[HN Gopher] My deepfake DALL-E 2 vacation photos passed the Turi... ___________________________________________________________________ My deepfake DALL-E 2 vacation photos passed the Turing Test Author : rdl Score : 181 points Date : 2022-05-18 15:59 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.mattbell.us) (TXT) w3m dump (www.mattbell.us) | 101008 wrote: | The images look great but I think the experiment was helped by | the fact that most of us can see any image, being told that the | image is underwater and we'll believe it. Most of the people | don't know about deep waters, and the plans and animal that live | there. I suspect the experiment would have been different if the | vacations were in a city or a beach or something like that. | hnthrowaway0328 wrote: | I think the Turing Test is more than that? | dekhn wrote: | The turing test isn't very useful. At its core, it merely tests | whether a computational agent can imitate a humnan agent well | enough to fool an typical individual. | | Which tells us nothing at all. | lupire wrote: | We are so blase about the amazing progress in computation. | dekhn wrote: | There's nothing in the turing test or systems that solve it | that are really amazing progress. To me they are just an | expected and obvious outcome of the general improvement of | scientific modelling of reality. | | Here's something that I'm not blase about: AlphaFold. That | is one of the crowning achievments of humanity. It solved a | problem that people have been working hard on for 40 years | using an algorithm that is less than 5 years old on a | computational framework that's a couple years old, on | hardware with ML training powers orders of magnitude higher | than anything that existed 5 years ago, and conclusively | demonstrated that evolutionary sequence information, rather | than physical modelling, is sufficient to predict nearly | all protein structures. And, once the best competitor had a | hint how it was done, they were able to reproduce (much of) | the work in less than a year. | | Now that's amazing. World-class. Nobel-prize worthy. | Totally unexpected for at least another 10 years, if ever. | Completely resets the landscape of expectations for anybody | doing biological modelling. However, it also won't | transform drug discovery any time soon. | killerstorm wrote: | Turing did not mention a "typical individual". The question | is whether it's possible to make AI which is | indistinguishable from a human. Obviously, it makes sense if | an interrogator comes prepared if we want to test this. | gopher_space wrote: | We had AI indistinguishable from a bored teen who isn't | really into the conversation decades ago. It's also really | easy to pass a turing test if your model is a pissed off | friend who won't respond to your texts. | | Who are we trying to talk to, I wonder? | killerstorm wrote: | Well, Turing explicitly formulated it as a _game_, and | for a game to be meaningful, players have to understand | rules and have a desire to win. And given that the | question was "Can machines think?", a human playing the | game should have a good thinking ability. | | Game with bored, disinterested players would be entirely | meaningless. | gopher_space wrote: | It's looking more like "how can I tell if I'm talking to | a machine unless the potential person on the other end is | strapped into a torture chair and forced to respond | rationally to my inane philosophical ramblings." | | And I'd like it more as a Gedankenexperiment if people | weren't talking about it as a tool or metric. That kind | of thinking gains momentum. | dredmorbius wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31426512 | taylorius wrote: | Your holiday photos are memories. If you create fake images, and | mix them with genuine ones, don't be surprised if in the future, | you yourself forget what is real and what is not. | munk-a wrote: | If taken to extremes - only a Voight-Kampff test would be able | to tell whether your holiday was entirely made out of whole | cloth or not. | ars wrote: | You don't need DALL-E 2 to make those photos, you can just | download generic underwater photos from other people. | | In fact how do you know DALL-E actually created them, and did | just regurgitate some it was trained with? | LeanderK wrote: | > In fact how do you know DALL-E actually created them, and did | just regurgitate some it was trained with? | | I think DALL-E is not released so researchers are unable to | take it apart yet, but this question was already researched a | lot in the context of other generative models and so far they | really did generalise (assuming a well trained model, the can | overfit). | tedunangst wrote: | Where did dall-e find a photo of a scuba diver with incorrect | hoses? | jhfds wrote: | Just ask? "photo of a scuba diver with incorrect hoses" :-) | gus_massa wrote: | @GP: This looks like a very interesting comment. What is | wrong with the hoses of