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

151–160 of 198 posts

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

#151

Post by soperj »

klik99 wrote: post #149
tdehnel wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Good artists borrow, great artists steal" Creativity is a very vague word, I'm sure we can come up with definitions of it that let humans keep sole domain over it. But breakthroughs often come from combining domains and concepts, very very rarely do we ever jump out of one local maxima into another, and I'm not even convinced that Copernicus counts as that. There's a reason why there are so many examples of the same…

That is actually a misquote from people who stole.

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

#152

Post by soperj »

adamsmith143 wrote: post #139
tdehnel wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Should be easy to prove.

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

#153

Post by bogwog »

ekianjo wrote: post #130
bogwog wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being bad for artists and the environment is not illegal. Yet we have copyright laws and environmental protection laws to protect both. > If you look at a movie poster, your brain does not need to be released in the public domain. Even if you sketch it from memory. Because I’m not a machine. I’m contrained by physics, whereas these models are not. Copyright laws were made to protect artists from IP theft. If I make…

> hese AI models are a new type of theft, and likewise need new types of legal protections for artists. Meh. This means that most artists will also struggle to make something as good as these models and will have to find something else to do for a living. Its not the first time in history that an occupation is obsoleted. Projectionnists in cinemas have mostly dissapeared.

If these models are trained on human artists, what’s going to happen if humans stop making original art? It’s obvious from the OP that even a single film is enough to add a new stylistic capability to Dall E, so even though it might have been trained on hundreds of years of human artwork, a single modern piece can still influence significantly.

> This means that most artists will also struggle to make something as good as these models

This makes me think that you’re lacking a fundamental understanding of what art is. The “demand” for art is never going to disappear, but these models are simply going to disrupt the supply by flooding the market with derivative works at a massive scale.

The internet posed a similar threat back when it first came out, but laws were changed to combat that (e.g. the DMCA). I fail to see how this situation is any different?

A country that doesn’t get on top of this issue will doom itself to cultural irrelevance in the long term, IMO.

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

#154

Post by vouwfietsman »

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…

This is a common fallacy.

Call it moving goalposts, no true Scottsman, the AI effect, whatever. The behavior is as follows: an argument over whether an ill-defined attribute is possessed by a computer is defended or attacked with useless semantics since nobody can agree on what any of the words mean anyway.

Creativity, intelligence, consciousness.

It doesn't matter what you say, you cannot define these concepts with the same clarity you use to defend that the concept is missing.

Saying there is no creativity because its just a neural net extrapolating from data is like saying there's no god because its all just atoms: what is god and why would the existence of atoms have anything to do with it.

Learn from Wittgenstein: Worüber man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

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

#155

Post by ben_w »

soperj wrote: post #152
adamsmith143 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>If the model were trained on actual observations of planetary trajectories it would trivially recreate keplers laws, newtons laws etc. Should be easy to prove.

Indeed:

• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31609839

• https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.10525.pdf

• https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.11481.pdf

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

#156

Post by bogwog »

ceejayoz wrote: post #150
bogwog wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But in any scenario, nothing legally novel about the work being created by machine. …except for the fact that it was created by a machine. Just like copyright law had to be revised to deal with software and the internet, it will need to be revised to deal with AI.

> …except for the fact that it was created by a machine. We've already had this for years. The photos you take on any modern smart phone are partially the invention of AI (doubly so if you use something like portrait or night mode). It's not just raw CCD output, and yet, the photographer retains the copyright. DALL-E's terms could require users to assign copyright. If not, I don't see any reason it wouldn't go to the…

That’s obviously very different. The contributions of the AI processing my phone camera does is not significant, and can be substituted relatively easily with Photoshop or similar software. It’s just a convenience feature.

Dall-E is the complete opposite. My contribution is insignificant (a prompt), whereas Dall-Es is 99% of the work.

> If I take a picture of a mountain with a camera, neither the mountain nor the camera hold copyright. DALL-E's just another tool in the toolbox.

Not sure how this contradicts my point. Nobody “owns” that mountain, so nobody could call your photo of it a derivative work.

If you take a photo of a frame of a movie, then who owns the rights to that photo? It’s not a raw frame, it’s a photo of a screen. Does that mean you didn’t just steal someone’s IP?

