[HN Gopher] Show HN: This Food Does Not Exist ___________________________________________________________________ Show HN: This Food Does Not Exist Author : MasterScrat Score : 164 points Date : 2022-07-20 16:02 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (nyx-ai.github.io) (TXT) w3m dump (nyx-ai.github.io) | rkagerer wrote: | My partner is very impressionable when she see's food in a TV | show. Immediately has a craving for it. This thing is like, | limitless porn for her gluttony. | fxtentacle wrote: | I'm honestly surprised that they trained a StyleGAN. Recently, | the Imagen architecture has been show to be both easier in | structure, easier to train, and even faster to produce good | results. Combined with the "Elucidating" paper by NVIDIA's Tero | Karras you can train a 256px Imagen* to tolerable quality within | an hour on a RTX 3090. | | Here's a PyTorch implementation by the LAION people: | | https://github.com/lucidrains/imagen-pytorch | | And here's 2 images I sampled after training it for some hours, | like 2 hours base model + 4 hours upscaler: | | https://imgur.com/a/46EZsJo | | * = Only the unconditional Imagen variant, meaning what they show | off here. The variant with a T5 text embedding takes longer to | train. | gwern wrote: | Or, since they are comparing to Craiyon, why not just finetune | Craiyon itself? Craiyon already exists, just take it off the | shelf, you don't need to retrain it from scratch, so the cost | to train it from scratch on everything (which is indeed quite | large) is not relevant to someone who just wants to generate | great food photos. | Animats wrote: | Coming soon to the restaurant site generator of some large | delivery service. | | ("Picture is only for illustration purposes") | derbOac wrote: | The Cake is a Lie meme was never so relevant. | mike_hock wrote: | And the Science gets done and you make a neat gun. | beej71 wrote: | We're looking at the complete collapse of the stock photography | market. | kerblang wrote: | To what extent are we ripping off the photographers? Weren't | the models trained on their hard work? | | Have we reached a point where we've bounded art within the data | models are trained on? | | Have we imposed a limit on ideas as a realm of "what came | before" and implicitly decided that any "after" is a pointless | exercise without knowing whether that's even true? | nathanaldensr wrote: | Excellent questions, and I was thinking the same thing. In my | opinion, AI-generated art or images are not as impressive as | they might seem at first purely because _there is no real | imagination involved_. It 's an _art simulacrum_. | | A more accurate title would be "This picture of food does not | exist." | gnicholas wrote: | This will also democratize the market for comics. It used to be | you needed to be able to draw to be a comic. Now you can just | have ideas, and use This Comic Does Not Exist (which does not | yet exist) to generate the imagery. | echelon wrote: | It's way more than that. | | Anyone can be an artist, musician, photographer, writer. | | It's going to result in more content being created, which will | change the economies of content. Rate, scale, and volume of | production will increase by orders of magnitude. | | Disney thinks IP is a war chest. That's an old way of thinking. | | Star Wars won't be special to the new kids growing up that can | generate "Space Samurai" and "Galaxy Brouhaha" in an afternoon. | | We're going to hit a Cambrian explosion of content. | smaudet wrote: | "It's going to result in more content being created" | | Is it, though? This model took over a month, on extremely fit | hardware, to even create. | | Lets say for a second, in some hypothetical future, that | anyone can access/use/update these models (by anyone, I mean | someone with both low amount of resources as well as little | to no programming skill), why are they creating content? | | "Rate, scale, and volume of production will increase by | orders of magnitude." | | If by production you mean "paid creation", I'm not so sure | about that. In this world where everyone creates content from | thin air 1) there is little to no monetary value to the | content anymore (as monetary value inversely correlates with | scarcity) 2) So there is less incentive to create anything, | because there is no monetary value to doing so. | | In fact, by definition we can pretty much prove that not much | of anything will happen in this regard, because content is | already limited by budget - the budget has not gone up, and | the return has only gotten worse (in this hypothetical | scenario). | | What I think is more likely to happen - a few, "blessed" | individuals will have out-sized content creation | capabilities, without much need to