the scuba diver? Can you post an | edited version in imgur or something with a big arrow | pointing to the error? | gus_massa wrote: | I tried to search in Google the images (during 10 minutes), but | I didn't find any of them. | | The image of the fish is strange. I found a few photos of | similar fishes with vertical stripes but the fish in the image | has squares. | [deleted] | twiceaday wrote: | This is off topic but horny people are by far the most interested | in conjuring up custom images. DALL-E trained on porn would be | huge. | shakna wrote: | It probably would be. Unfortunately, the DALL-E people have | foreseen that use, and balked at it for some reason: | | > We've limited the ability for DALL*E 2 to generate violent, | hate, or adult images. | throwaway0x7E6 wrote: | >for some reason | | "Our investors include Microsoft, Reid Hoffman's charitable | foundation, and Khosla Ventures." | harpersealtako wrote: | This is absolutely true. Look at text prediction models as an | example (e.g. GPT-3). One of the biggest (if not the biggest) | applications was story-generation tools like AI Dungeon. Guess | what most people _actually_ used AI Dungeon for? Erotica. Guess | what happened when OpenAI cracked down on it? A huge portion of | the userbase jumped ship and built a replacement (NovelAI) | using open-source EleutherAI models that explicitly did support | erotica, which ended up being even better than the original | ever was. I can tell you that there is _very strong_ interest | in nsfw image generation in those communities, as well as | multiple hobby projects /experiments attempting to train models | on NSFW content (e.g. content-tagged boorus), or | bootstrap/finetune existing models to get this sort of thing to | work. | rootusrootus wrote: | Porn seems to quietly power the Internet, in so many ways. I | imagine people are already getting creative with fake porn, and | it's only going to intensify over time. Especially on the types | of imagery that are illegal to possess. | mrkramer wrote: | This is one of the experiments with Progressive Growing GAN | (ProGAN) technology from Nvidia: | | NSFW: https://medium.com/@davidmack/what-i-learned-from- | building-a... | colinmhayes wrote: | This might be horrible to say, but could this be a solution to | csam? From what I've seen most people who enjoy csam do | genuinely feel bad for the children, but they're sick, and | can't control themselves. Might they be willing to indulge in | fake csam instead? | rootusrootus wrote: | I don't think it's horrible, it just seems like a practical | solution. It is such a taboo subject that nobody seems to | really talk about the possibilities, but it's worth asking | the question -- if someone so inclined can gratify their | desires in private with fake imagery, will it prevent them | from leaving their home and seeking out someone to hurt? | | Or will it strengthen their need for 'the real thing' as | someone else suggested in a sibling comment? | | In any case, we still don't have a great answer for the legal | question. Possession of realistic fake imagery is illegal, on | the grounds that its very existence is a risk to children. | There isn't any actual science behind that, it's just what | the politicians have said to justify regulating what would | otherwise be a constitutionally protected right. I imagine it | will become a topic of discussion again (my quick research | says the last major revision to US law in this regard was | about 20 years ago). | teddyh wrote: | IIUC, fake CSAM is also illegal. | intrasight wrote: | Correct. Differs from, for example, rules protecting | cruelty to animals. You can fake such cruelty without | consequence - as is done in movies regularly. | | More interesting question is this. Is it a crime if you | generate CSAM just for ones own consumption? | rootusrootus wrote: | > Is it a crime if you generate CSAM just for ones own | consumption? | | Yep. If it isn't obviously fake (i.e. a cartoon) the | possession is illegal whether you produce it yourself or | not. Though it's probably safe to say that you're | unlikely to get caught if you're not sharing those images | with other people. | intrasight wrote: | What if it's in the "uncanny valley"? | | My point is that the courts are going to have a hard time | with this. | rootusrootus wrote: | Well, the US law says "[when it] appears virtually | indistinguishable [from the real deal]" (insert | appropriate legal terminology on either end, but the | three quoted words are the relevant bit. | | I think we're in agreement that the advancement of the | technology is going to make this topic come back up for | legal debate. When the gulf between CGI and real | photography was large, it was pretty straightforward. Not | so much now. | dredmorbius wrote: | I'm aware that Japanese lolicon in anime, manga, video | games, and other contexts, is at least ... problematic ... | in numerous areas. Several online sites have banned it, and | on Mastodon and the Fediverse, there are often peer-level | blocks against sites in which lolicon is permitted. | | Then name itself is a portmanteau of _Lolita complex_ , | after the Nabokov novel. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Legality_and_censorsh | i... | rootusrootus wrote: | I believe that as of 2003 it has to be a realistic fake, | however. Obvious cartoons are no longer illegal. | | I imagine it'll get challenged again at some point on | constitutional grounds. It is illegal right now on a moral | basis, which is probably the weakest argument over the long | term. | jwalton wrote: | > Obvious cartoons are no longer illegal. | | AFAIK they are still illegal in Canada. | hallway_monitor wrote: | It seems more misguided than horrible. I'm not a | psychologist, but indulging in pathological behaviors would | seem to strengthen them. Heroin addicts need to quit, not use | methadone forever. | AuryGlenz wrote: | stickfigure wrote: | Is that true? Someone on HN once described it like | "eventually you get tired of the addiction and want to | quit" (if you live long enough, that is). No personal | experience, but I have known a couple former addicts and | this seems to reflect their reality. | | Maybe an effective approach would be to maximize harm | reduction until the addiction has run its course? That | seems to be the Portugal solution, and it seems to be | successful. | [deleted] | stavros wrote: | Is DALL-E still invite-only? | _just7_ wrote: | Yep, though from what I heard they are planning to role it out | quicker than gpt-3, with a full launch this summer | phdelightful wrote: | I want to see a fully-synthetic multimodal social media | influencer that is nearly indistinguishable from reality. She | does the same thing as the real ones except everything is | completely artificially generated (housing, clothes, vacations, | social circle). All text/image/video posts are completely | synthetic but internally-consistent with this fabricated | persistent universe. The only real things would probably be | product placement. If you're a brand, you'd just make a new | online influencer instead of finding an organic one. | killerstorm wrote: | It's not a Turing test if a judge is not actively trying to | discern. | VikingCoder wrote: | Right, and Moore's Law doesn't say X, Y, or Z. | | We get it. | | But it's a pretty close analogue. | jascii wrote: | The article claims (in a screenshot without quoting sources, so | take it for what it's worth) that "A recent blog post pointed | out that GPT-3-generated text already passes the Turing test if | you're skimming and not paying close attention". | | This is certainly debatable, and I agree that it is pushing the | limit a bit. | | I think in the end, the "Turing test" was devised as a thought | experiment, not as a final definition of AI. So I guess some | freedom of interpretation is reasonable. | bryanrasmussen wrote: | >if you're skimming and not paying close attention | | Also, if I'm drunk and reading nonsense I might not realize | it. | Dylan16807 wrote: | It's a bend of the scenario if the judge is skimming and not | paying close attention. This "pushes the limit". | | It's a break of the scenario if they didn't go in with the | goal of detecting fakery. This makes it useless as a "Turing | test". | jascii wrote: | I agree with you that it brings things outside the original | scope of the Turing test. I do find it interesting to | observe that a metric based on casual observation can have | value in a society where elections can be swayed by online | fakery. | killerstorm wrote: | Well, as a thought experiment, it suggests a concrete scheme: | it's a game where everybody is trying to do their best. | | If it's a game where nobody cares, it's a stupid game, and | results are meaningless. | woojoo666 wrote: | Results are not meaningless if in the real world, everybody | is skimming anyways. | nullc wrote: | > It still struggles with faces | | I believe they intentionally hobbled it in this respect for | "safety" (iow to keep themselves out of a scandal when someone | asks it to create "President Biden accepting Bribes" or | whatnot...) | | Certainly far simple diffusion models trained including faces do | just fine at creating photorealistic faces. | guerrilla wrote: | Why do you believe that? | nullc wrote: | Because they said so: Preventing Harmful | Generations We've limited the ability for DALL*E 2 | to generate violent, hate, or adult images. By | removing the most explicit content from the training | data, we minimized DALL*E 2's exposure to these | concepts. We also used advanced techniques to prevent | photorealistic generations of real individuals' faces, | including those of public figures. | vmception wrote: | Is there a fork that unhandicaps it? | not2b wrote: | To do such a fork, wouldn't you have to build a | completely new model with the same training data and | everything else