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

DALL-E 2 generates images of Kermit The Frog in various films

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 198 posts

Re: DALL-E 2 generates images of Kermit The Frog in various films

#131

Post by gwern »

natly wrote: post #50
sp332 wrote: post #9

Does that mean the developers put The Big Lebowski through the model during training? Where did they get all the movies and TV shows from? And does copying so directly from the source material open them and users up to copyright infringement liability?

They probably did, but even if they didn't it may have come from the terrabytes of data they scraped from the internet. OpenAI doesn't care. They claim that it's derivative enough to go under fair use. And whether it is or isn't, I guess their calculation is that the risk is worth taking to be the first to develop these algorithms, which is a huge head start if the courts decide that it does count as fair use.

Hilarious parodies like these are copyright infringement, yes, but also open-and-shut fair use defense. (You're confusing the issue of transformativeness and fair use defense.)

Re: DALL-E 2 generates images of Kermit The Frog in various films

#133

Post by simiones »

silicon2401 wrote: post #34
coldcode wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ran it 1000 times and picked the best, you might get all good ones. I would want to see all 1000. It's like stock picker ads (person who called the market says XXX) where you only show the lucky ones.

Are you aware that this is how human artists work, too? They make countless works that aren't comparable to their top works. Even more so if you count the practice when they were just starting out. I think some people just refuse to believe that real art can be generated without humans and selectively look for things that confirm their pre-determined conclusion. Witnessing this always feels like witnessing someone be…

There is a crucial difference: the human artist does this choosing themselves.

If DALL-E just spits out 1000 images and then a human goes through them and picks the best 2-3, and those are good - it's impressive, but the human was still a crucial part of the process. On the other hand, if DALL-E were to generate 10 billion images, and choose the best 2-3 itself and give those as output, and if at least one of those 2-3 would be consistently great, then DALL-E could be indeed considered to be creating (good) art.

Re: DALL-E 2 generates images of Kermit The Frog in various films

#134

Post by notahacker »

jonnycomputer wrote: post #79

Not to detract from the accomplishment, but none of these are Kermit. The "Kermit" part of the query seems mostly to have accomplished querying for "humanoid frog"

That's actually one of the more interesting and impressive things: the AI has substituted in "humanoid frog" and in some cases given it movie-appropriate features like Matrix sunglasses ot Pixar-style eyes which are probably unique to the image rather than simply pasting photographs of the original muppet into movie poster settings which would be an acceptable lower level response to the brief.

Re: DALL-E 2 generates images of Kermit The Frog in various films

#135

Post by simiones »

abhaynayar wrote: post #22
mensetmanusman wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t matter if these images were one in 10,000, the facts that any exist that are this good is crazy.

Yeah exactly. The fact that a person who could never create such a picture on their own, now just has to go through a bunch of images and select one to get this result is already amazing. The goal posts keep shifting, glass half empty.

It's amazing and wonderful, but it's not the AI that's "creating art", it's the human choosing the best AI output that's doing the artistic part (often togehter with the person who input the prompt to the AI).

It's just like Dada poets did 100 years ago: you use a mechanical process to generate quasi-random output, and then you choose some of this output to present to other humans. The way you provide input to the mechanical process (e.g. what words you choose to put in the hat) and the curation are the real creative part of the art, not the mechanical process generating the text itself.

Re: DALL-E 2 generates images of Kermit The Frog in various films

#136

Post by pphysch »

tdehnel wrote: post #111
tinalumfoil wrote: post #104

The amount of creativity here is astounding. Just imagine all the decisions the AI made in incorporating Kermit into the movies: the clothing it's chosen, how the character wears the clothing, the facial expressions, how to make Kermit himself look similar to the other movies characters. Should he be lanky? pudgy? Even simple decisions like obliviously Kermit in Wall-E is going to be a robot, it has to figure out wha…

Sorry to be this guy but that is not creativity. It’s using what already exists, not conjecturing something new. Contrast with real creativity (what people can do but machines currently cannot) where you conjecture something completely new. For example, Copernicus conjecturing the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun. No machine learning model would have gotten there because it would have been trained on a bun…

Humans don't generate new ideas from nothing. Your "real creativity" doesn't exist. Everything is dependent on what came before, and therefore derivative to some extent.

Copernicus got his idea after gathering a lot of data, explicitly and implicitly, training his internal model of the world.

Re: DALL-E 2 generates images of Kermit The Frog in various films

#139

Post by adamsmith143 »

tdehnel wrote: post #111
tinalumfoil wrote: post #104

The amount of creativity here is astounding. Just imagine all the decisions the AI made in incorporating Kermit into the movies: the clothing it's chosen, how the character wears the clothing, the facial expressions, how to make Kermit himself look similar to the other movies characters. Should he be lanky? pudgy? Even simple decisions like obliviously Kermit in Wall-E is going to be a robot, it has to figure out wha…

Sorry to be this guy but that is not creativity. It’s using what already exists, not conjecturing something new. Contrast with real creativity (what people can do but machines currently cannot) where you conjecture something completely new. For example, Copernicus conjecturing the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun. No machine learning model would have gotten there because it would have been trained on a bun…

>Sorry to be this guy but that is not creativity. It’s using what already exists, not conjecturing something new.

Such a cute point of view, completely wrong but cute. Please go find the original images of Kermit in Blade Runner and WallE that were just copied here.

>For example, Copernicus conjecturing the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun. No machine learning model would have gotten there because it would have been trained on a bunch of data that said the Earth was the center of the universe.

If the model were trained on actual observations of planetary trajectories it would trivially recreate keplers laws, newtons laws etc.

Post reply on HN