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

How Imagen Works

assemblyai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 104 posts

Re: How Imagen Works

#51

Post by alphabetting »

SleekEagle wrote: post #40
visarga wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're past a certain threshold, maybe not AGI but some definite qualitative change is happening.

I mean DALL-E 2 was the first time my jaw really hit the floor, although in fairness GPT-3 probably should've done that, but it's easier to do with images. And then for this to drop just a month later? Insane. It makes you wonder if they're actually releasing cutting edge, or Google decided to write this paper just because of the publication of DALL-E 2. Maybe they've had this model in the bag for a year.

Google also released this different text to image model yesterday

https://parti.research.google/

I think they've just got a lot of projects going on under the hood and timing was coincidence.

Re: How Imagen Works

#52

Post by thruuavay »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #17

I have shown imagen (and dalle2) to a number of people now (non-tech, just everyday friends, family, co-workers) and I have been pretty stunned by the response I get from most people: "Meh, that's kinda cool? I guess?" or "What am I looking at?"..."Ok? So a computer made it? That seems neat" To me I am still trying to get my jaw off the floor from 2 months ago. But the responses have been so muted and shoulder shrugg…

Well, I'm still in awe that I have a bunch of walls around me and can cover my body with clothes, or that I'm still alive after all this time, and that I can even rest most of the day and not spend body energy running after or from animals. Amazing stuff.

A program that transforms text to an image? Huh.

Re: How Imagen Works

#53

Post by natch »

spullara wrote: post #19
refulgentis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, something that's been causing a lotta confusion in AI art is people stand up quick implementations generally matching the general description in the paper, but, they're not really investing in training them. Then people see "imagen-pytorch" on GitHub and get confused, either think it's Imagen itself or a suitable replica of it. There's like 3 projects named DallE, and then the 2 real DallEs...frustrating.

It is a suitable replica of it. Just isn't trained.

But the training is the thing that would make it suitable.

Re: How Imagen Works

#54

Post by bergenty »

trention wrote: post #48
bergenty wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the amount of context awareness this AI has, there’s nothing all that special about human “art” to be honest.

I am willing to bet that the revenue from AI-generated "art" will be smaller than the revenue from human-generated art in 5 years (or even 10 years) despite the former probably being at least 2 orders of magnitude higher in volume. This is basic supply and demand + acknowledging the fact that humans don't care about AI "achievements".

AI achievements will be indistinguishable from human achievements. Humans will try to pass off AI achievements as their own. The line will become so blurred that it will be impossible to tell the difference.

Re: How Imagen Works

#55

Post by SleekEagle »

trention wrote: post #50
Miraste wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The apocryphal Henry Ford quote about the average person wanting better horses comes to mind. People off the street have no concept of the impact this tech and the methods behind it will have. Sure, no one is going to be printing these and hanging them in museums. Very few artists support themselves that way, though. The people diffusion models are coming for are the graphic designers, the concept artists, the market…

Although I agree that a somehow less extreme version of that will happen in the course of this decade bar a legal decision to prohibit using those models, that won't translate to comparable revenues. The companies providing those services will struggle to make even 10% of the salaries of the displaced workers in revenue. In fact, this will probably be a GDP-destroying (though not value-destroying) application of tech…

It's not about generating more revenue, it's about cutting costs. Any company that employs graphic designers etc. will be able to cut 90% of the staff.

Video game companies that need concept art? How about 1 guy/gal with Imagen to generate baselines and then curating/tailoring as necessary instead of a team of 5

Re: How Imagen Works

#56

Post by SleekEagle »

alphabetting wrote: post #51
SleekEagle wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean DALL-E 2 was the first time my jaw really hit the floor, although in fairness GPT-3 probably should've done that, but it's easier to do with images. And then for this to drop just a month later? Insane. It makes you wonder if they're actually releasing cutting edge, or Google decided to write this paper just because of the publication of DALL-E 2. Maybe they've had this model in the bag for a year.

Google also released this different text to image model yesterday https://parti.research.google/ I think they've just got a lot of projects going on under the hood and timing was coincidence.

Looks cool although not as good as Imagen. Autoregressive vs Diffusion i guess

Re: How Imagen Works

#57

Post by endymi0n »

dougmwne wrote: post #33
Workaccount2 wrote: post #17

I have shown imagen (and dalle2) to a number of people now (non-tech, just everyday friends, family, co-workers) and I have been pretty stunned by the response I get from most people: "Meh, that's kinda cool? I guess?" or "What am I looking at?"..."Ok? So a computer made it? That seems neat" To me I am still trying to get my jaw off the floor from 2 months ago. But the responses have been so muted and shoulder shrugg…

I think I can explain this that for most people the whole world is basically magic anyway. They don’t understand any of the details about how any digital tech works so to them they have no framework for which things are impressive and which things are not. The just know that computers can do a great many things that they know nothing about. “Oh I can bank online? Ok.” “Oh, I can have the computer write my book report…

I think that hits home.

A lot of people would just answer something to the likes of "Well, they made The Matrix with a computer 20 years ago", and technically that's just as true.

From their remote viewpoint on what's happening in IT, the rest is an implementation detail to them.

Re: How Imagen Works

#58

Post by trention »

bergenty wrote: post #54
trention wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am willing to bet that the revenue from AI-generated "art" will be smaller than the revenue from human-generated art in 5 years (or even 10 years) despite the former probably being at least 2 orders of magnitude higher in volume. This is basic supply and demand + acknowledging the fact that humans don't care about AI "achievements".

AI achievements will be indistinguishable from human achievements. Humans will try to pass off AI achievements as their own. The line will become so blurred that it will be impossible to tell the difference.

If that happens, all art will simply have no value and art as % of GDP will plummet.

Incidentally, this hasn't happened in areas where AI already dominates like chess and go. Magnus Carlsen alone probably generates more "revenue" than all chess AIs combined.

Re: How Imagen Works

#59

Post by Genbox »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #17

I have shown imagen (and dalle2) to a number of people now (non-tech, just everyday friends, family, co-workers) and I have been pretty stunned by the response I get from most people: "Meh, that's kinda cool? I guess?" or "What am I looking at?"..."Ok? So a computer made it? That seems neat" To me I am still trying to get my jaw off the floor from 2 months ago. But the responses have been so muted and shoulder shrugg…

I find that most people are primarily driven by a need. You need food? Pick some berries. You need warmth? Start a fire.

When it comes to technology - especially advanced technology like Imagen - people don't see the value because they don't have a need associated with it.

Re: How Imagen Works

#60

Post by trention »

SleekEagle wrote: post #55
trention wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I agree that a somehow less extreme version of that will happen in the course of this decade bar a legal decision to prohibit using those models, that won't translate to comparable revenues. The companies providing those services will struggle to make even 10% of the salaries of the displaced workers in revenue. In fact, this will probably be a GDP-destroying (though not value-destroying) application of tech…

It's not about generating more revenue, it's about cutting costs. Any company that employs graphic designers etc. will be able to cut 90% of the staff. Video game companies that need concept art? How about 1 guy/gal with Imagen to generate baselines and then curating/tailoring as necessary instead of a team of 5

That has nothing to do with anything I wrote. And doesn't contradict it actually.

Saved costs will not translate to higher margins for those that cut them because all competitors will be able to slash them as well, resulting in lower prices across the board.

Post reply on HN