[HN Gopher] AI real-time human full-body photo generator
___________________________________________________________________
AI real-time human full-body photo generator
Author : bookofjoe
Score : 318 points
Date : 2023-08-23 15:28 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (generated.photos)
(TXT) w3m dump (generated.photos)
| Madmallard wrote:
| Accuracy on using an existing face seems pretty off. Certain
| positions have terrible accuracy on body parts. Why would you
| care to use this again? This just seems like another AI SaaS scam
| project where they're basically charging others to use their
| A100s with their copy-pasted implemented version of the research
| paper algorithms. These should just all be outlawed IMO.
| oktwtf wrote:
| I always thought peak of popular culture had a bit of a negative
| effect on the body image of the rest. Now we're going to let ai
| define the ideals... this might be slippery.
| lelanthran wrote:
| "Now"?
|
| I doubt everyone is going to want to have six mangled fingers
| on one hand and a claw on the other.
| oktwtf wrote:
| Okay, agreed. I ran about 15-20 gens through the site, got
| mangled feet/legs, disconnected appendages, extra appendages,
| nudity, nudity imprinted onto clothing, just bizarre stuff.
|
| Tomorrow's "Now", maybe.
| Peritract wrote:
| We know about all of the potential harms that deepfakes can
| cause, the problems with inherent bias in training data, etc.
|
| Creating/publicising a tool that winks at these issues (consider
| the difference between the poses offered for 'male' and 'female'
| bodies) but does nothing to mitigate them - and a lot to enable
| them - is irresponsible at best.
| RetroTechie wrote:
| Perhaps more to the point:
|
| All these AI content generators are still early stage. So it's
| _kind of_ wild west for the time being.
|
| First cars were what? Horse carriage with an engine duct taped
| onto it? Only when they became more numerous, things like
| traffic rules, reliable brakes & steering etc became important.
|
| We're in the engine-with-wheels stage. Have fun, be happy.
| UweSchmidt wrote:
| It would be quite hard to make any AI tool that preemptively
| avoids the wide range of potential issues that you've
| mentioned. If tool makers are forced to always err on the side
| of caution, it's likely that the resulting tool ends up
| disappointing.
|
| Only when published, and when put into context of the entire
| work, could a creation deemed harmful. A tool should not, for
| example, prevent you from making a bunch of images with ominous
| poses, from which you select one to use with an article that
| discusses the history of ominous poses.
| EGreg wrote:
| In that case enjoy our proof of concept:
|
| https://app.engageusers.ai
|
| Everything from realistic faces to realistic posts. We tried
| to make it as ethical as possible in multiple ways. But
| ultimately it is designed to spur conversation on topics that
| need more kickstarting engagement...
| Peritract wrote:
| Just because it's hard to make a tool that _can 't_ be used
| in negative ways doesn't mean that it's a good idea to make a
| tool that (charitably) makes specifically negative uses easy
| and (uncharitably) is deliberately designed for them.
|
| Tool makes do err on the side of caution all the time - we
| **** out passwords so users don't share them as easily, we
| put safety catches in secateurs. "Build in safeguards against
| the obvious issues" is a basic design step.
| UweSchmidt wrote:
| - your critique is both vague, but at the same time touches
| a sensitive area, implying a wrongdoing by the tool authors
| that can't be refuted or fixed easily. What specifically
| bothers you? Consider that active Twitter discussions
| uncover and point out troublesome issues almost faster than
| the general public can understand and digest.
|
| - assuming you found an egregious issue, do you also double
| down on maintaining that the tool is 'deliberately designed
| to make negative uses easy'? How so?
|
| - I disagree with the 'safety catches' metaphor and would
| offer the 'hammer' metaphor instead.
|
| - Actually, with the rapid development in this field I
| expect that anyone will be able to locally prompt for any
| content, even movies, soon, limited only by people's taste
| and imagination; with this realization I don't think I will
| follow up on this discussion that will surely be outdated
| in a minute.
| upwardbound wrote:
| Peritract already called out a specific issue. The male
| and female options come with different sets of selectable
| poses, and some of the female poses are pornographic in
| nature. This promotes the objectification of women.
| notpachet wrote:
| > If tool makers are forced to always err on the side of
| caution, it's likely that the resulting tool ends up
| disappointing
|
| I don't disagree with you entirely, but I still have the
| feeling like this will make a pretty good epitaph for
| humanity some day.
| trojan13 wrote:
| Nice seeing a nuxt-webapp in production.
| smeej wrote:
| Why is it impossible to generate a male model wearing anything
| other than rolled denim jean shorts? I've tried things like "long
| pants" or "ankle-length pants," but I cannot get it to stop
| putting them all in denim shorts!
| rvbissell wrote:
| I accidentally ended up with a male in a miniskirt, simply
| because the clothing defaults didn't change.
| gg80 wrote:
| Try with cargo pants. After three or four iterations the pants
| disappeared and were substituted by something that can only be
| described as an andrologist fever dream.
| system2 wrote:
| There is a clothing tab which you select whatever you want. I
| think description doesn't override it.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Why is it impossible to generate a male model wearing
| anything other than rolled denim jean shorts?
|
| Its not, I got rolled-but-long white denim pants, white shirt,
| white tie, and white jacket, with white deck-ish shoes but
| selecting "Formal" on the clothing tab and entering "Clothing:
| white-tie formalwear".
|
| But, yeah, there is a definite denim bias.
| n8cpdx wrote:
| I got one with regular shorts: https://generated.photos/human-
| generator/64e67772190809000bb...
|
| I don't understand why none of these generators want to make a
| man with body hair. I specified Armenian and Armenians are
| notoriously hairy.
|
| Edit: this is if I specify "very hairy". Note that for a man,
| there is a bit of hair in the usual places but still far short
| of "very hairy" IMO. https://generated.photos/human-
| generator/64e67aa38448b800095... (And the hair rendering is
| bad, AI still doesn't understand directionality; there's a very
| common pattern it should know, especially on the chest)
| dcdc123 wrote:
| Scroll down to the text field at the bottom and delete
| everything in it. Then go back and reselect clothing.
