141–150 of 579 posts
I am thrilled about DALL-E, and the new terms of service. However, how they implemented the improved "diversity" is hilarious. Turns out that they randomly, silently modify your prompt text to append words like "black male" or "female". See https://twitter.com/jd_pressman/status/1549523790060605440 I don't know which emotion I feel more - applause at how glorious this hack is or tears at how ugly it is. Good luck to…
it's a hard problem. at least they tried.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Previously, OpenAI asserted they owned the generated images, so the new licensing is a shift in that aspect. GPT-3 also has a "you own the content" clause as well. Of course, that clause won't deter a third party from filing a lawsuit against you if you commercialize a generated image too close to something realistic, as the copyrights of AI generated content still hasn't been legally tested.
AFAIK only people can own copyright (the monkey selfie case tested this), and machine-generated outputs don't count as creative work (you can't write an algorithm that generates every permutation of notes and claim you own every song[1]), so DALL-E-generated images are most likely copyright-free. I presume OpenAI only relies on terms of service to dictate what users are allowed to do, but they can't own the images, a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's a hard problem. at least they tried.
It's not a "problem," it's an unwanted shard of reality piercing through an ideological guise.
If I want to produce "animal images" but it only produces images of black cats, do you think there is any question whether it's a problem or not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Previously, OpenAI asserted they owned the generated images, so the new licensing is a shift in that aspect. GPT-3 also has a "you own the content" clause as well. Of course, that clause won't deter a third party from filing a lawsuit against you if you commercialize a generated image too close to something realistic, as the copyrights of AI generated content still hasn't been legally tested.
Image generating artificial intelligence is very analogous to a camera. Both technologies have billions of dollars of R&D and tens of thousands of engineers behind supply chains necessary to create the button that a user has the press.
I am thrilled about DALL-E, and the new terms of service. However, how they implemented the improved "diversity" is hilarious. Turns out that they randomly, silently modify your prompt text to append words like "black male" or "female". See https://twitter.com/jd_pressman/status/1549523790060605440 I don't know which emotion I feel more - applause at how glorious this hack is or tears at how ugly it is. Good luck to…
Interesting. Considering this is now a paid product, is modifying user input covered by their ToS? If I was spending a lot of money on it I'd be rather annoyed my input was being silently polluted.
That's about 10x as expensive as it should be
$0.13/prompt can only be useful for artists/end users. Anyone thinking about using this at scale would need a 20/30x reduction in price. But there's still no API available so I think that will change with time. Maybe they will add different tiers based on volume.
I spent several tries yesterday to get this angle "from the ground up": https://labs.openai.com/s/mz8LiyvkI8KwD2luJ6MrS23m
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's a hard problem. at least they tried.
While their heart is in the right place, I'd like to challenge the idea that certain groups are so fragile that they don't understand that historically, there are more pictures of certain groups doing certain things. It's a hard problem for sure. But remember, the bias ends with the user using the tool. If I want a black scientist, I can just say "black scientist". Let me be mindful of the bias, until we have a gener…