the same except leaving out the | restrictions? | heavyset_go wrote: | No, you can use transfer learning. | somebodythere wrote: | You should be able to finetune on a dataset that has | captions of human faces. | nullc wrote: | Like a lot of other Open AI work, DALL-E 2 isn't open. | There are people working at re-implementing it, but | training has considerable computational costs. | melissalobos wrote: | It was mentioned in the DALL-E github repo. | egeozcan wrote: | Coming up with ok-looking generated faces is not ground- | breaking in the ML world and when the state-of-the-art model | botches it completely, you start looking for the reason. | shadowgovt wrote: | How compose-able are ML solutions? I'm wondering if coming | up with ok-looking generated headshots (face at a specific, | known, predetermined angle, in a neutral and standardized | context, independent of background features) is not ground- | breaking, but embedding that capability in a dynamic image | generator with myriad other objects, headgear, lights and | shadows, etc. may be. | lupire wrote: | And coming up with very good looking modifications/poses of | known _actual_ faces is very well achieved. | [deleted] | groos wrote: | Just nitpicking but the 'Turing test' can only be failed, not | passed, which is quite apt given another problem associated with | Turing: the halting problem. | cowpig wrote: | > My deepfake DALL-E 2 vacation photos passed the Turing Test | | Most people didn't notice that some of my vacation photos were | fake, therefore it passed the Turing Test... why is this | clickbait nonsense getting so much attention? | | Can someone who upvoted this article explain why you upvoted it? | Did the fact that the title is flatly false not bother you? If | someone wrote an article about cracking some encryption algorithm | and titled it "I proved P=NP" would you upvote it? | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | It is easy to pass Turing tests when the subject material is | unfamiliar to people. As other posters have mentioned, most | people have only a vague idea of specific underwater plants and | animals and vague ideas of how the water distorts light. | | I bet I can come up with a simple generator that generates | galaxies/nebula pictures and if I interspersed those in with NASA | Hubble generated images, most people could not pick out the real | Hubble images from my generated images. | raldi wrote: | Wouldn't a proper Turing test be one where people knew some of | the photos were artificial and were asked to figure out which | ones they were? | dredmorbius wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31426512 | nautilus12 wrote: | Every marketing company making money off influencers and organic | content like this just silently screamed. | WoodenChair wrote: | Shocking--photos made out of a data set of existing photos look | like photos! | trinovantes wrote: | How will our legal systems cope if one day you can conjure up any | "evidence" you want? We're still safe today but the future will | be scary. | aftbit wrote: | >Could I use DALL-E 2 to create a fake vacation? Or, more | ethically, could I use DALL-E 2 to recreate events from my | vacation that actually happened, but I was unable to get a good | photo of them? | | What would be unethical about creating a fake vacation? As long | as you're not defrauding anyone, I don't see who would be hurt by | this. | yes_i_can wrote: | I'm wondering if we'll ever get to a point where we can invoke | fake vacation / travel experiences, like _We Can Remember It for | You Wholesale_ (more popularly, _Total Recall_ ), by creating ML- | generated images of the trip rather than inducing a dream. It | seems plausible. | marmada wrote: | Hacker News has this surprising tendency to cling to the past. | | People here are nitpicking over the definition of the Turing | test. What actually matters here is that, if not already now, but | certainly in 1-5 years neural nets will most certainly be good as | the 99th percentile artist. | | Does that mean AGI is here? Probably not. But we are missing the | forest for the trees. | ethanbond wrote: | Nothing more "missing the forest for the trees" than implying | that 99th percentile artistry is about producing photorealistic | representations of unreal things. | optimalsolver wrote: | It would be in concept art. | | Also note that DALL-E isn't limited to photorealistic styles. | IshKebab wrote: | > Hacker News has this surprising tendency to cling to the | past. | | Definitely, but this isn't an example of that, it's an example | of people on Hacker News not wanting things to be wrong. The | title is clearly wrong. | ducktective wrote: | One cool application of DALL-E could be generating a painting or | sketch for each paragraph or sentence of novels. Imagine | listening to an audio book of famous novels with visuals/cartoons | made by AI. | | Hope someone with invite access could do this for Moby