131–140 of 579 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly I would rather that they not try. I don't understand why a computer tool has to be held to a political standard.
It's not a political standard though. There is actual diversity in this world. Why wouldn't you want that in your product?
Interesting. I got access couple weeks ago (was on waitlist since the initial announcement) and frankly as much as really want to be excited and like it, DALL-E ended up being a bit underwhelming. IMHO - often results that produced are of low quality (distorted images, or quite wacky representation of the query). Some styles of imagery are certainly a better fit for being generated by DALL-E, but as far as commercial…
It has, honestly, completely blown me away beyond my wildest imagination of where this technology would be at today.
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…
In case you are interested in reading the whole take: https://aifuture.substack.com/p/the-ai-battle-rages-on
I find it amusing that they suggest DALL-E, which typically generates lovecraftian nightmare images, for making children's story illustrations.
yeah. dalle is "so bad it's good". it's great for post-post-ironic memes, but I don't see it being useful for anything else
How did you score?
I only scored as well as I did because I knew the kind of stylistic choices to look out for. In terms of "quality" I really don't understand how you've reached this conclusion.
I'm blown away by this: "Starting today, users get full usage rights to commercialize the images they create with DALL·E, including the right to reprint, sell, and merchandise. This includes images they generated during the research preview." I assumed this was going to be the sticking point for wider usage for a long time. They're now saying that you have full rights to sell Dall-E 2 creations?
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…
That is a really, really, narrow viewpoint. I think what people would prefer is that if you query "Scientist" that the images returned are as likely to be any combination of gender and race. It's not that a group is "fragile", it's that they have to specify race and gender at all, when that specificity is not part of the intention. It seems that they recognize that querying "Scientist" will predominantly skew a certain way, and they're trying in some way to unskew.
Or, perhaps, you'd rather that the query be really, really specific? like: "an adult human of any gender and any race and skin color dressed in a laboratory coat...", but I would much rather just say "a scientist" and have the system recognize that anyone can be a scientist.
And then if I need to be specific, then I would be happy to say "a black-haired scientist"
I'm blown away by this: "Starting today, users get full usage rights to commercialize the images they create with DALL·E, including the right to reprint, sell, and merchandise. This includes images they generated during the research preview." I assumed this was going to be the sticking point for wider usage for a long time. They're now saying that you have full rights to sell Dall-E 2 creations?
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.
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.