211–220 of 661 posts
Interesting and cool technology - but I can't seem to ignore that every high-quality AI art application is always closed, and I don't seem to buy the ethics excuse for that. The same was said for GPT, yet I see nothing but creativity coming out from its users nowadays.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean like: https://say-can.github.io/ This is common in the research PA. People don't want to deal with broccoli man [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t6L-FlfeaI
Looking at that link, I don't think that is a GitHub publication? It is marked Robotics at Google and Everyday Robotics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an unanswerable question. Perhaps the answer is "don't". Siri takes this approach for a wide range of queries.
How do you pick what should and shouldn't be restricted? Is there some "offense threshold"? I suspect all queries relating to religion, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender will need to be restricted, which almost certainly means you probably can't include humans at all, other than ones artificially inserted with mathematically proven random attributes. Maybe that's why none are in this demo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the statistics/representation problem is a big problem on its own, but IMO the bigger problem here is democratizing access to human-like creativity. Currently, the ability to create compelling art is only held by those with some artistic talent. With a tool like this, that restriction is gone. Everyone, no matter how uncreative, untalented, or uncommitted, can create compelling visuals, provided they can use…
> So even if we managed to create a perfect model of representation and inclusion, people could still use it to generate extremely offensive images with little effort. I think people see that as profoundly dangerous. Do they see it as dangerous? Or just offensive? I can understand why people wouldn’t want a tool they have created to be used to generate disturbing, offensive or disgusting imagery. But I don’t really s…
Interesting idea, but is there any evidence that e.g. consuming disturbing images makes people less likely to act out on disturbing urges? Far from catharsis, I'd imagine consumption of such material to increase one's appetite and likelihood of fulfilling their desires in real life rather than to decrease it.
I suppose it might be hard to measure.
Metacalculus, a mass forecasting site, has steadily brought forward the prediction date for a weakly general AI. Jaw-dropping advances like this, only increase my confidence in this prediction. "The future is now, old man." https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3479/date-weakly-general...
I don't see how this gets us (much) closer to general AI. Where is the reasoning?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how this gets us (much) closer to general AI. Where is the reasoning?
Perhaps the confluence of NLP and something generative?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Additionally, if you optimize for most-likely-as-best, you will end up with the stereotypical result 100% of the time, instead of in proportional frequency to the statistics. Put another way, when we ask for an output optimized for "nursiness", is that not a request for some ur stereotypical nurse?
You could stipulate that it roll a die based on percentage results - if 70% of Americans are "white", then 70% of the time show a white person - 13% of the time the result should be black, etc. That's excessively simplified but wouldn't this drop the stereotype and better reflect reality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the risks of unrestricted open-access What exactly is the risk?
See section 6 titled “Conclusions, Limitations and Societal Impact” in the research paper: https://gweb-research-imagen.appspot.com/paper.pdf One quote: > “On the other hand, generative methods can be leveraged for malicious purposes, including harassment and misinformation spread [20], and raise many concerns regarding social and cultural exclusion and bias [67, 62, 68]”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the statistics/representation problem is a big problem on its own, but IMO the bigger problem here is democratizing access to human-like creativity. Currently, the ability to create compelling art is only held by those with some artistic talent. With a tool like this, that restriction is gone. Everyone, no matter how uncreative, untalented, or uncommitted, can create compelling visuals, provided they can use…
> So even if we managed to create a perfect model of representation and inclusion, people could still use it to generate extremely offensive images with little effort. I think people see that as profoundly dangerous. Do they see it as dangerous? Or just offensive? I can understand why people wouldn’t want a tool they have created to be used to generate disturbing, offensive or disgusting imagery. But I don’t really s…
I won't speak to whether something is "offensive", but I think that having underlying biases in image-classification or generation has very worrying secondary effects, especially given that organizations like law enforcement want to do things like facial recognition. It's not a perfect analogue, but I could easily see some company pitch a sketch-artist-replacement service that generated images based on someone's description. The potential for having inherent bias present in that makes that kind of thing worrying, especially since the people in charge of buying it are likely to care, or notice, about the caveats.
It does feel like a little bit of a stretch, but at the same time we've also seen such things happen with image classification systems.