Dick or | Sherlock Holmes stories or 1984. | freemint wrote: | DALL-E so far has no way to create consistent characters across | multiple pictures. However good news if this discriminator | approach https://blog.salesforceairesearch.com/gedi/ caries | over to images such constraints could be imposed. This is just | a handful of follow up publications away. | ducktective wrote: | Thanks! | freemint wrote: | Actually i need to correct myself. Something along these | lines. The mechanism of DALL-E is a bit different but a | discriminator approach should work anyway although maybe some | magic might be needed to ensure the spatial invariance of the | discriminator. | cookingrobot wrote: | The images look great because only the last 4 pictures on this | blog are the fake ones. | | All the first impressive looking shots at the top of this article | are real. | karpierz wrote: | Passing the Turing test requires, for any human judge: | | 1. This judge is aware that they have to discern whether the | 'bot' is real or a machine. | | 2. The judge cannot discern whether the 'bot' is real or a | machine better than random chance. | | This failed 1. And even given that advantage, might have failed 2 | as well? | | Often I see headlines along the lines of "X fools people and | beats the Turing test!". But the point of the Turing test isn't | to trick a person, it's to make it functionally impossible for a | person to distinguish between the real and simulated thing, no | matter how hard they try. For something to pass a Turing test, it | would need to be able to pass the following: | | "Anyone can play as judge any number of times. You can take as | long as you want, and if you're successful in breaking it under | controlled conditions (IE, you don't cheat and use an out-of-band | communication protocol with the 'bot'/human), we'll give you a | 10,000,000$." | | The "One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge" | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_...) | is a solid example of a Turing test for magic. | VikingCoder wrote: | How often have we run a Turing Test, where we asked the judge | how confident they were in their final answer, except both | participants were humans? | IshKebab wrote: | It doesn't really matter for the purposes of the test how | confident they _say_ they are. | | If you're asking "do people often imagine they can | confidently distinguish things when they actually can't" then | the answer is a solid yes - things like audiophile and wine | testing have proven that again and again. | a-dub wrote: | if a human participates in interactive gamified social media, | and this participation begins to change, shape, reinforce or | otherwise mutate their beliefs, for the purposes of the test | are they still actually a human? could the entire social media | mechanism (from the builders to the participants) be considered | a form of a sort of singleton autonomous intelligence in and of | itself? | jameshart wrote: | I mean, you can read Turing's own definiton if his test - 'the | Imitation Game' - on the first page of his 1950 paper | _Computing Machinery and Intelligence_ [1]. There's nothing in | there about repetition, duration, or $10,000,000 prizes. It's a | party game. And he just frames his question (which will | "replace our original, 'Can machines think?'") as "Will the | interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played | like this [with a human and a computer] as he does when the | game is played between a man and a woman?" | | So, to perform the experiment, one must have some people play | the game with humans a few times and then play with a human and | a machine a few times, and look to see if the results are | statistically significant. When they aren't, Turing posits, the | question 'can machines think?' will have been answered in the | affirmative. | | That is not to say that this DALL-E vacation photo social media | post constitutes a rigorous 'passes the Turing test'. But I | don't think it's fair to criticize someone for using 'the | Turing Test' colloquially as a catchall for saying 'you | probably didn't notice this output was machine generated, | therefore you might want to adjust your priors on the answer to | the question, "can machines think?"'