innovate. The rest of us | will have almost no incentive to create anything as a result. | | Disney will use these systems, and they will use them to | churn out more garbage, faster, on average, most kids will | not be generating any movies in an afternoon. | nixpulvis wrote: | Friggles and bop, produce nothing. | Victerius wrote: | I have some extremely detailed imaginary images and clips in | my head that I just don't want to devote the thousands of | hours it would require to become proficient enough in drawing | and visual effects to create them. | mysterydip wrote: | Agreed. If I can even get close with some of these | generators, and hand-modify from there, I'll be happy. | jeffreygoesto wrote: | It's just that they don't "create" anything and pressing some | buttons to get more and more of the same, biased crap quickly | gets boring. | fxtentacle wrote: | Partially, yes. I certainly predict that DALLE-like models will | ruin the prices for some stock photos. | | But on the other hand, Adobe is pushing their CAI hard: | | https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/content-credentials.... | | And the core benefit of "authentic" content is that it can't be | generated by an AI. Only humans can own copyright. | imachine1980_ wrote: | dall-e is start giving full commercial license , i think in | the end both will converge you will prom something the AI | will make 100 prototypes and you will improve the one that | you like whit help the AI. the line will blur, is not against | the machine but whit the machine. the problem maybe is that | will probably need less people to do the same works. is "fun" | maybe is better be construction worker than artist, becouse | the second will get obsolet for most case. | gffrd wrote: | "Smiling happy family holding cell phones above their heads | standing in a field of grass wearing all white" | dalmo3 wrote: | That's actually a great example. Just think of the aggregated | human-hours wasted to bring those people together, create | that setting, photograph, edit, publish... All for a | meaningless flyer or landing page. | Cockbrand wrote: | Yields subtly nightmarish results: | | [1] https://i.imgur.com/YqNkaGj.png | | [2] https://i.imgur.com/EQL7pqw.png | gffrd wrote: | "Boardroom full of attractive business people gathered around a | laptop with one of them pointing at the screen, all wearing | suits, whiteboard in the background" | robotresearcher wrote: | "Woman laughing alone with salad" | gffrd wrote: | "Elderly man sitting at laptop looking puzzled, holding | credit card" | mysterydip wrote: | "teen in hooded sweatshirt wearing sunglasses and gloves | typing on a laptop in a dark room" | lelandfe wrote: | similarly, "criminal emerging from computer monitor | holding crowbar" | DonHopkins wrote: | "The feeling of drifting slowly through a field of moving | vehicles." | | "Once there were parking lots, now it's a peaceful oasis. | This was a Pizza Hut, now it's all covered with daisies." | | "Green grass grows around the backyard shit house. And | that is where the sweetest flowers bloom." | | "This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no | fooling around." | corrral wrote: | Thinking bigger: I'm pretty sure the combo of a relatively free | global Internet, liberal democracy on large (much bigger than | city-state) scales, and cheap, customized, on-demand generation | of totally fake text + photo + video propaganda based on simple | prompts, cannot all co-exist. At least one of these isn't going | to survive alongside the others. If we just let things keep | going the way they are, I expect "liberal democracy on large | scales" is the one we'll lose--and whatever follows probably | won't let the fairly-free, global Internet keep existing, | either, so we'll lose that too. | whatshisface wrote: | I have heard this before, but I have several reasons to think | it is not going to be a problem above what already happens: | | 1. AI lets you generate an enormous number of lies, but what | is really dangerous is one well-placed lie within a trusted | stream of many truths. CNN will retain a power to mislead far | in excess of Twitter bots. | | 2. Democracy averages over everyone's confusion, which means | lies are only dangerous when large numbers of people believe | them at the same time. Hordes of bots generating spurious | lies won't move a democracy in any specific direction, but | again, mass media will retain its power to mislead everyone | at once in the same, effectual, direction. | | 3. People have never respected the veracity of random tweets. | In the same way that trust in mainstream media outlets is | reaching record lows due to their consistently biased | reporting (they might not all have the same bias, but I can't | think