what the artistic filter
| is supposed act as a proxy for in the first place.)
| joshcryer wrote:
| Better yet they'll be copy tested on a quick little panel
| of a thousand people. PicFu on Mturk is about to get a
| crapload of business. Who needs to decide when you can have
| the hive decide for you, and it will be the best result out
| of he given options because you just asked a thousand
| people and you have all their metrics.
| refulgentis wrote:
| It was striking to:
|
| - read the OpenAI paper
|
| - notice there was a lot of words in the harm section
|
| - notice the mitigations boiled down to "limit access" (a
| marketing strategy) & "put rando colors in a very easy place to
| crop out", have them note how easy it was to crop, yet they still
| went with that strategy
|
| - notice no one in actual AI art community has received an
| invite, but random SV hoi polloi and OpenAI employees have
|
| I had been worried about the moneyed class taking all the work we
| had done in the open source community informing their approach
| (check citations on the Dalle paper), privatize it via applying
| it to a large dataset they built, and not share _any_ of their
| data or models because "harm reduction" that amounted to
| marketing x not risking their ability to monetize.
|
| It was shocking to see DallE 2 get announced and take that exact
| approach.
|
| We'll keep working, LAIONs 5B dataset starts approaching the #s
| cited in Meta's and OpenAI's papers.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > - notice no one in actual AI art community has received an
| invite, but random SV hoi polloi and OpenAI employees have
|
| Same with GPT-3. Requested an invite. Never received one. I
| have written survey articles comparing different methods. So
| thta was probably a red flag for them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-08 23:00 UTC)