| trebligdivad wrote:
| Yeh; tbh I thought it did a reasonable job with them though
| https://generated.photos/human-generator/64e666d59563e6000e0...
| (The hairline is way off, and he's way too muscular) I at least
| don't spot anything too anatomically wrong.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Knees are weird, one of them tilted backwards, ears
| asymmetrical.
| dinkleberg wrote:
| You might not like it but jorts are the pinnacle of lower body
| coverings.
|
| That is actually a hilarious issue.
| evan_ wrote:
| The first female model I generated was supposed to be wearing
| jeans but was wearing what can only be described as a denim
| belt with pockets
| kortex wrote:
| Oh yeah, totally ready for prime time, hyper realistic, SFW
| filter works great, not at all hallucinations /massive_sarcasm
|
| Actually NSFW, not safe for sanity. That's...not how body parts
| work:
|
| https://generated.photos/human-generator/64e644f39c8c0400108...
|
| Prompt was "young woman with tattoos in miniskirt" really nothing
| crazy there. But perhaps the latent space with that particular
| pose is particularly raunchy.
| philote wrote:
| Yeah, this was my first attempt:
| https://generated.photos/human-generator/64e648819c8c0400088...
|
| Not quite right. I am, however, impressed that the fingers are
| generally "mostly" correct.
| 14 wrote:
| my first attempt created some kind of gym monster lol
| https://generated.photos/human-
| generator/64e64a2f412bec0009b...
| [deleted]
| mrguyorama wrote:
| This is actually an incredible example of "The longer you
| look the worse it gets".
|
| She has a second set of boobs where her hips should be!
| That's not evolutionarily advantageous!
| westernpopular wrote:
| Your description had me curious, the picture had me
| laughing out loud
| kortex wrote:
| _What a time to be alive!_
| binkHN wrote:
| Definitely the stuff nightmares are made out of!
| kortex wrote:
| Oof, I thought we banned thalidomide.
|
| I wonder if their pose detection/interpolation struggles for
| rarer poses, eg "kneeling with legs splayed leaning forward"
| is quite specific in saucy contexts and fairly sparse in more
| typical model shoots, so the manifold gets a bit holey, and
| overlaps with similar poses like one knee up, one hand
| forward.
| philote wrote:
| Yeah I think that's it.
|
| Also, it's way too easy to make something that looks like
| (or basically is) child porn with this tool. I chose Adult
| but something else keeps triggering it to generate a child-
| like face like in the image I posted. And as you showed,
| it's easy to get accidental NSFW pics.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| It's very hard to filter NSFW content. Every site I tried,
| unstable diffusion, kawaix.com, Mage space, novel ai... They
| all have some content moderation on (to avoid CP, to keep
| payment processors happy...), but things leak.
|
| Some are really bad at filtering. Kawaix is particularly
| terrible at it, because they are new, while mage have upped
| their game a lot but had many months to do so.
|
| It feels like 2000' again, and it's the wild west.
|
| Plus when you have a horde of teenagers having a whole summer
| to try prompts from their bed, you get serious pen testing
| sessions.
| 14 wrote:
| I've spent the last hour trying to coax it to spit out nsfw
| images and it definitely is not safe for work lol. I wouldn't
| even want to post some of the seeds I generated. Nudity is not
| prevented in this generator.
| [deleted]
| freeflight wrote:
| There is a SFW filter?
|
| I just let it generate a random woman with no prompt, and it
| gave me a pretty good result, except there is a mask on the
| face and literally bloody nude boobs;
| https://generated.photos/human-generator/64d67874568faa0007a...
|
| edit; I just realized it put in a default prompt
| garyfirestorm wrote:
| and I got a 'We detected that generated image contains nude
| content. Try changing parameters.' despite not specifying any
| such thing
| barbariangrunge wrote:
| Looks like something from a hellraiser movie
| [deleted]
| noman-land wrote:
| These all look like cartoons to me.
| ZYXER wrote:
| ...prone to pron?
| bdowling wrote:
| > "If you want to use images produced by Human Generator in
| commercial projects, contact us."
|
| If there is no copyright in AI-generated images, then how can
| they possibly enforce this?
| jejeyyy77 wrote:
| they can't.
| [deleted]
| caturopath wrote:
| > If there is no copyright in AI-generated images, then how can
| they possibly enforce this?
|
| We don't have precedent here. Whether a person using a website
| with a generative AI tool counts as having a non-human creator
| isn't clear, and it seems to me like the answer is that it does
| have a human creator. Using a horse-hair brush to paint a
| painting doesn't mean that the painting was created by a horse
| and isn't subject to copyright. We'll have to find out
| eventually whether over a dozen settings, some with a gazillion
| options, and multiple freeform inputs counts as 'not created by
| a human'.
| wredue wrote:
| Was there not just precedent set for this?
|
| The horse hair example is nonsense. One might argue that
| artists take inspiration from other artists to make the
| argument that what the AI is doing is fine. But the ai is
| actually only capable of blending what it's been trained on,
| whereas an artist is not similarly limited. And this is how
| the horse hair sample is stupid.
| caturopath wrote:
| > Was there not just precedent set for this?
|
| No.
|
| > One might argue that artists take inspiration from other
| artists to make the argument that what the AI is doing is
| fine.
|
| This doesn't seem to address what I took to be the relevant
| part of IP law - that non-human authors don't create
| copyrighted works. It was a reductio ad absurdum for
| minimal non-human involvement. It's probably not the case
| that a monkey stealing your camera and taking a selfie
| creates a copyrighted work. It's probably the case that a
| frog triggering a motion sensor you set up for nature
| photography does. It's certain painting normally with a
| horsehair brush does.
|
| Your remarks seem to make some sort of moral appeal, but
| I'm not sure how it ties into the legal concerns I thought
| was being raised.
|
| > the ai is actually only capable of blending what it's
| been trained on, whereas an artist is not similarly
| limited.