of any I'd consider free of bias), everyone will learn | to adjust their incredulity to match the true quality of | random tweets. | | 4. Companies like Twitter and Google are known to be shaping | their results and algorithms according to their own | "political views" (broadly construed) so at worst this would | represent a partial shift of power from the old masters to | new masters quite like them (social media companies). In many | ways trimming the front page to reflect editorial opinion is | echoed in the way Twitter trims its feeds to reflect their | own editorial opinions. | | All taken together, it seems like the media is afraid that | equally large companies with similar business models | (content, attention, advertising) might end up eclipsing | them. The same old model where the TV station is afraid to | upset its advertisers, thereby giving a voice to business | interests, is well-recorded in the recent history of YouTube. | Not so much will change, although seeing it in its old and | newer forms might shed light on how it works. | blueflow wrote: | Whats your reasoning on this? Because i dont see why liberal | democracy would cease to exist... life would go on if we all | know that all pictures can be fabricated. I think this is | already the case without AI. | smaudet wrote: | Apparently you missed the problem Deep Fakes posed... | | If you cannot distinguish reality (well), and in fact it | becomes possible that most things you see do not exist, | then there is nothing to stop a bad actor from producing a | fake version of events in which they are elected, control | everything, etc. | | So, democracy would cease to exist, because democracy | relies ultimately on a choice - if you have no choice then | you do not have democracy, only a dictatorship. | vehementi wrote: | Right but today we have that problem already. We know | that a bad actor journalist can write a fake story. We | therefore require sources. If deepfakes come along we | will know videos can be fake and so we will be skeptical, | as we are today, and look to proper sources. We will | easily come up with some way to validate sources via | cryptography or org reputation (e.g. we might trust the | NY Times to not just fabricate things) | corrral wrote: | This is already barely holding together with mostly human | actors doing the astroturfing and creating bullshit "news | organizations" expressly to spread propaganda. Automation | is going to overwhelm a system that's already teetering. | vehementi wrote: | Yeah but we will get the word out that none of that is | trustworthy, then. There will be countermeasures and | reactions to this just like previous things. It will | certainly be effective to some degree - propaganda is | effective for sure - but it won't just be, oh, there are | deepfakes, everyone will now just unthinkingly accept | them. | corrral wrote: | 1) This effective backlash/education-campaign has _not_ | already happened despite there already being significant | problems with this kind of thing, and most of it not | being _that_ hard to spot, even, and 2) I think the more | likely effect is the destruction of shared trust in _any_ | set of news sources--we 're already pretty damn close to | this being the case, in fact. "It's all lies anyway" is a | sentiment that favors dictators more than it does | democracy. | phpnode wrote: | This is already possible today and we don't need AI | generated stock photos to do it. A bad actor can already | spin events to fit their narrative, suppress dissent and | control their population. Dictators have been doing it | for centuries and we're seeing it in real time in the | form of Putin's Russia right now. | mythrwy wrote: | If it were only Putin's Russia making stuff up we'd be in | good shape. | | Otherwise, I fully agree with your point. | phpnode wrote: | indeed, it's just the most prominent example at the | moment | corrral wrote: | Sure, but being able to do the same thing at 100,000x the | scale for the same price seems like a pretty big | difference. Throw in the ability to target narrow | constituencies with custom messages via modern ad | networks, automation-assisted astroturfing, et c., and | the whole thing looks like a powderkeg to me. | mythrwy wrote: | People already produce all kinds of fake news and | doctored photos and false flags and all kinds of things. | This has been going on since we developed language and | photography I suspect. | | People already have trouble telling propaganda from fact. | That has been going on since forever. | | At the end of the day I don't see this being a game | changer. If anything, now video and photos are less | evidence for/against something as the potential falseness | becomes well known. Congressman X: "no, that