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

DALL·E: Introducing Outpainting

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 302 posts

Re: DALL·E: Introducing Outpainting

#271

Post by dotancohen »

d23 wrote: post #188
kranke155 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you do that? What an awful idea. People made those shows in the 4:3 format, you’d just be adding fluff. This is like adding more description to a book so it becomes an epic novel instead of a novella. I’d say keep to the creators intent…

I'm inclined to agree, but if it were coherent I'd take it over what platforms like netflix do and chop off the tops and bottom of the content so it'll fit 16:9.

What if there is critical visual content in the half of the view that you're removing. Television is a visual medium, one could assume that a good filmmaker would be using the full viewport afforded them.

Re: DALL·E: Introducing Outpainting

#272

Post by ChrisRR »

woeirua wrote: post #84

Meanwhile someone has already built a photoshop plugin for Stable Diffusion that you can use today to do basically the _exact_ same thing: https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/wyduk1/sho...

That doesn't appear to be the same thing. That plugin looks like it's for generating AI images directly in photoshop, rather than providing an image and it automatically generates the area outside the image.

Re: DALL·E: Introducing Outpainting

#273

Post by danpalmer »

aantix wrote: post #22

Why would Google hold back on releasing Imagen if there are competitors that are publicly available already? Imagen isn't special anymore.

No one has actually figured out a business for this yet. Sure people are paying small amounts to play around with DALL-E, but it's not a business model, it's basically just a subsidised tech demo at the moment. What will the business model actually be?

I imagine there's a market for a stock-photo style service that has a very large number of good images for very diverse topics, but DALL-E etc are a bit low level for that, there's a lot of product development that needs to happen on top of that. A stock photo service doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that Google would get into.

Maybe it's an art-helper plugin to image editors? The Stable Diffusion based plugin sounds promising for this, but will _artists_ want to use it? Surely the point of art is (except for art making A Point) that the artist produced it with their talent? If you're not trying to make Art then maybe you need the stock photo service.

Perhaps I'm just not very imaginative, but I can't think of any use-cases that aren't either extremely niche, or are better served by a higher level style service that happens to use a model like this under the hood.

Re: DALL·E: Introducing Outpainting

#274

Post by CamperBob2 »

astrange wrote: post #223
miohtama wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content creators, like artists, also happen to hate filters. They do not want to have San Francisco VC culture induced political correctness imposed on their work. This helps Stable Diffuse to quickly gain popularity.

That's not "VC political correctness", it's "you can't use credit cards or be hosted in many countries if your online service produces porn".

There is a wide gulf between "porn" and the things that will get DALL-E 2 to yell at you.

Re: DALL·E: Introducing Outpainting

#275

Post by ItsTooMuch »

Blackthorn wrote: post #236
ItsTooMuch wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion of open in software and in academia is different, that for sure. But does that make one or the other wrong? My friends doing physics or math don't understand the hate at all when I discuss it with them. From their point of view, you don't have to pay hundreds of dollars to read it = it's open. The research is there, code is left as exercise to the reader - that's also normal to them... And the notion of gi…

> But does that make one or the other wrong? Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but it makes it wrong for me (and judging by the number of upvotes I got from the original comment, a lot more than just me). It's not just the code left to an exercise to the reader...it's the training sets. You don't get to trade on the suggestion of "open" while keeping everything closed. They aren't idiots, they knew exactly what th…

Botany-related articles don't ship together with the discussed plants... If you want to repeat some experiments, you're looking at a hardcore mountain trek at the other side of the world. Is this too different?

What if the training sets are proprietary (as in, they don't have licence to share)? Should they keep the research to themselves just because of that? I don't think that's better than not sharing the training set. It also doesn't mean the research is invalidated - find your own pictures and it's going to work. Same as - find your own plants and it's going to work.

TBH, I just don't see the training set as part of the research... In my case, I'd feed it tons of electronic circuits to try to teach it generate some. Why should I care about some random other pictures? I care about the research and I have my own training sets.