|
| I'm not sure what "blending" means here or what the actual
| theories of generative art ML systems and of humans here
| are. To call what the former do "blending" requires such a
| broad definition I can't tell you if humans are blending as
| well (at least some of the time, at least materially) when
| creating works.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Was there not just precedent set for this?
|
| No, there was a recent case where someone tried to claim an
| AI as an author for copyright and themselves as owner via
| work for hire, where it was ruled invalid because AI can't
| be an author under copyright law; the ruling was explicit
| that it was not addressing copyrightability by humans of
| images they create using an AI generator as a tool, only
| the claim of copyright with AI as the author.
| Philpax wrote:
| There haven't been any solid rulings on the copyright validity
| of human-driven AI generation yet. There have been a few cases,
| but they've been muddied by complicating factors (not a human
| doing the generation - that is, autonomous generation - or the
| generation being used as a base work for something else).
|
| Additionally, even if there's no copyright, the terms of
| service may still apply separately (see OpenAI disallowing
| training a competitor model on output from OpenAI models)
| basch wrote:
| A copyright is a government granted monopoly. The copyright
| office has stated they wont grant monopoly privilege for ai
| generated art. The courts thus far have backed them up.
|
| I would say it doesnt look good at the moment for to try and
| enforce ownership of something ai generated, it would be an
| uphill battle, and the default/null position would be that
| the art is free to use, and unprotected by government.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The copyright office has stated they wont grant monopoly
| privilege for ai generated art.
|
| No, they haven't.
|
| They've said that _if_ the only human input is a text
| prompt, _then_ it lacks the required human creativity to be
| eligible for copyright protection.
| tomcam wrote:
| Not trying to be combative, but I don't see the
| difference?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Real AI imagegen workflows very often have more input
| from the human creating the image than a text prompt.
| basch wrote:
| seems a little circular semantically. if it has
| significant human input its human generated moreso than
| ai generated, in which case we are saying the same thing.
| cush wrote:
| I don't think we're going to see a ruling against copyright
| in the long term. When the rulings do come, they're going to
| be complex (not that copyright law isn't already complex). As
| prompting and working with AIs slowly becomes its own art and
| skill, it will become clear that works need protection. We've
| had "intelligent" filters and tools in Photoshop for decades,
| this is just the next step in that evolution.
|
| The only real problem here is that the original creators of
| the art that these AIs were trained on didn't consent to this
| type of use and aren't getting any kind of attribution or
| payment. If they were recognized and compensated, there'd be
| really nothing to talk about here - any work could be
| copyrighted, with whatever derivative status the AI bakes in.
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| > Additionally, even if there's no copyright, the terms of
| service may still apply separately (see OpenAI disallowing
| training a competitor model on output from OpenAI models)
|
| Aren't contract clauses that relate to the distribution of
| material preempted by the copyright act?
| tzs wrote:
| No. However contract clauses only apply to people who are
| actually parties to the contract.
|
| For example you and I could enter into a contract for me to
| use AI to generate something that is not copyrightable from
| data you provide and give you a copy of that thing. There
| would in general be no legal problem if the contract
| included restrictions on what you could do with that thing,
| including restrictions on distributing it.
|
| Part of the quid pro quo of a contract can be one party
| giving up a right to do something that they would normally
| have a right to do.
|
| Now suppose the contract did allow you to make and
| distribute copies as part of your product. Someone else
| starts making copies of those copies you distributed and
| distributing those copies.
|
| There is no contract between me and that person, so I would
| not be able to stop them. I've got no contract with them,
| and the thing is not copyrighted, so there's nothing that
| prevents them from copying it.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Aren't contract clauses that relate to the distribution
| of material preempted by the copyright act?
|
| Generally, no. It's possible for there to be interactions
| in some cases, but the Copyright Act wouldn't generally
| preempt contract terms. (Its closer to the other way
| around, in that--to the extent copyright rights exist that
| could otherwise be enforced--a relevant contract will
| generally limit enforcement and recover to breach of
| contract rather than bare copyright action.)
| bookofjoe wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37195509
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/19/23838458/ai-generated-
| art...
| space_fountain wrote:
| I believe that as the article says despite the headline
| this case was specifically about a situation where a
| computer scientist wanted to list the AI as the one
| creating the work. The case doesn't examine an argument
| that things can be copyrighted when a human is involved
| either by filtering the output or even just by developing
| the algorithm involved and thus the human is the artist and
| the AI is just a tool. I think what's clear is that legally
| AI can't itself create a copy righted work just like a
| camera can't be listed as the author of a work, but it's
| not clear if a human using AI as a tool either through
| prompting or filtering counts as a creative act under
| copyright or if AI generated creations count as derivative
| works of the models weights.
| wrs wrote:
| They could do it with a click-through license agreement, but
| they don't have one of those either. So it seems to have the
| legal force of a polite request. (IANAL)
| HPsquared wrote:
| Does this apply to any photo taken by a camera with "AI"
| filters? There must be a line somewhere.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| The current line is not based on a maximum AI input but a
| minimum human input. You aimed the camera, your copyright.
| You have an AI just create fake pictures and post them
| without someone in the loop, no copyright. The questions are
| mostly about how little you have to do.
| pbjtime wrote:
| While that may be the status today, I feel this is in no
| way settled.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Question is why would anyone want to use this since it's so
| buggy.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| There are lots of tools that don't have copyrightable output
| that require commercial licensing to use.
| phyzome wrote:
| As of now, copyright of AI-generated images _is not a settled
| matter_. But I think smart money is on the courts coming down
| on the side of copyright being applicable.
|
| (If you're thinking of the recent court case, no, that was
| unrelated; some guy was trying to pull a stunt and the court
| did not actually rule on the thing you think they did.)
| servercobra wrote:
| Do you have a link or something re: your second point for
| those of us who might not know?
| sudobash1 wrote:
| There are still terms of use, which can dictate how you are
| allowed to use a website. And there are watermarks in the
| corners.