These questions need answers, and copyright laws try to answer them in as fair a way as possible. Dall E raises new questions, and thus we need to update copyright laws with new answers.

My personal view is that obtaining licensing for every single work used to train the model is impossible. So instead of simply making this type of AI research illegal, the fairest solution is to put that model into the public domain.

There are still financial incentives to perform this research, as the discoveries could be used later to train a commercial model with proper licensing.

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

#157

Post by orbital-decay »

dougmwne wrote: post #115
tdehnel wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

These are fun discussions because words like "artistic creativity" have a colloquial meaning that could only apply to humans since the dawn of humanity. Now you have an image of Kermit in Wall-E. I have never seen or conceived of an image of Kermit in Wall-E. Let's assume that adorable robot Kermits do not exist in the training data to be spit out like a search algorithm. The image is new, it did not previously exist…

>So it sees like the only difference between the "Not creativity" that Dall-E is doing and "Real Creativity" that humans do is tht humans are the ones doing it?

The differentiator is whether the result is worthy to look at for humans, that's all.

In case of the OP, you forget that the human had to predict that the combination of two would be interesting for other humans, and then construct the prompt, possibly selecting the best pictures. That's who did most of the work here, and it was effortless for the neural network of a human. Could DALL-E analyze the world autonomously without human intervention at all? No, it's an open loop system.

Novelty hinges on the ability to conceptualize things, not the execution. Sure, DALL-E 2 shows a glimpse of conceptualization internally as it works with compressed descriptions (concepts, abstractions) of things it draws. But it's super limited and not flexible enough to create new ideas, it doesn't have either short-term or long-term memory, it doesn't change, it has all knowledge about Kermit and Blade Runner pre-baked, and so on. You have to re-train it from scratch every time you want it to remember something truly new, there's no feedback loop to do that. Human ability is still much more powerful.

DALL-E 2 is almost at the point where it can supplement the human conceptualization with AI execution, though. Possibly in a couple iterations it will be there, with more believable results. In very limited cases, of course - as it's temporally unstable (it makes a totally new image each time), cannot correct the output from new details provided by a human (like a professional concept artist could), etc.

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

#158

Post by feynmanalgo »

oldstrangers wrote: post #95
feynmanalgo wrote: post #12

If this is legit it would be one of the most impressive things I've seen in many years.

It's legit, just variations / iterations. Here's what I got for "A still of Kermit The Frog in Blade Runner 2049 (2017)": https://imgur.com/a/y7t3RKx

None of them scream Blade Runner 2049 to me.

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

#159

Post by myrmidon »

tgv wrote: post #143
myrmidon wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you find the Chinese Room argument convincing? Do you feel that the human mind is more than an "appropriately" trained "biological" neural network? What do you consider the limits of a DALL-E like system compared to a "true" mind? My personal opinion is that the Chinese Room argument is fancy handwaving that crucially relies on never being explicit about what it means by "understanding", combined with an appeal to…

> My personal opinion is that the Chinese Room argument is fancy handwaving It isn't hand-waving. It's against it, really. It's a thought experiment that encourages a sceptic attitude towards jumps in understanding mental processes. The operator in the Chinese Room doesn't understand Chinese. While the translations are excellent, he or she wouldn't be able to go out in the street and ask for a glass of water if their…

> The argument doesn't need to explain exactly what understanding means. We all (sort of) know what it means.

Then what does "understanding" a language mean? Your "asking for a glass of water on the street" example implies to me that you demand a system with: a) capability for internal intent b) ability to express intent in target language to grant it "understanding".

Basically, first you deliberately construct a system not capable of intent (pure stateless query-response algorithm), then you deny that it "understands" Chinese on the basis of being unable to express intent. That does not hold.

Give me a precise definition for what you mean by "understanding" and I'll dismantle the Chinese Room for you.

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

#160

Post by kelseyfrog »

soperj wrote: post #151
klik99 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Good artists borrow, great artists steal" Creativity is a very vague word, I'm sure we can come up with definitions of it that let humans keep sole domain over it. But breakthroughs often come from combining domains and concepts, very very rarely do we ever jump out of one local maxima into another, and I'm not even convinced that Copernicus counts as that. There's a reason why there are so many examples of the same…

That is actually a misquote from people who stole.

That's great.
Post reply on HN