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

Human Shader

humanshader.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: Human Shader

#51

Post by dahart »

hollowturtle wrote: post #27
dahart wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly you can’t do that on a site without having people post very inappropriate things, so it would require a human moderator, which I speculate makes it unlikely to happen.

It can be done. To submit a pixel you have to take a photo proof of your calculations on paper, it’s already “moderated”

Are you certain a human is inspecting the image? Or is this “moderation” currently automated?

Yes obviously it “can” be done, I’m suggesting it won’t for long, because there’s a big difference between submitting something to the site mods versus submitting something that is anonymously exposed to the public.

I’m saying this as the owner of a site where I made the mistake of allowing crowd-sourced image content to be anonymously served to others. It didn’t take long before not only was there NSFW content, but there was also illegal content.

* edit OH BTW I only just noticed this site was created by IQ, who has already dealt with this exact issue on ShaderToy and had to restrict and remove user submitted images due to abuse! The decision to not show people’s images is almost certainly intentional and by design.

Re: Human Shader

#52

Post by thelastparadise »

What a great experiment. Math looked a bit daunting at first (pixel 22,34) glance but it really wasn't bad. Took me about 4 minutes in total to do the math.

Highly recommended for anyone who wants a chill afternoon challenge. And the best part is seeing the final image come together.

Re: Human Shader

#53

Post by zellyn »

M4v3R wrote: post #7
vardump wrote: post #6

That seems like a... lot of work. Shouldn't have claimed a pixel.

It took me 10 minutes to do the whole computation by hand, so I wouldn't say it's a LOT of work. At the same time I believe this is also one the points of this experiment, to show how much work goes into computing a single pixel value for a very simple 3D scene which makes us appreciate more that our GPUs can do this work billions of times per second.

It's double the work if you skim the instructions too fast and pick your own empty pixel and compute it, only to find that you need to be assigned one!

Re: Human Shader

#54

Post by kens »

bee_rider wrote: post #45
cvoss wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author should implement an error correction system, where 1) the result is withheld from the display until a second corroborating calculation comes in, and 2) if there is disagreement, request an arbitration from a third user whose job is to pick which of the two is the best answer.

It is a bit odd; they specifically ask for the picture of the worksheet, and say they’ll check it. I wonder if the just haven’t gotten around to it yet. Automatic error checking would be nice (IMO just let multiple people do each pixel and take the most popular result).

They ask for the worksheet to check that you're not cheating. They don't check the pixel values. I think much of the charm of the image is seeing the errors.

By the way, there's more going on in the shader algorithm than you might expect. Here's an explanation of the worksheet:

  u, v are coordinates relative to the center of the image
  h is radius from center, squared
  Section B generates the ball:
  B3-8 generates the reflected color on the ball.
  B9-11 applies the diffuse illumination to the ball.
  B12 adds the illumination highlight.
  Section C creates the ground:
  C5 puts a shadow directly under the ball.
  C13 is the cast shadow of the ball.
  Section D creates the sky with a simple gradient
  Section E converts the image from two-color to three-color

Re: Human Shader

#56

Post by 3cats-in-a-coat »

mft_ wrote: post #49
3cats-in-a-coat wrote: post #37

I see a missed opportunity to remove the math and instead give people a prompt, and one pixel to shade, and then refine with each next pass. Human generative reverse-diffusion AI.

Not dissimilar to /r/place[0] - which gets messy. [0] https://new.reddit.com/r/place/?screenmode=preview

Generative AI would also be messy if:

1. You have no prompt.

2. You have 1 iteration.

Hence why I suggested prompt and multiple iterations. It's a very subtle tweak, but in aggregate behavior, everything is subtle and has huge effects.

Re: Human Shader

#57

Post by bagels »

cvoss wrote: post #20
jabbany wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really interesting seeing the (what I assume are) error pixels.

The author should implement an error correction system, where 1) the result is withheld from the display until a second corroborating calculation comes in, and 2) if there is disagreement, request an arbitration from a third user whose job is to pick which of the two is the best answer.

They already know the right answer for each pixel, presumably though?

Re: Human Shader

#58

Post by dahart »

eat_veggies wrote: post #35
quadrature wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, how come there are obviously incorrect pixels ?.

the moderators are checking that the pixel was computed by hand, not that it's correct

The page does actually say they want to see intermediate results “so we can validate your work.” (Edit that quote has been removed now.)

But there’s no promise that they will. The photo feature may be more of an automated speed bump, a way to reduce silly answers and pixel spam, and let people self-select, than an active human moderation tool. Moderating is boring and expensive in time and/or money, why would anyone actually sift through thousands of hand-written pages of arithmetic?

Re: Human Shader

#59

Post by [deleted] »

kens wrote: post #54
bee_rider wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a bit odd; they specifically ask for the picture of the worksheet, and say they’ll check it. I wonder if the just haven’t gotten around to it yet. Automatic error checking would be nice (IMO just let multiple people do each pixel and take the most popular result).

They ask for the worksheet to check that you're not cheating. They don't check the pixel values. I think much of the charm of the image is seeing the errors. By the way, there's more going on in the shader algorithm than you might expect. Here's an explanation of the worksheet: u, v are coordinates relative to the center of the image h is radius from center, squared Section B generates the ball: B3-8 generates the re…

[deleted]

Re: Human Shader

#60

Post by sb057 »

LectronPusher wrote: post #14

This was fun, I forget sometimes how silly all our grade school math worksheets used to be. I always had trouble showing my work for simple additions and multiplication, it's a bit easier when its a self motivated dunking on the GPUs. It may take 4-5 days and 1000+ people, but it's definitely created a greater sense of community than any faster rendering system. I like looking over the different pixels and knowing th…

I think something like this would actually make for a really interesting 3rd grade class project, with each student contributing a few pixels.
Post reply on HN