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

131–140 of 373 posts

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#131

Post by UncleEntity »

zwnow wrote: post #110
flkiwi wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend who is heavily inked has gone on at length to me about understanding skin elasticity--particularly how it changes over a lifetime--as well as the way joints and muscles change and distort visual lines, etc. It sure seems like a skilled trade to me. And, I don't know, depth of penetration of a needle in flesh and sanitation don't strike me as minor things to get right.

People love to make things seem harder than they are. I tattoo people, I am aware about skin types, usually thats not a big issue unless its heavily scarred. The quality of your tattoo machine matters most, as my 70€ eBay makeshift one wasnt nearly as good as a proper one. Amount of ink matters, needle depth, skin type, sweat. But thats stuff you have figured put after your 20th tattoo. Its like knowing datatypes in…

> But thats stuff you have figured put after your 20th tattoo.

So... after spending hundreds, if not thousands, of hours learning a skill?

I got a tattoo back in the day and specifically went to one the guys in my platoon said was good due to him being featured in magazines or whatever. It's kind of an important thing to get right on the first, not 20th, attempt IMHO.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#132

Post by tantalor »

xnorswap wrote: post #119

The "How to build a boardgame" infographic looks like half my linkedin "feed" now, but a boardgame instead of random basic programming / recruimentment / sales topic. Feed is in quotes because my feed seems to be 90% suggested posts.

This could help:

https://www.linkedin.com/help/linkedin/answer/a1379064

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#133

Post by Der_Einzige »

The #1 reason that this technology won't proliferate more quickly is that humans are a bunch of COOMERS!

We get Stable Diffusion V1.5 and SDXL and what does the community go do with it? Lmao see civit.ai and it's literal hundreds of thousands of NSFW loras. The most popular model today on that website is the NSFW anime version of SDXL, called "Pony Diffusion" (I'm literally not making this up. A bunch of Bronies made this model!)

Imagine that an open source image generator which does tokens autoregressively like this at this quality is released.

The world is simply not ready for the amount of horny stuff that is going to be produced (especially without consent). It appears that the male libido really is the reason for most bad things in the world. We are truly the "villains of history".

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#134

Post by bongodongobob »

flkiwi wrote: post #99
zwnow wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tbh you barely have to know anything, most important one is how deep to go with the needle and sanitizing. Everything else is not rlly important.

A friend who is heavily inked has gone on at length to me about understanding skin elasticity--particularly how it changes over a lifetime--as well as the way joints and muscles change and distort visual lines, etc. It sure seems like a skilled trade to me. And, I don't know, depth of penetration of a needle in flesh and sanitation don't strike me as minor things to get right.

Penetration is practice, sanitation is basically use gloves and an autoclave.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#135

Post by smusamashah »

I am waiting for when I could provide these a scene snippet from "Hitchhiker's Guide To Galaxy" (or any book) and it could draw that for me. The gold planets, the waking up on the beach, total perspective vortex etc.

I like the book, but there are quite a few scenes which are quite hard to visualize and make sense. An image generator that can follow that language and detail will be amazing. Even more awesome will be if it remains consistent in follow ups.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#136

Post by wrboyce »

smusamashah wrote: post #135

I am waiting for when I could provide these a scene snippet from "Hitchhiker's Guide To Galaxy" (or any book) and it could draw that for me. The gold planets, the waking up on the beach, total perspective vortex etc. I like the book, but there are quite a few scenes which are quite hard to visualize and make sense. An image generator that can follow that language and detail will be amazing. Even more awesome will be…

I love the idea, but I feel like I have to say that I’ve got a pretty solid idea of what the total perspective vortex would look like for someone being subjected to it. When I first read the books I immediately had a visual and that has never changed when I’ve read them again (and again…).

I’m not sure what that says about either of us, but I would say that your definitive “quite hard to visualise” statement is very much subjective.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#137

Post by ChadNauseam »

gosub100 wrote: post #66
DeathArrow wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> it's unfair for artists to have their works sucked up What framework can we use to decide if something is fair or not? Style is not something that should be copyrighted. I can pain in the style of X painter, I can write in the style of Y writer, I can compose music in the style of Z composer. Everything has a style. Dressing yourself has a style. Speaking has a style. Even writing mathematical proofs can have a st…

In music, someone can sing the same style as another, but if they imitate it to the point that there is brand confusion, where the consumer believes the product came from X when it actually came from Y, that's clearly crossing the line.

Is that actually crossing a line? I'm sure some consumers have thought that rocket league was associated with FIFA, or that studio Ghibli movies were made by Disney. But these aren't widespread issues because we have a robust system of trademarks that draws a clear line: you can't use trademarked names or iconography in a way that causes confusion. But if some people heading Olivia Rodrigo's "good 4 you" think they're listening to Paramore because they have a similar style, that has never been illegal

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#138

Post by smusamashah »

wrboyce wrote: post #136
smusamashah wrote: post #135

I am waiting for when I could provide these a scene snippet from "Hitchhiker's Guide To Galaxy" (or any book) and it could draw that for me. The gold planets, the waking up on the beach, total perspective vortex etc. I like the book, but there are quite a few scenes which are quite hard to visualize and make sense. An image generator that can follow that language and detail will be amazing. Even more awesome will be…

I love the idea, but I feel like I have to say that I’ve got a pretty solid idea of what the total perspective vortex would look like for someone being subjected to it. When I first read the books I immediately had a visual and that has never changed when I’ve read them again (and again…). I’m not sure what that says about either of us, but I would say that your definitive “quite hard to visualise” statement is very…

Vortex may be not so much but there are other hard to visualize things. I am on the third book, and I have no idea what Beeblebrox's two heads look like. Second head is often mentioned in passing. Sometimes its mentioned as its always there, other times it feels like its just pops out of somewhere, otherwise, it's like it doesn't exist.

There is the scene when they see themselves on the beach on first rescue by the ship. That was hard to grasp. Or the insides of the ship itself, the bridge, the panels etc. Also that black ship they stole.

But may be its just me having a hard time with these concepts.

It's not just about scene being difficult to visualize, even if I can see them in my head, I want to see them on paper too because those thing excite me.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#139

Post by kelseyfrog »

Taek wrote: post #33
probably_wrong wrote: post #12

> Is it okay to reproduce the hard-won style of other artists using AI? Who owns the resulting art? Who profits from it? Which artists are in the training data for AI, and what is the legal and ethical status of using copyrighted work for training? These were important questions before multimodal AI, but now developing answers to them is increasingly urgent. I have to disagree with the conclusion. This was an importa…

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…

I'd take it farther to say that copyright and intellectual property is a legal fiction that ultimately benefits the wealthy[those who can pay to legally enforce it] over small artists.

Small artists get paid to create the art; corporations benefit from exclusivity.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#140

Post by rikroots »

amazingamazing wrote: post #70
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 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 funny how people who say this kind of stuff are never content creators (in the monetization sense).

My personal preference is for (say) 15-20 years.

And, as a content creator, I practice what I preach - at least when it comes to my poetry: https://rikverse2020.rikweb.org.uk/blog/copyrights

Post reply on HN