Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

This person does not exist

thispersondoesnotexist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 185 posts

Re: This person does not exist

#111

Post by 24gttghh »

angrygoat wrote: post #42

Here’s the Guardian article which linked the site: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/feb/07/ai-in-the-ad... To my mind there is a massive need for us in the software world to pause and think about the ethics of all of this. Engineers more broadly have well developed ethical codes, we should too.

I have brought this up before, but this already exists.

https://www.computer.org/education/code-of-ethics

Copyright 1999. I was taught ethics in my college work, so clearly everyone else just ignores it like they do for the various other fields where there is an ethics code. People suck.

Re: This person does not exist

#112

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

TremendousJudge wrote: post #74
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #59

It's improved. I used to be able to tell the fakes by the ears, but that seems to have been fixed.

And the teeth! It was common for the teeth to be uneven. They are still a little bit weird but I remember it being much worse

I am seeing some very slight issue, where the bottom of a top tooth is close to the lower lip.

Re: This person does not exist

#113

Post by tachyonbeam »

ainiriand wrote: post #79
Izmaki wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one is sure to haunt me: https://imgur.com/a/lGsRX3n

Oh Jesus, it is like one of those Cronenberg movies.

You have to imagine some strong AI in 2030, video chatting with people using fake human avatars, and people can sometimes tell because there's weird fleshly artifacts moving in the background.

Re: This person does not exist

#114

Post by freeone3000 »

re-actor wrote: post #107
freeone3000 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why should I comply with your sense of morality, if you have nothing to offer?

I only ask that you develop your own sense of morality and abide by it.

The entire point of a code of ethics is to provide a strong minimum standard to keep the morally bankrupt in line. We don't write them for moral people.

Re: This person does not exist

#115

Post by kunle »

RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #70

It has been interesting to see images clearly generated by this service (same artefacts, same resolution) start to flood online dating apps and social media profiles. Previously, fake accounts tended to use photos which could be reverse-image-searched to detect them. Luckily, it doesn't seem that this approach can be sensibly extended to generate entire scenes, or multiple entire-body photos from different angles. Be…

There's a couple of startups programmatically generating entire new scenes using only words as the input (target use cases are movies/animations/gaming). The output quality isn't yet as high as the OP site, but we're max 18 months out from something like www.thisplacedoesnotexist.com or something like that.

Edit: one such startup is https://opus.ai/

Re: This person does not exist

#116

Post by mLuby »

angrygoat wrote: post #42

Here’s the Guardian article which linked the site: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/feb/07/ai-in-the-ad... To my mind there is a massive need for us in the software world to pause and think about the ethics of all of this. Engineers more broadly have well developed ethical codes, we should too.

Agreed on taking a collective breath and evaluating.

For "real" engineers, is it fair to say their ethical questions are more easily constrained than those in software? I assume it usually reduces to "should I accept a lower-than-average safety margin to save money on a part/structure that might fail and hurt people?" Maybe "should I make this vehicle accommodate extremely tall people?" or "can a child hurt themselves with this device?"

Honestly lawyers feel like the closest analogue to software engineers.

Re: This person does not exist

#117

Post by thomashusa »

nineteen999 wrote: post #5

I was messing with the demo of Character Creator 3 the other week: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnviGWO0wbU It has a "machine learning" based projection mode where you can project a single photo of a face on the head of a character mesh and it will create somewhat believable set of 3D features from the photograph on the model. It was fun to take a couple of the generated faces from this site and apply them to the…

Wow! Imagine allowing people to upload their profile picture in and RPG and suddenly their character actually looks like them. Imagine playing online with your friends and all of their characters look just like them.

Really Cool! But also slightly weird.

Re: This person does not exist

#118

Post by gwern »

RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #70

It has been interesting to see images clearly generated by this service (same artefacts, same resolution) start to flood online dating apps and social media profiles. Previously, fake accounts tended to use photos which could be reverse-image-searched to detect them. Luckily, it doesn't seem that this approach can be sensibly extended to generate entire scenes, or multiple entire-body photos from different angles. Be…

It remains an open question how far it can be pushed. Karras et al have avoided a lot of enhancements they could've used (self-attention being the biggest one) and don't even train that much (8 GPUs is hardly anything these days), and if you look at BigGAN samples on ImageNet, it manages 'entire scenes, or multiple entire-body photos from different angles' far better than StyleGAN 2 on CATS. (It doesn't do faces well, but what do you expect? ImageNet isn't face-focused and faces make up only a tiny fraction of its pixels.) So, since S2 can do such great faces and BigGAN can do great entire scenes, it seems beyond obvious that it is possible to do both simultaneously and it is 'just' a matter of compiling enough data and training on TPU pods long enough.

We hope to run an experiment with https://www.gwern.net/Danbooru2019 and our TFRC TPUs very soon to test the question of how well S2 can scale up...

Re: This person does not exist

#119

Post by bumby »

mLuby wrote: post #116
angrygoat wrote: post #42

Here’s the Guardian article which linked the site: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/feb/07/ai-in-the-ad... To my mind there is a massive need for us in the software world to pause and think about the ethics of all of this. Engineers more broadly have well developed ethical codes, we should too.

Agreed on taking a collective breath and evaluating. For "real" engineers, is it fair to say their ethical questions are more easily constrained than those in software? I assume it usually reduces to "should I accept a lower-than-average safety margin to save money on a part/structure that might fail and hurt people?" Maybe "should I make this vehicle accommodate extremely tall people?" or "can a child hurt themselve…

> For "real" engineers, is it fair to say their ethical questions are more easily constrained than those in software?

For capital "E" Engineers (i.e., those with a State license), I would say yes. They are required to abide by specific ethics and some states require regular ethics training. If they certifying a design, they are putting their name/license/livelihood on the line that it meets a minimum standard. This standard is usually defined by specific codes.

The problem I often see in software is that many codes (if they even exist) are looked at as a "nice to have" not a "must have", unless they are contractually obligated. If I show a code-base doesn't adhere to a specific industry standard, the reaction is often "meh". This is in contrast to other engineering disciplines who tend to begrudgingly acknowledge they have to re-design to meet such a standard.

The issue with some of your examples is that much of engineering work happens under an "industrial exemption" meaning they don't have to be a licensed engineer.

Post reply on HN