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

No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

oneusefulthing.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 373 posts

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#121

Post by Gasp0de »

x187463 wrote: post #3

This is a before/after moment for image generation. A simple example is the background images on a ton of (mediocre) music youtube channels. They almost all use AI generated images that are full of nonsense the closer you look. Jazz channels will feature coffee shops with garbled text on the menu and furniture blending together. I bet all of that disappears over the next few months. On another note, and perhaps other…

I love using LLMs to generate pictures. I'd call myself rather creative, but absolutely useless in any artistic craft. Now, I can just describe any image I can imagine and get 90% accurate results, which is good enough for the presentations I hold, online pet projects (created a squirrel-themed online math-learning game for which I previously would have needed a designer to create squirrel highschool themed imagery) and memes. For many, many websites this is going to be good enough.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#122

Post by aenvoker »

roenxi wrote: post #2

That proper "no elephants" first image is hilarious. Another key point here is the generative AI's meme game is getting rather strong. Which isn't a small thing, humour is an advanced soft skill.

Having used lots of different image generators, so far the only one with a sense of humor has been Dall-e3.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dalle2/s/khb5XuNFdl

There’s probably some sort of connection to ChatGPT in there. But, I don’t know enough about how it works.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#123

Post by another-dave »

gcanyon wrote: post #34

It's interesting to hear people side with the artists when in previous discussions on this forum I've gotten significant approval/agreement arguing that copyright is far too long. As I've argued in the past, I think copyright should last maybe five years: in this modern era, monetizing your work doesn't (usually) have to take more than a short time. I'd happily concede to some sort of renewal process to extend that p…

I'd agree with limiting copyrights but would do it based on money earned rather than time, so something like when you make $X million, the work becomes public domain.

As a specific example — _A Game of Thrones_ was released in 1996. It picked up awards early on but only became a NYT best seller in 2011, just before the TV show aired.

It would feel harsh for an author to loose all their copyright because their work was a "slow burn" and 5 years have elapsed but they've made little to no money on it.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#124

Post by eadmund »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #30
eadmund wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's unfair for artists to have their works sucked up I never thought it was unfair to artists for others to look at their work and imitate it. That seems to me to be what artists have been doing since the second caveman looked at a hand painting on a cave wall and thought, ‘huh, that’s pretty neat! I’d like to try my hand at that!’

Right the difference is that it’s a large company looking at it then copying it and reselling it without credit, which basically everyone would understand as bad without the indirection of a model. Edit: the key words here are “company” and “reselling”

But it’s not copying and reselling — it’s imitation.

Copying is controlled by copyrights. And imitation isn’t controlled by anything.

As for a company: a company is just a group of people acting together.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#125

Post by eadmund »

SirMaster wrote: post #105
eadmund wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's unfair for artists to have their works sucked up I never thought it was unfair to artists for others to look at their work and imitate it. That seems to me to be what artists have been doing since the second caveman looked at a hand painting on a cave wall and thought, ‘huh, that’s pretty neat! I’d like to try my hand at that!’

You don't see a massive difference in the shear number of images that the AI can look at and the speed at which it can imitate it as a fundamental difference between AI and a human copying works or styles? For a human it took a lot of practice and a lot of time and effort. But now it takes practically no time or effort at all.

It took a truly colossal amount of human time and effort to build AI systems. It takes significant amount of energy to run those AI systems.

I don’t see any meaningful difference at all between the system of a human, a computer and a corpus of images producing new images, and the system of a human, a paintbrush, an easel, a canvas and a corpus of images producing new images. Emphasis on the new — copying is still copying, and still controlled by copyrights.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#126

Post by hansmayer »

> " Image generation is likely to be very disruptive in ways we don’t understand right now. " Is anyone getting tired of these formulations ? When a tech is disruptive, we know it immediately. Uber was disruptive. AirBnB, Gmail, Amazon, even Facebook at one point. You just knew it, nobody was writing long essays trying to justify those products. Robots generating statistically median images is impressive, but not disruptive at all. If something is "likely" to be "disruptive", but in ways "we don't understand yet", how can the claim even be made? What is it based on? If we do not understand it yet, how can we understand if it is "likely to be disruptive".

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#127

Post by UncleEntity »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #118
gcanyon wrote: post #34

It's interesting to hear people side with the artists when in previous discussions on this forum I've gotten significant approval/agreement arguing that copyright is far too long. As I've argued in the past, I think copyright should last maybe five years: in this modern era, monetizing your work doesn't (usually) have to take more than a short time. I'd happily concede to some sort of renewal process to extend that p…

As you grow older and run through more cycles of general opinions, you realize that pretty much everyone is in it for themselves, what serves them best, and support what narrative aligns with that. 2007: Copyright is garbage and must be abolished (so I can get music/movies free) 2025: Copyright needs to be strengthened (so my artistic abilities retain value)

You forgot:

2024: What do you mean I can't copyright AI generated artwork?

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#128

Post by masswerk »

wavemode wrote: post #103
Taek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's consensus around that idea. Lots of people (myself included) feel that copyright is already vastly overreaching, and that AI represents forward progress for the proliferation of art in society (its crap today, but digital cameras were crap in 2007 and look where they are now). Its also not clear for example that Studio Ghibli lost by having their art style plastered all over the internet. I went…

Companies like Studio Ghibli are not being harmed by AI, small freelance artists are.

I think, Studio Ghibli will be affected, as well, since their "trademark style" (as we used to say), formerly a welcome sight and indicative for a certain type of story telling, will be devaluated as an indicator for slop. (Much like there are certain traits of an image, which we associate with soap operas and assume to be indicative of a low-value production.)

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#129

Post by Der_Einzige »

x187463 wrote: post #3

This is a before/after moment for image generation. A simple example is the background images on a ton of (mediocre) music youtube channels. They almost all use AI generated images that are full of nonsense the closer you look. Jazz channels will feature coffee shops with garbled text on the menu and furniture blending together. I bet all of that disappears over the next few months. On another note, and perhaps other…

That feeling of not knowing what to do with it is an example of humans being stupid. We are all victims of being "Johnny" in this paper:

https://dl.acm.org/doi/full/10.1145/3544548.3581388

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#130

Post by Der_Einzige »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #118
gcanyon wrote: post #34

It's interesting to hear people side with the artists when in previous discussions on this forum I've gotten significant approval/agreement arguing that copyright is far too long. As I've argued in the past, I think copyright should last maybe five years: in this modern era, monetizing your work doesn't (usually) have to take more than a short time. I'd happily concede to some sort of renewal process to extend that p…

As you grow older and run through more cycles of general opinions, you realize that pretty much everyone is in it for themselves, what serves them best, and support what narrative aligns with that. 2007: Copyright is garbage and must be abolished (so I can get music/movies free) 2025: Copyright needs to be strengthened (so my artistic abilities retain value)

Correct. This is why Stirner is the best Philosopher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own

There is nothing other than Egoism.

Post reply on HN