. Because that's exactly | the spirit that Turing was working in when he proposed using a | party game as a test of intelligence. | | [1] https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf | karpierz wrote: | There's the literal definition of the Turing test, as | described above, which doesn't actually work for proving any | sort of intelligence. | | Then there's the conceptual argument of the Turing test, | which we can turn into a test of intelligence. It relies on | the idea that we can abstract the mind into a "thinking" | black box which takes inputs and outputs. And then posits | that any black box which can't be distinguished from an | actual "thinking" black box may as well be "thinking". | | Passing the literal Turing test is a sign that some humans | can be tricked for some small domain over some small period | of time. Passing the conceptual argument that the Turing test | relies on shows that there are non-human entities which | cannot be separated from humans on the basis of how they | interact with a human (through some limited medium). | | The repetition, duration and prizes are just practicality; | prizes incentivize people to try, repetition ensures that the | results are robust, and duration ensures that the domain the | AI can be tested over is equivalent to a humans. | sdenton4 wrote: | Meanwhile, if you ran an 'rigorous image-generation Turing | test' between dalle2 and randomly selected humans, the | machine would be obvious because it's much higher quality | than a randomly selected human would be able to produce, | thereby failing the Turing test. | | Aside from some corners (probably to be filled over the | course of the next year or three), dalle2 is obviously | outperforming almost all humans at its task. The cross- | style ability is probably exceeding almost all human | /artists/, who tend to specialize in a single style. | | And some of the creativity criticisms (can only styles it's | seen before) are basically true of all but the tiniest | sliver of humanity, whose names we tend to remember. | joe_the_user wrote: | _" But I don't think it's fair to criticize someone for using | 'the Turing Test' colloquially as a catchall for saying 'you | probably didn't notice this output was machine generated, | therefore you might want to adjust your priors on the answer | to the question, "can machines think?"'"_ | | The colloquial meaning of "pasted the Turing test" has come | to be "has been able to demonstrate intelligence when put to | some serious, systematic testing". That may be switching that | "has been able to fool people when they didn't look hard". | That might be changing but I don't think it's changed yet and | until it's changed, I'll protest 'cause that's terrible | change imo. | GuB-42 wrote: | Furthermore, the judge is supposed to be an expert. That is, | not only his task is explicitly to tell between human and | computer but he has to have a good idea on how to do it. Random | people from the internet are not enough. | | In the "paranormal challenge", the juges usually include stage | magicians, because they know the tricks that would fool | ordinary people. James Randi himself is a magician. | karpierz wrote: | Conceptually, to pass the Turing test you should be able to | fool any human (including expert judges). It's just | practically easier to choose an expert judge as opposed to | test on every human on Earth, since you'd hope that if an | expert can't do it, then neither can anyone else. | | Also, it shouldn't matter if the human is someone who worked | on the AI, or has read the code, or has seen every previous | Turing test that the AI underwent. There shouldn't be any | information a person could know that would allow them to tell | that it's an AI. | RogerL wrote: | I have acquaintances that that couldn't pass this based on | their common texting skills. There's probably no point to | argue about what the Turing test "is", but the definition | in this comment chain is pretty uncompromising - I can't | imagine fooling any (meaning all, I assume) humans; there | is too much ambiguity in the signal. | | "Are you going to be at the blah blah because I need blah". | response: "I really wqnt it". Nonresponsive, typos, what | does 'want' refer to? Who knows. Is this a bad bot, someone | spun out on meth, someone with cognitive processing issues, | a busy mom texting while distracted, or ? | karpierz wrote: | > I can't imagine fooling any (meaning all, I assume) | humans; there is too much ambiguity in the signal. | | I think you've inverted the expectation here. What I was | saying is a machine passes if you can't find anyone in | the world who can distinguish between it and an actual | human. Meaning that if the "world's smartest person" can | distinguish between it and an actual human, it fails, | even if it can fool everyone else. | | A machine can pass the test by deliberately feigning to | be a human with limited communication capabilities (ex: I | think we can simulate 2 month old baby talking via text). | But then all you've shown is that your machine is as | capable of thought as a 2 month old baby, which probably | isn't the bar that you're trying to reach. | sdenton4 wrote: | It's a good thing we don't subject human intelligence to | such tests... | godelski wrote: | I think another important factor here is that it is unclear if | the OP cherry picked photos or used the first ones given. | Dall-E 2 has a bias to be better at real world scenes since it | can just pull (near) memorized images, but I also wouldn't be | surprised if these images were downselected from a larger set. | karpierz wrote: | Great point. I should've added a third restriction: the 'bot' | should not be able to communicate with, or use the judgement | of, humans once it's started. | mattkrause wrote: | The original version of the test allows for interaction, | and I think that's probably a good thing. Language models | currently have a hard time staying consistent/on topic and | that's a potentially valuable tell. | | Instead, I think you don't want any third parties "editing" | or "curating" the exchange (beyond whatever blinding is | needed to make it work). | godelski wrote: | Yeah I think the interaction is a key part. People are | confusing AGI with useful AI. DALL-E is very clearly | useful even if 90% of the images it produced were | unusable. The time save is still large and cost reduced | for simple tasks. Same with language models. They may | have a hard time staying consistent over long sequences | but adding human selective pressure to responses saves | everyone time and money. But this is very clearly | different from a machine that can think and form new | ideas on its own. We're still a long way from that. | dredmorbius wrote: | The test is now live all the time. | | You must constantly be aware that images, or text, or voice, or | other audio, or other signals or data, might be computer | generated or altered. | | All the time. | | And you individually, or those about you, or societies at | large, may be influenced in large or small ways by such | signals, patterns, and records. | | Your elderly neighbour or relative might be scammed out of life | savings. Investors of false product claims. Voters of some fake | outrage --- particularly of the October Surprise variety. | Soldiers and diplomats of mock attacks, or false depictions of | a tranquil situation where in fact danger lurks. | | The test never ends. | | This is your final warning. | _justinfunk wrote: | da da dummmm.... | cyberlurker wrote: | That The Fifth Element (1997) scene linked in the article | actually holds up well. | chris_va wrote: | Amusingly I think most of that is not actually CGI (as we now | define it). | | They had a giant warehouse with a toy NYC that they flew a | camera through with little models... pretty nuts given how | movies are made now. | | The making of Fifth Element is a pretty great watch. | dekhn wrote: | Take a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UENRVfdnGxs | 3:48-4:02. 5 seconds of screen time tell more story than many | science fiction movies do in 2 hours. | | Detail in https://www.reddit.com/r/sciencefiction/comments/53 | p7gw/orig... | gwern wrote: | I don't buy the argument we'll just automatically learn to see | the CGI as fake. This is a selection effect: you see as fake | only the CGI you see as fake; if it just looks real and fools | you, how will you ever know you were fooled? Early CGI was bad, | but it kept getting better every year. When I watch | documentaries or CGI breakdowns, I'm routinely shocked at how | things I would never in a million years have predicted were | fake were fake. When someone shows a clip of a glowing floating | space alien octopus, you can know it's fake because you know | there are no space alien octopuses in real life; but when it's | some box in a corner with some stuff on it which the director | added in prod because he realized he needed a more homey and | cluttered feeling for that scene... | Terry_Roll wrote: | So when are you vacating on the Moon or better still, can you | beat Elon Musk to Mars? | anotheryou wrote: | It's kind of an alien world to us, no lighting like we know it, | all organic shapes with a lot of unidentifiable stuff, blue tint | etc. It all helps to make it an easier case. | | dalle-e is still impressive, but taking this to the extreme it | would be like making it simulate pictures of TV noise and show we | couldn't tell it from the real thing. | non_sequitur wrote: | More accurately, "DALLE2 made me realize no one cares about or | looks closely at your vacation photos" | alx__ wrote: | The snarky side of me wants to say it's because people take | boring photos | | But really it's just information overload, most things on | social media I just scan the thumbnail and move on. Only my | family would care to see my vacation photos :D | B1FF_PSUVM wrote: | One, or three, carousels of vacation slides used to be an | effective way of putting a party to sleep ... | mproud wrote: | This is a flawed experiment. If I see a bunch of photos, and many | of them look real at first glance, I'm not instantly going to | critique whether all of them were real, unless I was given | specific instructions to do so. | | Also, underwater photos are not something many people have | personal experience seeing. Most of us don't live underwater. We | may not be equipped well enough to tell the difference, where | above water, especially urban photos, we will likely notice | better. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-18 23:00 UTC)