| notpachet wrote:
| We can probably AI those out.
| TehCorwiz wrote:
| Adobe Fusion 360 education edition limits what I can create
| with it to non commercial uses only. Despite me owning the
| copyright for what I produce using it. I don't think you have
| it right.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Its terms of use of the site, you are offered use of their
| geneator in exchange for agreeing not to use it commercially.
| If you use it commercially, you are breaking those terms, which
| they will argue are an enforceable contract. Copyright has
| nothing to do with it.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| But what if you use the generator, post the image in an
| allowed non-commercial context, and then I copy that image
| and use it commercially? I have no contract with the AI
| generator company, and you didn't violate yours; it would
| seem to me that the violation involved is a copyright
| violation.
| behringer wrote:
| 100 percent legal to use the generated images as freely as
| you like in that case.
| disembiggen wrote:
| if there were, globally, no copyright at all in any "ai"
| generated images, and one confidently thought there never would
| be, then simply using the images, in the case that one only
| needed one or two images, would probably be fine.
|
| however if there were large nations in which the law was still
| in flux or unclear, or one wanted to generate new images on the
| fly without fear of rate-limiting or refusal of service, then
| one would potentially wish to work out an arrangement.
| aerodog wrote:
| Has the same problems as midjourney et al: you can feed it
| pictures of a friend or yourself or a celebrity, and the result
| is always off - not recognizable as them
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Some will surely consider that a feature rather than a bug.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| But then how am I supposed to be the kind of creepy person
| that jerks it to poorly modified "nudes" made from Facebook
| profile pics?
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| "Back in my day stalkers had to use their _imagination_ ,
| by gum."
| Philpax wrote:
| That's pretty easily fixable if you train a LoRA or similar so
| that the model has a specific likeness in mind. (You can look
| at - and despair at - Civitai if you want proof.)
|
| It's harder to do at inference time without training, but I
| wouldn't assume it'll be impossible forever, especially with
| the existence of ControlNet.
| gwern wrote:
| This is a GAN, so you can just project the image of yourself
| into the latent space (which will give you a near-pixel-
| perfect reconstruction), fix the identity-relevant variables
| in the _z_, and edit it as necessary. (No workarounds like
| finetuning necessary. Just one of the many forgotten
| advantages of GANs.)
| GaggiX wrote:
| You can project an image into the latent space with
| diffusion model too, DDIM inversion.
| DonsDiscountGas wrote:
| >fix the identity-relevant variables in the _z_
|
| Is that how the latent space works though; Like if it's a
| 300-dim vector, is the face at locations 0-10?
| samstave wrote:
| "Human generator is at full capacity, please try again later"
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| No wonder the birth rate has been dropping.
| bun_at_work wrote:
| I wonder if it's actually overloaded or if there's a bug.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| HN Effect
| titaniumtown wrote:
| hug of death
| [deleted]
| gwern wrote:
| If you're wondering how it's so fast and cheap and they can
| generate variants so easily, it's because they're using GANs (see
| the footer). GANs are way faster than diffusion models because
| they generate the image in a single forward pass and their true
| latent space encoding makes editing a breeze.
|
| (And if you're wondering how it can look so good when 'everyone
| knows GANs don't work because they're too unstable', a widespread
| myth, repeated by many DL researchers who ought to know better,
| GANs _can_ scale to high-quality realistic images on billion-
| image scale datasets, and become more, not less, stable with
| scale, like many things in deep reinforcement learning. See for
| example BigGAN on JFT-300m
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.11096.pdf#page=8&org=deepmind ,
| GigaGAN https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.05511 , Projected GAN
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.01007 , StyleGAN-XL
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.00273 , or Tensorfork's chaos runs
| https://gwern.net/gan#tensorfork-chaos-runs . 'Computing is a pop
| culture'...)
| tavavex wrote:
| While there's discussion on the topic here - are there any
| resources that can explain the exact mechanism of how a GAN
| works for image generation? I have a rough idea of how
| diffusion models work, but I'm still no AI researcher.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| There was a whole community around ESRGAN img2img finetuning
| kinda like Stable Diffusion LORA community... albeit a much,
| much smaller one.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > If you're wondering how it's so fast and cheap and they can
| generate variants so easily
|
| I assume its cheap because they are burning money to build a
| business, its not fast at all, and the quality... sucks.
|
| > And if you're wondering how it can look so good
|
| I'm not.
|
| I'm wondering why they're trying to get people to use something
| worse than using a decent photorealistic SD1.5-based checkpoint
| with some basic prompt templating.
|
| Not saying GANs can't be awesome, just that this site isn't
| what I'd use to make that case.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Looking at the poses, it feels optimized for generating porn,
| but one example someone showed had a child's face (good god
| please don't let your "AI" system generate child anything if
| you want to sell it for porn purposes), and another user
| noted that their attempt error'd out because it "detected
| nudity", even though other users get given a nude model by
| default.
| stavros wrote:
| What exactly is the argument against AI-generated child
| porn? Are we worried that it will somehow turn people into
| pedophiles, or do we not want to take jobs away from actual
| children?
| katabasis wrote:
| 1. You are potentially giving a shield of deniability to
| people who create or distribute real CSAM because now
| they could claim that the images are just AI generated
| and therefore "harmless"
|
| 2. Efforts to stamp out real child abuse may be
| undermined by a flood of AI-generated false positive
| imagery
|
| 3. When people see something over and over again they
| start to think that it's normal. AI generation of this
| kind of material (something which can be done at a huge
| scale) risks normalizing the sexual abuse of children.
|
| I'm sure there are many other arguments beyond these.
| tempestn wrote:
| To expand on what I take as your implied argument- Some
| (small) percentage of people are pedophiles, meaning
| they're attracted to children. Presumably they can't help
| that, just as others can't change their sexual
| preferences. Clearly acting on this urge with an actual
| child is wrong. That's true whether it's directly
| assaulting a child, or consuming child porn, as that
| market encourages others to exploit children to generate
| it. However, if it is possible to produce CP without
| involving actual children, it could provide an outlet for
| those desires that would reduce demand for actual CP, and
| thereby reduce incidents of children being abused to
| produce it.
|
| One could argue that such an outlet could even reduce
| incidents of direct sexual assault of children by
| pedophiles, but there is also a counter-argument that it
| would instead serve to "whet the appetite" and encourage
| such behaviour. And of course there are other counter-
| arguments; it could make actual CP more difficult to
| detect, for one. Finally there is the argument from the
| perspective of fundamental morality, that depicting
| children in a sexual manner is wrong in and of itself,
| and therefore the various potential effects are
| irrelevant. (Much like it's wrong to murder an innocent,
| even if you could harvest their organs and save five
| others as a result.)
