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

171–180 of 198 posts

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

#171

Post by pygy_ »

simiones wrote: post #123
pygy_ wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, most of the pictures (if not all), while astoundingly good as an idea, have the tell-tale signs of being AI-generated, the kinds of mistakes a human would never make. For example, looking at the WALL-E one [0], you can clearly see that the hands and feet aren't actually separated properly. There is also plenty of missing "logic" around the armpits. These are the kinds of mistakes a human can't make - especially…

How long does it take to generate these pics? No human is that good at producing art of this quality.

There may still be a few anatomic mistakes, but many artists also make some. The picture quality, lightning, and the way it capture the graphic essence and mood of these movies is just amazing and beyond what even the most talented artists can pull out in the same time frame.

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

#172

Post by coldcode »

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.

I bet I could give a phrase to a collection of art students in some university and DALL-E, and the human art would likely be more creative than a single run of DALL-E. What distinguishes the humans is that you can tell them to make art of their own choosing and they will, but DALL-E is unlikely to create anything interesting with no input.

Van Gogh invented Starry Night without any prompting despite it not being a real scene (much less anything he had ever seen and such abstraction was very rare in the 1880s). Picasso made Les Demoiselles d’Avignon in 1907; it was so radical even his fellow artists were unable to comprehend it.

It doesn't change the fact that DALL-E is pretty amazing tech, but it's still as far behind human ability as any AI is today. It is way way better than what came before, but that's true of most technologies.

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

#174

Post by tdehnel »

vouwfietsman wrote: post #154
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…

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…

This single quote from Wittgenstein might just be the dumbest statement ever made. How would we ever make progress if we did not discuss what we don't understand, and critique and debate new creative ideas?

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

#175

Post by tsimionescu »

silicon2401 wrote: post #170
simiones wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Does DALL-E incorporate (or even receive) feedback about which of the pictures it generated were better? It of course does not, and it currently has no function to do so. IF it incorporated this feedback and changed its weights based on it, I would agree with you that the situation could be comparable.

Until then, my point remains: DALL-E is currently like an (extraordinarily good) hat that you can put words in and extract phrases out of. A human chooses what words to put in and which of the phrases they take out are better. Unlike pulling words out of a hat, the network has some criteria by which it produces phrases, but that's not enough to call it an artist.

This is not meant to minimize how good the achievement of this network is. The level of fidelity and even understanding of the prompts is extraordinary. But its purpose is not to be creative, it is to find a point on a hyperplane that matches the input it received. It is currently at the level of a tool - though there are potential advancements that could yet turn it into an artist in its own right.

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

#176

Post by stuntkite »

Kermit the Frog in Behind The Green Door

Kermit the Frog in Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom

Kermit the Frog in Pink Flamingos

----

I actually might have Dalle2 access soonish. Honestly this is the best demonstration I've seen that demonstrates to me very well that we are about 2 years away from maybe not "general ai" but some pretty wild shit that is going to make most of what we do and value as humans very different.

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

#178

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#180

Post by hackinthebochs »

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 sleight-of-hand in the Chinese room is that Searle asks us whether the man in the room understands Chinese. Of course not. This is like asking whether my CPU knows how to decode h264. The real question is whether the embodied process instantiated by the actions of the man, along with the other involved components in the room, understands Chinese. But the argument doesn't touch this claim.
Post reply on HN