251–260 of 511 posts
Is there an 'explain it like I'm 15' for how this works? It seems like black magic. I've been a computer hobbyist since the late 1980's and this is the first time I cannot explain how a computer does what it does. Absolutely the most amazing thing I've ever seen, and I have zero clue how it works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Large chunks, yes, but all that means is that engineers will move up the abstraction stack and become more efficient, not that engineers will be replaced. Bytecode -> Assembly -> C -> higher level languages -> AI-assisted higher-level languages
History isn't a great guide here. Historically the abstractions that increased efficiency begat further complexity. Coding in Python elides over low-level issues but the complexity of how to arrange the primitives of python remains for the programmer to engage with. AI coding has the potential to elide over all the complexity that we identify as programming. I strongly suspect this time is different. The space for "A…
AI that can write code from a natural language description doesn't help as much as you seem to think if natural language description is too hard to actually bother with when humans (who obviously benefit from having a natural language description) are writing the code.
Now, if the AI can actually interview stakeholders and come up with what the code needs to do...
But I am not convinced that is doable short of AGI (AI assistants that improve productivity of humans in that task, sure, but that expands the scope for economically viable automation projects rather than eliminating automators.)
A friend of mine was studying graphic design, but became disillusioned and decided to switch to frontend programming after he graduated. His thesis advisor said he should be cautious, because automation/AI will soon take the jobs of programmers, implying that graphic design is a safer bet in this regard. Looks like his advisor is a few years from being proven horribly wrong.
I have degrees and several years of experience in both fields, and I can tell you that both are creative professions where output is unbounded and the measure of success is subjective; these are the fields that will be safe for a while. IMO it's fields such as aircraft pilots who should be most worried.
Pilots are not there to fly the aircraft, the autopilot already does that. They are there to command the aircraft, in a pair in case one is incapacitated, making the best decisions for the people on board, and to troubleshoot issues when the worst happens.
No AI or remote pilot is going to help when say... the aircraft loses all power. Or the airport has been taken over in a coup attempt and the pilot has to decide whether to escape or stay https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NcztK6VWadQ
You can bet on major flights having two commercial pilots right up until the day we all get turned into paperclips.
A friend of mine was studying graphic design, but became disillusioned and decided to switch to frontend programming after he graduated. His thesis advisor said he should be cautious, because automation/AI will soon take the jobs of programmers, implying that graphic design is a safer bet in this regard. Looks like his advisor is a few years from being proven horribly wrong.
If this paper presents this neural net fairly, it pretty much destroys the market of illustrators. Most of the time when an illustration needed, it's described like "an astronaut on a horse in the style xyz".
In practice in illustration (as in all arts) there are a variety of markets where different levels of talent, originality, reputation and creative engagement with the brief are more relevant. For editorial illustration, it's certainly not a case of 'find me someone who can draw X', and probably hasn't been since printing presses got good enough to print photographs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But if doesn't spit up exactly what you want can't edit it further. Why? You can tweak the prompt, change parameters, or even use the actual "edit" capability that they demo in the post.
Maybe I am misunderstanding but if you start tweaking the prompt you'll end with something completely different. The "edit" capability, as far as I can tell please correct me if I got confused, is picking your favorite out of the generated variations. I would like to "lock" the scene and add instructions like "throw in a reflection".
Dall-E 2 seems to be incapable to catch the essence of the art. I'm not really surprised by it, I'd be surprised a lot if it could. But nevertheless: if you looked in the eye of a Girl With A Pearl Earring[1], you'd be forced to stop and to think what does she have on her mind right now. Or may be you had some other question in your mind, but it really stops people to think. But none of Dall-E interpretations have th…
What do you think of the third to last image of the Girl With A Pearl Earring that DALL-E 2 created? I find it more compelling than the original with how her face is deeply cast in shadow. There's still that original 'essence' of the glint in her eye. But her earring is a bell. As if the AI is sending a message that what if the bell were to ring?