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| It's interesting to notice when utilitarian arguments are
| accepted and when they're rejected. The argument offered
| in favor of abortion without limits tends to be that
| women will get abortions regardless, they will just be
| dangerous. Presumably the greater good is served by
| allowing abortions despite the moral issues surrounding
| killing fetuses/unborn children. I have no trouble
| imagining many people supporting such a utilitarian
| argument for abortion but not for generated CP. Though I
| have a hard time making the distinction intelligible.
| stavros wrote:
| That's a good summary, thanks. I think AI-generated will
| lead to actual child porn not making financial sense
| (hopefully, anyway). I also don't think that the
| "whetting the appetite" argument is true, from other
| areas I've seen (eg playing violent games doesn't lead
| you to becoming a murderer), but I have no data on that.
| ThrowAway1922A wrote:
| > What exactly is the argument against AI-generated child
| porn?
|
| Currently? The fact that all the models need training
| data and the law will see that as victimizing the people
| who were used in the data set be they adults of children.
|
| Overall? The fact that it's disgusting and pedophiles
| deserve things which I can say IRL and everyone agrees
| with, but on HN will get me banned.
|
| Many countries ban underage anime porn too. Children and
| their likeness are off limits.
| richie_adler wrote:
| Far from me to defend pederasty, but I'm quite sure I
| would disagree with the thing you wouldn't want to
| publish, RL or not.
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| The argument against it is that the police and
| prosecutors don't care about your arguments.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > What exactly is the argument against AI-generated child
| porn?
|
| As something you generate in a photorealistic image
| generator you are building a business around?
|
| The fact that it is a serious crime in many jurisdictions
| and, even where it isn't, photorealistic child porn
| images that get noticed anywhere or going to result in
| uncomfortable conversations for everyone involved in the
| process of establishing that they aren't evidence of a
| crime.
| blitz_skull wrote:
| Probably moral depravity if I had to guess. Not sure why
| we even need "an argument" against it. It's pretty self-
| evidently wrong.
| wizofaus wrote:
| What if it turned out it were the only effective way to
| prevent people engaging in real paedophilia?
| JackFr wrote:
| Prisons?
| Jolter wrote:
| But it's not.
| trehalose wrote:
| That's a very big "what if". What data could demonstrate
| that to be true or false?
| [deleted]
| masfuerte wrote:
| Under English law creating a rough hand-drawn child porn
| sketch for your own amusement is a serious crime. I don't
| understand the rationale for this, but people should be
| aware that if they use a porn generator and it spits out
| an image that looks like CP then they will have committed
| an offence in England.
| dotancohen wrote:
| I don't know if the thing in the crotch is a penis or a
| scrotum, but it is definitely NSFW:
|
| https://images.generated.photos/0wV1dBnZ15hGneEfqfZT7SdEIil
| l...
|
| My prompt was simply "Standing in front of a rocket.".
| oniony wrote:
| That image is so full of wtf
| GaggiX wrote:
| >they're too unstable', a widespread myth
|
| >See for example BigGAN
|
| I remember when you try training a BigGAN model on anime
| images, the quality was bad. Now look at this example, one
| single GPU, 1.5M images with a diffusion model:
| https://medium.com/@enryu9000/anifusion-diffusion-models-for...
| ,the difference in quality is absurd, you can say this or that
| is not true but the quality speak for itself, obtaining good
| quality on complex distribution is much easier with a diffusion
| model than a GAN.
|
| For example in the case of the site linked they have
| conditioned the model on poses because you're not going to get
| anything close to be coherent without them with a simple
| StyleGAN as they say they're using.
| Tyr42 wrote:
| Broken link?
| GaggiX wrote:
| Fixed thx
| gwern wrote:
| > I remember when you try training a BigGAN model on anime
| images, the quality was bad
|
| Because there was a bug in the code, in a part unrelated to
| the GAN itself.
|
| > the difference in quality is absurd
|
| Yes, it _does_ help to train on anime with code that isn 't
| buggy. (BTW, Skylion was getting good results with GANs on
| anime similarly restricted to centered figures like those
| samples, he just refuses to ever publish anything.)
| GaggiX wrote:
| So you believe that without the bug you would be able to
| come close to the quality of the diffusion model I have
| linked? I'm not even asking about using the same compute (1
| GPU for ~1 month) but if you just believe BigGAN can come
| close to that in general.
|
| Also the bug is probably related to the added complexity of
| training a GAN model in comparison to a diffusion model.
| dublin wrote:
| How it can look so good? ROFL!! It just created a guy with a
| hand coming off his left ankle in place of a foot, and toes or
| fingers or something poking out the end of the show on his
| right foot! https://generated.photos/human-
| generator/64e682308448b8000c5...
| lacoolj wrote:
| maybe it was fast 58 minutes ago but apparently it is now at
| peak capacity. even if you don't get rejected, a new image
| takes minutes
| nbardy wrote:
| You're overstating the simplicity of a scaling a GAN well.
|
| GigaGAN is the best quality out of those and requires 7 loss
| functions and is incredibly complicated.
|
| Sure GANs can scale, but Diffusion models are drastically
| easier to scale.
