191–200 of 488 posts
Why is every image I create made of 100% nightmares
The faces are particularly creepy. They range between fever dream and uncanny valley. https://imgur.com/a/LexTjLK
This is definitely really important, but these systems generate output that is frequently off or incoherent in really important ways.
I think this is going to lead to some fascinating art, but stories of the death of art are wildly premature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Art is for the sake of humans producing said art. I don't give a flying f*ck about "art" (it's not art) generated by a neural net using statistical patterns.
This is such a strange position to hold. At some point in the future may be confronted with an image that is emotionally stimulating, and you will have no idea whether a human or AI created it. Are you suddenly going to dismiss and discard it just because you subsequently learn it was AI generated? You must see how silly that is. Your "logic" for making AI art illegal is basically "don't like it". Your personal and s…
All this boils down to a simple fact that egos like to think of themselves (and of artistic interaction) much more than there actually is.
I remember a story when a literature teacher insisted on a definite symbolism of some minor detail in a novel. People contacted the author about it and he said no, there is nothing behind it. It was just a filler without any second thought. Makes you think how much symbolism is far-fetched in classics, where you cannot simply email an author.
Is this going to start changing the world as much as search did? My guess within 10 years AI will have changed everything, it won’t look like AGI but it’ll be good enough to be better than humans at most creative endeavours including things like generating whole films and possibly games with a few carefully arranged text prompts and start images. Quite terrifying. I wonder if it will be possible to train a neural net…
Reading about how it's done it's not so clear those other things are close at hand. Most of these SD things generate very low-res images and then use upscaling to make them high enough resolution that they don't look like crap. Apparently the computational power required to make them larger grows exponentially (or geometrically?) so until we find new algorithms it might be a long time before the same technique can ge…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is forbidding it won’t do much. - It appears people can train AIs from scratch or at least fine-tune them at home. - Even if your art isn’t in “the training set”, that does not prevent the AI from learning its style. (Someone can decode it to CLIP embeddings. It could have a really good text model trained on vivid art museum descriptions of your art.) - The ability of an image model to generate your art m…
If you forbid it, the investment in developing those models disappears. They will be stuck at ~what we have now at best. You can also require cloud providers to enforce a ban on training (and deploying) such models, it's doable. Good luck training it in your basement, it will probably take you a decade. If this is banned, it will become a lot like piracy - yes, it's available, no, most people (at least in the West) d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They absolutely do. What they don’t do is mechanistically clone compressed mathematical representations of input data. The human part of the creative process could very well be a distinguishing feature, legally.
I fail to see how the brain isn't doing a very similar thing?
In the (actual) neurons, is there a representation of real numbers? Where are the numbers in the brain stored?
I feel like people who assert this neither understand what neural networks are and how brains work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s where it’ll be truly disruptive. SD for ideation, humanity for the final product.
Honestly, I don’t even know if we’ll need humanity for the final product. It’s like using a chess computer to get an idea of a good move… and then a human to approve it? Adjust it? Be inspired by it? Any signals humans give (painting x is better than y) is another signal to encode. Take billions of such ratings and improve the AI’s taste to superhuman levels. In short, anything that humans would add to artistically i…
A neural net that can communicate with intent to human minds as well as a biological human is nothing short of strong AI. We’ll get there, but not with generative models.
One day, images generated with these AIs will become ubiquitous online, and new AIs training on data will wind up with feedback problems because they got trained on photos that are AI generated, possibly even ones they themselves generated! This tech is a huge deal. Huge. Ubiquitous unique, beautiful art. Entire movies made by machines. Too many to even watch them all. Actor models that aren't real people owned by th…
Expect hit actors from today to become digitized and immortalized on the screen. Eventually there will be a cannon of standard "actors" (customized per movie of course) that will never change once they settle in on the appropriate archetypes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They absolutely do. What they don’t do is mechanistically clone compressed mathematical representations of input data. The human part of the creative process could very well be a distinguishing feature, legally.
They can (and do) clone compressed electrical representations of everything they see. Everything is just stored in memories in their brains instead of memory on the cloud. In the case of these complex AI, you cannot really extract the initial works, right? They have all been atomised, mashed together, and very imperfectly encoded as weights and parameters. Yeah I am sure a lot of lawyers are going to have a lot of fu…
Deep learning is very powerful and impressive in its applications to date. However, it’s so saturated with hype (and humans are so prone to anthropomorphizing things) that it’s often viewed as something much more profound than it actually is. Neural networks, despite their name, don’t model the brain. And they lack a whole array of “intelligence” features that humans possess and use constantly.
All of this is to say that there are very significant differences between computer algorithms and human cognition, and I tend to think the legal system will be unpersuaded by arguments that ignore those differences.
Also, this is to say nothing of the public policy interests that shape the law. Regardless of what’s “under the hood,” the law can simply treat human and machine output differently. I’m not a copyright lawyer, of course, so I can’t speak to the norms or technicalities of copyright law itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are getting ridiculous now. Training this on "Taobao product photos" will lead to a useless model that is unable to produce practically all of the "cool" demos posted here in the last week.
A few months ago this task was virtually impossible. Then it was possible, but extremely expensive and pay-walled behind the "Open"AI' website. As of about a week ago this tech runs on consumer GPUs. The weights have been downloaded 100s of thousands of times, and fine-tuning / modifying is possible. Training from scratch is about $500k still, but it will only get cheaper and easier.