wasn't me | you saw leaving the hotel with the prostitute, my slimy | opponent obviously is deep faking stuff". | | And people will continue to believe what they want to | believe, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, just | like they do right now. | corrral wrote: | There seems to me a huge difference between a few | organizations being able to produce & distribute a total | of X amount of self-serving bullshit with some limited | reach, and anyone with a bit of money being able to | produce 100,000 * X amount of self-serving bullshit and | deliver it to exactly the people most likely to respond | to it the way they want, anywhere in the world (save, | notably, China and North Korea and such) while making it | very hard to tell who it's coming from. | | An environment in which 90% of the information is | adversarial is really bad. It's a severe problem and very | challenging to navigate. An environment where 99.9999% of | it's adversarial and it's even harder than before to sort | truth from fiction, functionally _no longer has any flow | of real information whatsoever_. | mythrwy wrote: | Another thought: | | Maybe liberal democracy is not the final outcome of human | civilization. You like it and I like it (presumably we | were both raised to believe this way) but perhaps it's | not really true. | | Just to question a base assumption here. | | It seems to me, if all the things that are claimed to | threaten liberal democracy actually do, liberal democracy | might be much less robust and long lived then previously | believed. | corrral wrote: | Oh, absolutely. I've even come around to thinking that's | _likely_. But one can hope. | | [EDIT] One thing I no longer think has any realistic | future is the open, semi-anonymous Internet. We're either | losing it because despots take over and definitely won't | permit that threat to remain unfettered, or we're losing | it (in perhaps a gentler-touch way) because we _have to_ | to prevent authoritarian take-over and vast civil strife. | I don 't think we're getting to keep that no matter what | happens. | mythrwy wrote: | Yep I think you might be right. It's ultimately too much | of a risk to all sorts of powers to have open unfettered | real time communication and mass dissemination. | | Even the "good guys" will call emergency that will never | end. | | Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. An intellectual | Cambrian explosion. And all that porn! | yellowapple wrote: | > And all that porn! | | On that note: I can't wait for the resulting | proliferation of photorealistic tentacle hentai. Imagine | the possibilities! | mysterydip wrote: | Take it a step further: Can you be arrested for having | porn that would be illegal in your country if it was | real, but instead it's a thousand generated | images/videos? How blurred will those lines get? | unfunco wrote: | Photoshop has existed for years and humans have been | manipulating photos for longer, what's the difference, | really? | | If I see a photo in the Guardian newspaper (or any other | reputable news outfit) I'm going to presume it's real, | and I expect journalists to verify that for me. If I see | a random photo that doesn't look quite right on a 4chan, | I'm not going to immediately assume it's news. | gadtfly wrote: | > For a Linux user, you can already build such a system | yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, | mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or | CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this | FTP account could be accessed through built-in software. | corrral wrote: | > Photoshop has existed for years and humans have been | manipulating photos for longer, what's the difference, | really? | | Scale, cost, and reach. | unfunco wrote: | Reach is no different, bots and humans are able to post | to social media, and cost is probably no different at the | moment either since AI isn't perfect, some human | interaction is probably needed to make it believable, and | because of that, scale is the same too. I think we're | approaching all of those things but it's probably still | quite some time away until a machine can be trusted to | manipulate the public on its own. | konschubert wrote: | You can put letters in any order you want and make them say | any damn lie. | | This was not an impediment to liberal democracy. | | I am as concerned as the next guy but throwing the towel | already seems a bit premature? | corrral wrote: | > You can put letters in any order you want and make them | say any damn lie. | | You can run a web server by responding to every request by | hand-typing the response, too. But you couldn't | realistically run one-one-millionth the modern Web that | way. You can't have global-scale e-commerce