| gwern wrote:
| No, I'm not. BigGAN did fine on scaling up to JFT-300M with
| basically no changes beyond model size and a simple
| architecture. This is also what we were observing, even with
| a buggy BigGAN implementation. GigaGAN is the best quality,
| but that's mostly because it's also the biggest; as Table 1
| shows most of the gains come from various kinds of additional
| scaling. (And this is moving the goalposts from the usual
| assertion that "GANs _can 't_ scale" to "they're harder to
| scale"; note the self-fulfilling nature of such assertions.
| Considering how there is next to no GAN scaling research,
| these results are remarkable and show how much low-hanging
| fruit there is.)
|
| Diffusion models are only 'drastically easier to scale'
| because researchers have spent the past 3 years researching
| pretty much nothing _but_ diffusion models, discovering all
| sorts of subtle issues with them and how to make them scale,
| which is why it took them so long to become SOTA, and why
| massive architectural sweeps like
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.00364#nvidia were necessary to
| discover what makes them 'easier to scale'. If this level of
| brute force and moon math is 'easy', lord save us from any
| architecture which is 'hard'!
| GaggiX wrote:
| Researchers have spent several years try to even create a
| GAN that can fit well a distribution made of aligned faces
| (resulted into StyleGAN1/2); with a simple unet with
| e-objective and cosine schedule you can fit much complex
| distributions, still using one loss: L1/L2.
|
| Reading your comments make me feel like that you believe
| that just every researchers (even extremely smart dude like
| Karras) just switch to diffusion models because they are
| idiots, they should have instead focus on GANs and today we
| will have GANs that are as powerful or more than the
| diffusion models we have today and also work one step; this
| is just a weird delusion. Diffusion models are just simply
| much easier to train (just a L1/L2 loss in most cases),
| write (for example your buggy BigGAN implementation), they
| usually work out-of-box on different resolutions and aspect
| ratios, you can just finetune them if you want to create an
| inpainting model; and for what is right now you just need
| much less compute to reach a good image coherency or maybe
| just reaching a coherence that as not been achieved by GAN
| models; like I would be curious even on a small scale
| experiment what a GAN (with ~55M parameters) would be able
| to perform after a 1-day/2-day GPU time of training on
| Icon645 dataset, because my diffusion model I can assure is
| much better than I could have imagine while being trivial
| to implement (I just implemented a Unet as I remember one,
| nothing rigorous and of course no architecture sweep).
| ShamelessC wrote:
| > Diffusion models are only 'drastically easier to scale'
| because researchers have spent the past 3 years researching
| pretty much nothing but diffusion models
|
| This is what tends to happen when you find a superior
| method.
|
| GAN's are fine, they have plenty of promise for tasks
| requiring rapid inference. But diffusion models beat GANs
| on robustness and image quality every time.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >And if you're wondering how it can look so good
|
| I don't think anyone is wondering this, especially if they are
| used to playing with diffusion models.
| motoboi wrote:
| What I'm really wondering is how can this be free. What is the
| business model here?
|
| Are they using me to refine the model in some way?
| htrp wrote:
| Human evaluation is super expensive so yes. Seeing which
| sessions you discard and keep alone is worth the compute
| time, especially if it's GAN based.
| irrational wrote:
| It says free for non-commercial. If commercial, contact us. I
| assume they plan on paying the bills with commercial work.
| syntaxing wrote:
| > everyone knows GANs don't work because they're too unstable
|
| Is that a wide spread myth? I thought it's widely accepted that
| GAN is really good generating these artificial pictures (it's
| what started DeepFake after all) when you know your model's
| "button". Similar to how this uses GAN since they have a model
| "boundary condition". While humans are diverse, we have a set
| of repeatable features (two legs, two arms, etc). Diffusion
| models are great because you can control the latent space with
| something way more generic, like text hence why it's been so
| much more mainstream.
|
| Edit: actually I might be misremembering, I think Deepfake used
| VAEs?
| gwern wrote:
| It is very widespread. You will see people in this very
| thread dismissing GANs as fundamentally failed, and hotly
| objecting to any kind of parity, even if they have to fall
| back to 'well ok GANs do scale, but they're more
| complicated'. I also have some representative quotes in my
| linked draft essay from various papers & DL Twitter
| discussions. (Another way to put it would be: when was the
| last time you saw someone besides me asserting that GANs can
| scale to high-quality general images and are not dramatically
| inferior to diffusion? I rest my case.)
| ShamelessC wrote:
| Sounds very important to you that you don't have to change
| the premise of your essay or ever admit you're wrong. No
| one is dismissive of GAN's here without justification.
| They're fine. They don't beat diffusion, but they're fine.
|
| You come across as severely, _severely_ biased and
| reactionary.
| tomcam wrote:
| "Want more generated people?" is the most 2023 ad headline yet
| phyzome wrote:
| "Currently, we do not have any limits to the number of humans
| you can generate."
|
| This has widely been seen as something of a problem,
| environmentally.
| AmazingTurtle wrote:
| NSFW? Also.. WTF with their detection algorithm, this is easily
| abusable. This was the first image I was prompted with
| https://generated.photos/human-generator/64e65d5a8448b8000b5... I
| have not changed any of the parameters, they were automatically
| generated on /new
| joker_minmax wrote:
| This is the thing that comes to you if you take too much
| Benadryl at noonday.
| tomrod wrote:
| Wow, this went from reasonable to "holy crap that's nude" without
| any prompting real fast.
| ramoz wrote:
| NSFW
| the8472 wrote:
| quite the opposite. I get a lot of the outputs filtered without
| any NSFW prompting.
|
| > We detected that generated image contains nude content. Try
| changing parameters.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| oh, in a few iterations i got a nude sexy adult woman.
| clearly they're at risk of generating child porn (you can
| change the age to child or teen, though for obvious reasons I
| haven't tried it).
| ramoz wrote:
| Not _quite_ the opposite.