Re: DALL·E: Introducing Outpainting

#276

Post by diffeomorphism »

boppo1 wrote: post #104
sho_hn wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does feel like art's disruptive "Calculator moment" is happening where you can now leave a lot of basic/mechanical tasks to a tool and give more focus to higher-minded problems. It's going to get so cool and interesting, I think. A lot of the conversation around art may focus more on composition and objectives of the artist in the new prompt engineering world, with less bias from factors such as rendition quality…

>basic/mechanical tasks to a tool and give more focus to higher-minded problems. >rendition quality... [is] so incidental. There's this thing in painting called 'mark making' and it can be the difference between an all-time-great painting and a throwaway portrait. Mark making speaks to every momentary choice of physical process a painter employs and reveals their thought process. For some of the greatest painters, it…

> Do not discount execution. Overlooking "basics" and "mechanics" is what results in disappointing work.

That is what really bothered me in art lessons in high school. When discussing any famous work it was always about concepts, ideas, composition,... and execution was very much secondary. But for your own work all that is completely ignored if your coloring is just slightly uneven or lines are too rough. If you could hand in a photorealistic drawing of anything, no matter how boring, that would give you much higher marks than a rough drawing of something worthwhile.

Re: DALL·E: Introducing Outpainting

#277

Post by have_faith »

bottlepalm wrote: post #73
have_faith wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Best I could do a month ago was a stick figure in MS Paint That is still the best you can do... which happens to be about the best I can do! Just like my introduction to the computer at a young age has atrophied my handwriting quality.

I guess if we’re going to get into semantics and the definition of self, where does the ‘I’ end and something else begin then I don’t really do anything. You could also say I can’t walk either without the ground.

I was just being needlesssly pedantic. I guess it's a spectrum from "I painted the mona lisa" to "I pushed a button and a mona lisa appeared". That's a very individualistic view also though, maybe the thousands of programmers than commited to the thread of history that arrived at you pressing the button are part of the art performance.

Re: DALL·E: Introducing Outpainting

#278

Post by wraptile »

naillo wrote: post #126
choppaface wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sama is very active in YC and makes the call on OpenAI product roadmap. Furthermore YC encourages good CEO-community relations. The fact that OpenAI is so far behind Stable Diffusion and has reduced pricing shows that sama wants OpenAI to be a highly profitable enterprise company. I.e. not “Open.” You can do both (e.g. Cloudera) but clearly sama is not strong enough at AI to make this happen.

I kinda feel like they chose the name "open"ai when they started back in 2015 because musk etc wanted exactly the kind of thing stability ai is now creating. I.e. something other than a corporation like google having primary access to these models, and it being more democratized. But as time as gone by they've strayed away from that vision but changing the name would be a PR nightmare.

This is actually an interesting illustration of how infectious a name can be.

If they hadn't called it OpenAI, the conversion from open to corporate would be much easier, where's now it's a significant pain point in OpenAI's reputation. It's kinda nice to see the original vision still somewhat having an effect despite no one left to propagate it.

Re: DALL·E: Introducing Outpainting

#279

Post by ben_w »

scoopertrooper wrote: post #99
ben_w wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What benefits? The parent is non-profit. I'd argue they're imperfect, but they don't look like arses. Big gap between the two, too.

The parent may be non-profit, but OpenAI LP accepts investments and delivers returns to investors like any other regular company. The only difference is that they 'cap' the returns. However, the cap is negotiated with individuals investor and I haven't seen anything disclosing the cap except for the fact that in the opening round the cap was 100x the initial investment. 100x seems like a pretty generous cap to me.

I'm not a business investor so I can't really tell if x100 is "a lot" or not — Apple and Amazon share prices went up by x500 in the last 20 years, Tesla x200 in the last 10. But how rare is that?

Re: DALL·E: Introducing Outpainting

#280

Post by benreesman »

theptip wrote: post #243
civilized wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're talking about scientific gatekeeping like pre-publication peer review, the gatekeeping was never really the root problem. If researchers have great products or findings to show off, it's easier than ever to simply publish them somewhere online and let impressed audiences spread the word. Gatekeepers have been irrelevant to truly great science for a long time. It's mediocre science that needs gatekeepers to…

The gatekeeping GP is referring to is OpenAPI keeping DALL-E 2 behind an invite-only API, with weights unpublished, vs. Stable Diffusion publishing the whole model for anyone to download and use.

In fairness OpenAI aren’t the only ones to use fairly thin logic to avoid saying “this is about money”. Everybody was doing that until roughly, now.

They’re just the only ones calling themselves “OpenAI”.

Post reply on HN