that way, et c. | Some things that _technically could_ work that way, can 't | actually--it's too slow, too expensive. This is very much | one of those "quantity has a quality all its own" things. | Increase the productivity of every astroturf-poster or | propaganda-front-news-site manager a few hundred times and | that's a _big_ difference. | | > I am as concerned as the next guy but throwing the towel | already seems a bit premature? | | Where'd you get throwing in the towel? I do think we're | (especially the US) really unlikely to do what we need to | in time, in part because measures that are _probably_ | necessary to defend against this are themselves risky and | rather unappealing. But we might. | Kye wrote: | Shrinking microstock rates already killed it. | notamy wrote: | I was really hoping that this would be never-before-seen, AI- | generated recipes or something similar ): | sovok wrote: | That would be the OpenAI Recipe creator (eat at your own risk) | https://beta.openai.com/examples/default-recipe-generator | croes wrote: | You are killing Instagram influencers | scifibestfi wrote: | Seriously, won't this combined with GPT-3 flood the influencer | market? | bergenty wrote: | Yes. Images will lose all authenticity. | xbar wrote: | I think they have, some time ago. It seems like motion | video is now on the chopping block. | minimaxir wrote: | If this doesn't, DALL-E 2 will: | https://twitter.com/minimaxir/status/1549761827969544192 | raphar wrote: | One twit there, made me happy: This is going to break | pinterest | Kye wrote: | Pinterest is great and useful and rad. Whoever's pushing | them to chase KPIs and ruin search is not. | Spivak wrote: | You mean supplying. Imagine running a food IG that didn't even | need to make the food. | croes wrote: | Imagine being one of millions, your food IG will look fake | even if the photos are real | ch4s3 wrote: | Hold my "beer". | ge96 wrote: | Now we just need to connect this to ffmpeg, add some fake | recipe scripts, upload a video on YT, multiply by 100 | videos, 100 channels make about $2.00 nice. | hammycheesy wrote: | I tried to use the linked Colab notebook to generate my own, and | it appears to have been successful, but I don't see any way to | view the generated images via the notebook interface. I'm not | familiar with the notebook tool - have I missed something? | sireat wrote: | If the result is standard numpy 3d matrix then something like | Pillow should be able to display the images. | | Something like from matplotlib import pyplot as | plt plt.imshow(matrix) plt.show() | gus_massa wrote: | Are you using the same model for cookies and cheesecakes? Do you | get sometimes a cookiecake? | MasterScrat wrote: | We currently train each model independently, ie we first gather | a cookie dataset, train a cookie model then restart from | scratch for the next one. | | That's actually something we're investigating: can we train a | single class-conditional model for multiple types of food? Or, | can we finetune cheesecakes from cookies? | TuringNYC wrote: | >> ie we first gather a cookie dataset, | | Is there a chance your dataset provider makes a claim that | they have derived data rights over your model generated | images? Would you have sufficient confidence, say, to sell | your images on a stock image site? | zorgmonkey wrote: | It is still somewhat unclear, but it seems that images | generated by a machine learning model are not copyrightable | (to quote the US Copyright Office, generated images "lack | the human authorship necessary to support a copyright | claim"). Whether the model itself is copyrightable is less | clear to me, but [0] seems to suggest that it be. All of | this depends on the country, but much of the world tends to | eventually mimic US copyright law. | | [0] https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/19981/who-can- | claim-... | dylan604 wrote: | Well, now _I_ want a cookiecake. | ch4s3 wrote: | The dream of the 90s is alive in StyleGAN! | dylan604 wrote: | I think the 90s version would be icecreamcookiecake | ch4s3 wrote: | I think both. I strongly remember those giant pizza sized | cookies at the mall in the early 90s. | MasterScrat wrote: | We have trained four StyleGAN2 image generation models and are | releasing checkpoints and training code. We are exploring how to | improve/scale up StyleGAN training, particularly when leveraging | TPUs. | | While everyone is excited about DALL*E/diffusion models, training | those is currently out of reach for most practitioners. Craiyon | (formerly DALL*E mega) has been training for months on a huge TPU | 256 machine. In comparison our models were each trained in less | than 10h on a machine 32x smaller. StyleGAN models also still | offer unrivaled photorealism