|
| I clicked the female generation, and got a porn model posing
| nude. Without any provided guidance other than the clickable
| buttons.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I get that most of these are hilarious (this is my favorite
| comment on HN in some time,
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37239909 ). But still, I
| find this incredibly frightening. These are only going to get
| better. Does anyone doubt that in a couple years time (if that)
| we'll be able to put the image of any known public person into
| whatever generated photo we want, which would be
| indistinguishable from reality? We're not that far already (see
| the Pope in a puffy jacket).
|
| My only hope is that this extreme enshittification of online
| images will make people completely lose trust in anything they
| see online, to the point where we actually start spending time
| outside again.
| declan_roberts wrote:
| The good news is that legal courts have already lost faith in
| all things digital imagery, and has for a good long while.
| They're actually way ahead of the curve.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| I think already a thing?
| mmh0000 wrote:
| We're basically there right now betweem Deepnude[1] and
| Photoshop.
|
| [1] (NSFW, seriously.) https://deepnude.cc/
| tennisflyi wrote:
| Not sure if these should have light brought upon them or stay
| under rocks.
|
| [2] (NSFW, seriously.) https://undress.app
|
| [3] (NSFW, seriously.) https://porn.ai
| corey_moncure wrote:
| Probably shouldn't have made every individual adjustment to the
| gen parameters require a generation round-trip to persist them
| aubanel wrote:
| Wow, the "one more click" effect is strong with that one... I did
| not expect anything useful to come out of experimenting with
| this, yet here I still am half an hour later. Congrats to the
| makers, it's impressive!
| chewmieser wrote:
| Some of the generated models were pretty damn good but without
| any additional prompting I ended up with the standard oddities
| like multiple limbs.
|
| I like the UI functionality though. easy to dial in what you're
| looking for
| generaltsos wrote:
| At last, a way to complete the AI-generated cycle that
| https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ started.
| 4ec0755f5522 wrote:
| If you refuse their tracking and marketing cookies it redirects
| you to google.com. Classy.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I wonder if their business model is tracking and marketing.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| I'm surprised browsers don't offer something like Docker so
| that each site is isolated to its own virtual environment.
| ormax3 wrote:
| private/incognito window?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| That forgets the whole session when you close it. I meant a
| way to isolate websites for tracking purposes but also
| continue to use it over time rather than throwing away all
| cookies.
| the8472 wrote:
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/temporary-
| con...
| bunnybender wrote:
| The creator and maintainer of that extension has passed
| away in January.
|
| https://github.com/stoically/temporary-
| containers/issues/618
| evan_ wrote:
| Chrome profiles work exactly like this, you can set up any
| number of profiles and they all have their own
| configuration/sessions etc.
|
| I use home and work profiles on my laptop for instance, works
| really well.
| exceptione wrote:
| That violates EU law and you can absolutely get a fine for this
| behaviour. As a digital service offerer you can ask the user
| for permission to track non-essential information about the
| user, but your service should work the same, without regard for
| if that user says yes or no.
|
| If this service is hell bent on raping your privacy, they will
| have to limit their offerings to mostly those living in
| dictatorships and immature democracies.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| You can just hit the back button and use the website without it
| popping up again. I refused but they're probably still
| assigning cookies after I hit the back button.
| [deleted]
| jrflowers wrote:
| Finally a website that unprompted answers the question "What if
| Wednesday Addams had enormous breasts?"
|
| Edit: lol https://generated.photos/human-
| generator/64db2561ba3ed6000ca...
| joker_minmax wrote:
| It gave you a Sims character?
| jrflowers wrote:
| That was after several Barbie dolls. Great website.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| The prompt for the image you linked says "in sims world".
| It's in the bottom left field.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| The thing is if you are advertising generating infinite
| photorealistic humans, your automatically generated
| prompts should probably not be things that do not serve
| that end.
| jrflowers wrote:
| That's cool, I got there through hitting the refresh
| button.
| dcdc123 wrote:
| Be careful at work...it sometimes generates a realistic nude even
| with clothing selected.
| chefandy wrote:
| Incredible. In the time I'd spend creating one image that exactly
| fits my or my client's needs or buying a high quality stock
| photo, I can generate literally millions of photorealistic,
| unappealing, images that would require a skilled commercial
| artist to make useful for all but the most throwaway uses. What
| about for some high-volume throwaway use case? I generated like 5
| images before I got a 3/4 shot instead of a full-body shot.
| _bzzzzzzzt._
|
| Trying to 'wing it' with engineers doing what designers should be
| doing is a bad enough when you're just making regular interfaces,
| but when you're trying to sell a commercial art product, you need
| people with subject matter expertise. No matter how cool the
| technology is, and no matter how well it theoretically serves a
| commercial art customer base, if you're selling art, it's going
| to be critiqued as such. Hope you've got a thick skin.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| But think of how much easier this makes believeable spam and
| scams!
| endisneigh wrote:
| Not bad at all, but what's the main use case?
|
| The site lists all of these things you can do, but are those
| things people needed or wanted? Is the idea to replace stock
| photography of people?
| Icons8 wrote:
| Stock photography, better selfies, or simply fun. Also, people
| always invent some use creators never thought about.
| drik wrote:
| FYI: the site places 3 cookies on the visitor's computer without
| consent
| [deleted]
| tzs wrote:
| Do they need consent?
|
| One cookie looks like it just records whether or not a tooltip
| that they want to show to first time users has been shown. The
| other two appear to be some kind of session cookies.
|
| They might count as strictly necessary cookies.
| colinrand wrote:
| What I find sketchy is that it is not easy to find out who is
| behind this service. The norm is an about us or a link to a
| parent site. Briefly skimmed the legalese (ToS & Privacy) and
| still not clear who these people or where they operate from. The
| linkedin link shows 8 people working there, mostly in BD from
| outside the US.
|
| I don't think there is a nefarious purpose going on, i.e. getting
| people to sign up and stealing their info or payments, etc.
| However, it contributes to the erosion of trust on the internet.
| You're no longer sure if you're talking to a real dog in pajamas
| online or an AI pretending to be one.
