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

161–170 of 198 posts

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

#161

Post by soperj »

ben_w wrote: post #155
soperj wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

from your link:

"Renner stresses that although the algorithm derived the formulae, a human eye is needed to interpret the equations and understand how they relate to the movement of planets around the Sun."

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

#162

Post by oldstrangers »

feynmanalgo wrote: post #158
oldstrangers wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In this case its the overall "tone" and color palette. Very uniform diffuse lighting, muted color, etc.

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

#163

Post by ben_w »

soperj wrote: post #161
ben_w wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed: • https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31609839 • https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.10525.pdf • https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.11481.pdf

from your link: "Renner stresses that although the algorithm derived the formulae, a human eye is needed to interpret the equations and understand how they relate to the movement of planets around the Sun."

Even if that had been the only example rather than just one among them, it would still demonstrate the claim that an AI can discover various laws of physics just from observing data.

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

#164

Post by ASalazarMX »

FredPret wrote: post #76

How is this so good? If you told me this was done by a very talented human, I’d still be surprised at how good they are. That must count as a sort of Turing test, no?

I'd guess these are curated, but I have no idea how many tries were discarded, as I'm still waiting for the invitation. Even in the best examples you can find fused fingers, deformities, melting, and slight errors that a human artist would need to touch up before it truly passes as a human work.

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

#165

Post by ceejayoz »

bogwog wrote: post #156
ceejayoz wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> …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 cam…

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

I disagree entirely with this. Picking a prompt and potentially going through dozens, hundreds, or thousands of variations and re-generations has artistic value.

Just like the photograph of a mountain. Nature did most of the work, but a human selecting an angle, lighting, etc. from the nearly infinite combinations available matters.

We've also established in court that monkeys can't hold copyright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...), and they're quite a bit more sentient than DALL-E.

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

#167

Post by tgv »

myrmidon wrote: post #159
tgv wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sys…

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

You probably can't define "chair" in an exact enough sense. It would merely show the shortcoming of the definition rather than refuting the Chinese Room.

> a system not capable of intent

If I now would require a definition of "intent" I would be just as childish.

> That does not hold.

First, the system isn't stateless. It has the operator who has to remember what has happened before in order to come up with a correct translation.

Second, your argument implies that understanding requires intent. That alone is a tall order to prove. But it's the point of the Chinese Room: the mechanism doesn't understand, doesn't have intent, nothing. Yet it performs exactly as an intelligent, understanding, intentional translator. So would you not agree with the conclusion: you can't judge intent by only looking at I/O behavior?

Note that Searle (probably, this is just my understanding) doesn't mean that the Room is useless or "dumb" (in most senses of the word).

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

#168

Post by xg15 »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #14

This is amazing. We are at the precipice of someone releasing a $100M blockbuster movie just based on the language in the script with zero cost beyond compute. What will this mean for the future of entertainment…

Waiting for the next iteration of Copilot to use this technology.

"Like Facebook but like make it not suck"

AI: "Here you go!"

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

#169

Post by sbierwagen »

pygy_ wrote: post #103
FredPret wrote: post #76

How is this so good? If you told me this was done by a very talented human, I’d still be surprised at how good they are. That must count as a sort of Turing test, no?

DALL-E is indeed superhuman in its ability to create images from simple prompts. This shows the limits of the Turing test. To pass it a program must not only be smart enough, it must be dumb enough too. Pulling what DALL-E does is a tell-tale sign it’s most likely not human, and would make it fail the test.

2021: This machine fails the Turing test, it's too dumb. Look at how crappy this generated art is.

2022: This machine fails the Turing test, it's way too smart! No human could be this good at creating art.

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

#170

Post by silicon2401 »

simiones wrote: post #133
silicon2401 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> the human artist does this choosing themselves.

I disagree. The human artist's tastes at least partially originate in other people, both individuals and general societies/cultures, and oftentimes the artist directly incorporates feedback into future work. Are you aware that students in art school, music conservatories, etc constantly get feedback from instructors and peers? I reject your premise entirely unless you can give me an example of a human that created art without ever having been influenced as a human being by any other human being. Otherwise I believe it's just what I said before: concluding first that AI can't create art and finding reasons second.

Post reply on HN