when trained on narrow domains (eg | thispersondoesnotexist.com), even though diffusion models are | catching up due to massive cash investments in that direction. | goldemerald wrote: | I don't suppose you have a way of converting these models into | a pytorch usable version, do you? | andrewmcwatters wrote: | Darn! I was hoping for other-worldly foods that don't actually | exist being generated from real food attributes. I suppose I | should have known better. | JadoJodo wrote: | OP: Forgive me if this is out of place. Also, please know that my | question is genuine, not at all a reflection on the author/their | project, and most certainly born out of my own ignorance: | | Why are these kinds of things impressive? | | I think part of my issue is that I don't really "get" these ML | projects ("This X does not exist" or perhaps ML in general). | | My understanding is that, in layman's terms, workers are shown | many, many examples of X and then are asked to "draw"/create X, | which they then do. The corollary I can think of is if I were to | draw over and over for a billion, billion years and each time a | drawing "failed" to capture the essence of a prompt (as deemed by | some outside entity), both my drawing, and my memory of it was | erased. At the end of that time, my skill in drawing X would be | amazing. | | _If_ that understanding is correct, it would seem unimpressive? | It's not as though I can pass a prompt of "cookie" to an | untrained generator and, it pops out a drawing of one. And | likewise, any cookie "drawing" generated by a trained model is | simply an amalgam of every example cookie. | | What am I missing? | [deleted] | [deleted] | bee_rider wrote: | For the longest time it was assumed that creativity was an | almost magically human trait. The fact that somebody can, with | a straight face, say "I don't get why it is impressive, I could | draw these images too" is actually indicative of the wild | change that has occurred over these last couple years. | | I guess it is true that more than a couple demos like this have | been shown, so some of the awe might have worn off, but it is | still pretty shocking to lots of us that you can describe the | general idea of something to a computer and it can figure out | and produce "what you mean," fuzzy as that is. | mikkergp wrote: | I will say that the images included have not show to be | particularly creative, unless I missed a wider galaxy of non- | existent food items. It's not entirely convincing that the | generated images aren't just glued together pieces of other | images with some fading between them. | JadoJodo wrote: | > The fact that somebody can, with a straight face, say ... | | To be clear, I'm not trying to devalue this at all; In fact, | as I noted above, I am certain I'm missing something and that | was what my comment was aimed at. In any case, thank you for | taking the time to reply (seriously). | bee_rider wrote: | Probably expression "with a straight face" has been used | sarcastically too often, so maybe it looks sarcastic in my | comment too. In this case I should have picked a phrase | more unambiguous phrase. I wasn't using it sarcastically or | anything, "with a straight face" = in good faith/honest in | this case. | herpderperator wrote: | Is there a way to trigger a fresh image on demand? That's kind of | what I expect when I see a does-not-exist site. | CSMastermind wrote: | There's a link on the page: | | https://colab.research.google.com/github/nyx-ai/stylegan2-fl... | georgeburdell wrote: | This is the most disturbing "does not exist" yet. A food blog | could write itself | hbn wrote: | They already pretty much are. Top recipe hits on Google seem to | always be from like "Southern Mama Cooking Tips" or something | generic like that, and you have to scroll past 8 paragraphs of | context for why this person is writing a recipe and why they | like it so much, totally not to hit all the SEO sweet spots, | and the full life story of this "Southern Mama" that's totally | not a guy in India or a robot scraping together blurbs of text | from other website. | ComputerCat wrote: | Everything looks delish! | wyldfire wrote: | Are there any analysis techniques that can easily distinguish | between these and real photographs? Do simple things like edge | detections or histograms reveal any anomalies? | daveguy wrote: | Neural networks can be trained to identify the difference, but | I don't know how specific that is to the generating model. In | fact, the GAN technique, at a high level is two networks -- one | trying to distinguish the difference and one trying to create | images that cannot be distinguished. That is the "adversarial" | aspect. | | It is an interesting question that there may be some simple | pre-processing techniques (edge detection, Fourier transform, | etc) that more easily distinguish the image as a fake. | Something like a shortcut from training a network to make the | distinction. | golergka wrote: | And here I was, hoping for new, never seen before dishes. | gffrd wrote: | I like the thought that, years from now, we're all drinking | eating weirdly-presented food / drinking weird cocktails because | AI synthesized the images of drinks around the web and decided | `cocktails always include fruit` and `all food must be piled high | on plate` | twic wrote: | This computer has pretty poor taste in cocktails. | spacemanmatt wrote: | Somewhere in that data set is found an Eigencookie. I want the | recipe. | tmountain wrote: | Aggregate "does not exist" website for anyone who's interested. | | https://thisxdoesnotexist.com/ | forgotusername6 wrote: | I wonder how close the nearest match from the training data is. | Was there a cheesecake that looked almost like these generated | images? | layer8 wrote: | Maybe the ML model effectively implements a lossy image | database with minor randomization. :) | fxtentacle wrote: | Since GANs are effectively one class of denoising auto- | encoders, your summary is spot-on. This type of ML model | learns to effectively compress and decompress natural images | by representing it as a hierarchy of convolutional features = | shape templates. | waynesonfire wrote: | exactly.. where is the chocolate chip cheesecake? | nh23423fefe wrote: | This feels like when I made a drawing in elementary school, and | someone asks if I traced it. It just feels like looking for a | way to downplay what was made by making an appeal to | "creativity" or "originality". | | But the tide never goes out on AI and computing. The | capabilities will only grow more and more impressive and | unassailable. | | When the chatbot is completely convincing is someone going to | ask, "I wonder close the responses are to training text" even | though no one even blinks when fathers and sons act alike. No | one demands children invent new languages to prove they aren't | just "randomizing samplers" | mikkergp wrote: | Is this just a search engine to find relevant content and | remix it a bit, or can you actually create new content. These | two things don't solve the same problem, and you may run into | lots of copyright problems. | yellowapple wrote: | > No one demands children invent new languages to prove they | aren't just "randomizing samplers" | | I sure as hell do. No son of _mine_ will be comprehensible to | other humans until he 's at _least_ two years old. | WalterSear wrote: | No hot dogs? | | Nice work. | Sebbecking wrote: | How big was your training dataset? | jdthedisciple wrote: | Looks impressive but I can't escape the notion that surely some | of the generated images will be very close to the some of the | training images? | | How am I to assess how original the generated results really are? | danuker wrote: | Image search, I guess. No results, it's original enough. | dylan604 wrote: | When will we see this as a contestant on Is It Cake? | xg15 wrote: | At least with DALL-E you can be sure the food has a name. For a | moment I was worried this would produce vaguely food-like images | where on closer look you realise you have no idea what you're | looking at - like a lot of other "this X does not exist" projects | seem to do. | | Also a bit of cultural bias in the training is shown I think. The | "pile of cookies" prompt seems to mostly generate American | cookies, while e.g. a German user might be disappointed they | didn't get this: | https://groceryeshop.us/image/cache/data/new_image_2019/ABSB... | :) | fxtentacle wrote: | I thought DALL-E uses a sentence-piece encoder for the text | that goes into CLIP, which would suggest that you can recombine | the syllables from existing words and it'll "understand" that. | | So both "banana chocolate cookies" and "banacoochoconakieslade" | should work. | dalmo3 wrote: | I don't think a German user writing "pile of cookies", in | English, would be disappointed with "English" results. Is that | any different than what you get on, say, Google? | | Try prompting craiyon for "Ein Stapel Kekse"* :) | | * Google-translated | munificent wrote: | I love cheesecake with strawraspcherries on top. | waynesonfire wrote: | and what was the licensing for the training data that you used? | n4bz0r wrote: | The food looks great! I suppose these models could use some extra | training with dishes, though. The plates and glasses look wobbly, | which is an instant giveaway. Otherwise, I can see this being | used by food posters! Maybe not as a primary source, but as a | "filler" -- for sure. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-20 23:00 UTC)