| lancesells wrote:
| I find that a lot of Show HN (YC companies included) that make
| it to the front page have the same problems. I usually don't
| make comments on it but I find it crazy that someone would
| launch either a paid product or something that takes your
| private information without knowing where they exist or who
| they are.
| paint wrote:
| It's also prominently asking you to upload a picture of your
| face along the rest of the controls
| TuringNYC wrote:
| For a number of use cases, this would be most helpful if combine-
| able with tools which move lips/cheeks to simulate speech.
| However, the toolsets seem to be fractured at this point. Does
| anyone have a good workflow for this?
| bwooceli wrote:
| Default human is a "Young Adult" woman, and the default "add
| something" was "woman with tatoos". I changed ONE filter (from
| young to Senior). It spun for about 20 seconds and then gave me
| the same woman's face but older. She is also topless. I'm
| impressed (?)
| wedn3sday wrote:
| I had very different default settings, so I think there's some
| randomization going on here.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| How does it compare to https://photoai.com by Pieter Levels?
| Zardoz84 wrote:
| Wonderful dystopia we are creating
| MPSimmons wrote:
| What would a company do with 10,000 photorealistic photos of an
| AI generated human... per month?
| Icons8 wrote:
| Train their models
| DonsDiscountGas wrote:
| On-demand generation of NPCs for video games? Or background
| extras in movies?
|
| Or maybe a people trying clothes on virtually.
| wpwpwpw wrote:
| really easy to jailbreak nudes
| dvngnt_ wrote:
| > Thanks to our advanced AI algorithms, you won't tell generated
| humans from real people
|
| If the images posted are the best they can do, then i have some
| bad news from them
| wredue wrote:
| The first photo generated for me made everything look plastic.
| Unnatural sharp lines on everything. Shadows from 5 different
| directions.
|
| It's laughable to call these "hyperrealistic".
| sdflhasjd wrote:
| Marketing taking it too far as usual. They certainly have
| mastered peak uncanny valley though, I'm not really sure what
| this is useful for.
| function_seven wrote:
| I can count on one hand the number of ways these photos fail.
| That's right, 6 ways.
| nocman wrote:
| Count Rugen sees no problem with this.
| function_seven wrote:
| Eh. On one hand, I guess it's no problem at all. But on the
| other hand...
| paint wrote:
| If you encode a binary digit for each biological digit on
| your hand you can count up to 32 on one hand.
| albert_e wrote:
| The first image i generated was worse than that
|
| A mermaid with plastic looking skin, and badly rendered ocean
| water in background.
|
| https://generated.photos/human-generator/64d6dde03af7f90007c...
| irrational wrote:
| Looks as realistic as every other real mermaid I've seen ;-)
| klyrs wrote:
| I got exactly that image too! I guess the "random human"
| isn't so random. This calls their "real time" claim into
| question...
| klyrs wrote:
| Amusing. My first two "random human" samples had completely
| ordinary uncanny valley issues (eye was smushed and blurry,
| weirdly shark-like teeth in child's mouth). But the third looks
| pretty good! ...for a 90s era povray Barbie doll model.
|
| https://generated.photos/human-generator/64d552c85263da00077...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| The text prompt for that image (one is generated for the
| "random" images) is "barbie doll", so in this specific case its
| not so much an imagegen problem as other parts of the app
| design not matching the advertised behavior.
| klyrs wrote:
| Ah, funny. Their interface hid that box from me on my phone.
| Weird choices all around.
| ProjectArcturis wrote:
| Seems rude how if you refuse their cookies they redirect you to
| Google.
| SrslyJosh wrote:
| Refusing cookies redirects to Google? Kinda scummy.
| DonsDiscountGas wrote:
| Neat. I'd really like to have a setting for attractiveness, all
| of these people look like models.
| ozten wrote:
| Congrats on the slick design!
|
| Ethnicity: American
|
| What does that mean in latent space and does this mostly
| represent training bias?
| Digit-Al wrote:
| It's also got "Irish" but not "Scottish" or "English". Very
| odd.
| rendall wrote:
| This was the first one I saw: https://generated.photos/human-
| generator/64d67731568faa0007a...
| ricardobeat wrote:
| They are overselling the capabilities of their model a bit. The
| boy posing has facial artifacts, and the first "human" I
| generated is a painterly mermaid with a disjointed background.
| Results from photoai.com or many models available on civit.ai
| look a lot more realistic.
| joker_minmax wrote:
| Is it just me or is something kind of weird about all the breasts
| on the example women? They all look really high-set - and
| combined with the fact other people have gotten back nudes from
| this tool (as shared in the comments below) - I'm thinking that
| the dataset they used here was really catered to a "certain"
| audience.
|
| Edit to add: It's not fast, it's showing you repeats of stuff of
| already made in the first try. Which is probably why I got 5 men
| in tight pink shirts eating cake in a row. ???
| sandgiant wrote:
| The only thing I changed from the default parameters was Age ==
| Teenager. That resulted in this error:
|
| We detected that generated image contains nude content. Try
| changing parameters.
|
| Not sure what to make of this, but it feels wrong, somehow?
|
| Edit: This was the prompt it generated for me on page load:
| "Minerva McGonagall in Hogwarts, wearing Hogwarts robe and witch
| hat" - https://generated.photos/human-
| generator/64e650a39563e6000e0....
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| "teen" is a ubiquitous porn category that, in practice,
| describes a body type, not age; similar to how "babe" almost
| never means "infant".
|
| I would be more surprised to get SFW results from that prompt,
| considering the result would be based on more heavily regulated
| (less common) photographs of minors.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| No, teen in porn absolutely means 18 and 19, or at least "I'm
| '18-19' and definitely not a 26 year old"
| Icons8 wrote:
| Over self-censoring
| izzydata wrote:
| I got the same thing and am very confused. They are the ones
| generating the image. Why did they generate porn if they don't
| allow it? Also apparently clothed teenagers are now
| pornographic? I think their image analysis needs some work.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-23 23:00 UTC)