The original girl is more open, more independent and mindless. The interpretation's girl is more self-controlled, assertive and not interested really, just going throw all those movements of regular communication between people. Maybe it's just me, but what I really value on such occasions is mindlessness, the ability of people to not mind themselves, to let their selves to dissolve in the environment. I cannot keep tears in my eyes sometimes when I watch some entertainer playing Chopin or Paganini, because what I see in their movements is complete dissolution of a person in a piece of music, in a piece of art and skill. An entertainer just do what they do with their full attention on it, and with all their motivation focused on it. There is nothing here for them, just them and their actions.
There is not a single thought devoted to how people around me would react to what I do and how I do that. I just do what I do and I do not care about people around me, and if it somehow makes people happy... I don't care really. I mean I know that afterwards I'd feel a pride of myself, but just for now I don't really care.
I know this feeling. I like to sing, and I'm good at it (above average), and I know what it feels like to dissolve into the song and to let song to rule. I play piano and I know what it is like to dissolve into the piece I'm playing, to stop myself from existing, to let music to take the lead. And the original painting make me believe that the girl is in this state of mind. I do not know the history or the remaining of the story, I do not know if she get into this state for a second, of she never leaves it (it may be a sad experience, don't you think?), but somehow I know that right now she is right in this state. I want to watch this her moment for an eternity.
Thinking about it, I'd confess that Interpretation Girl does trigger the same, but on a smaller scale. I feel how my mind is trying to find a coherent state to her gaze, but this feeling stops in tens of microseconds, not hundreds of them.
edit: want->watch. Stupid mistake ruining the meaning of the sentence.
Some freely available models GLID-3: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1x4p2PokZ3XznBn35Q5B... and a new Latent Diffusion notebook: https://colab.research.google.com/github/multimodalart/laten... have both appeared recently and are getting remarkably close to the original Dall-E (maybe better as I can't test the real thing...) So - this was pretty good timing if OpenAI want to appear to be ahead of the pack. Of…
With glide I think we've reached something of a plateau in terms of architecture on the "text to image generator S curve". DALL-E-2 is a very similar architecture to glide and has some notable downsides (poorer language understanding) glid-3 is a relatively small model trained by a single guy on his workstation (aka me) so it's not going to be as good. It's also not fully baked yet so ymmv, although it really depends…
What kind of prompts is GLID-3 especially good for? I remember getting lucky when I was playing around a few times but I didn't do it systematically.
This seems to me like a big step towards AGI; a key component of consciousness seems (in my opinion) to be the ability to take words and create a mental picture of what's being described. Is that the long term goal WRT researching a model like this?
Dall-E 2 seems to be incapable to catch the essence of the art. I'm not really surprised by it, I'd be surprised a lot if it could. But nevertheless: if you looked in the eye of a Girl With A Pearl Earring[1], you'd be forced to stop and to think what does she have on her mind right now. Or may be you had some other question in your mind, but it really stops people to think. But none of Dall-E interpretations have th…
art criticism should be off topic here. This is more like chopping off the visual cortex and some association cortex from a brain and stimulating it. there is no person signaling to us, nor can we attribute any striking images that may come up to a person with agency. But its like a giant database of decent clipart for anything we can imagine
We do not know exactly what part of our perception of reality can be attributed to "the visual cortex and some association cortex". But now we can feel it. We can test it. We can compare ourselves with the cold calculating machine. I believe that it is a priceless opportunity that we shouldn't miss. At least I personally can't. I'm going to figure out is it possible to me to have such a companion as Dall-E in mine wanderings in a sea of information in Internet, and if it is, then to get one.
> But its like a giant database of decent clipart for anything we can imagine
And this also. Yes. Though I'm not interested in clipart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think designers are becoming more valuable than ever. Designers can better help train the AI on what actually looks good, designers will (probably) always have a more intuitive understanding of UI/UX, designers can better implement the work the AI actually produces, and designers can coordinate designs across multiple different mediums and platforms. Additionally, the rise of no-code development is just extending t…
> I think designers are becoming more valuable than ever. Are all designers becoming more valuable or is a subset of really good ones going to reap the value increase and capture more of the previously available value?
Bad designers are even being given better and better paying jobs as the top talent gets poached up quicker and quicker.