Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not trying to be combative, but I don't see the difference?
Real AI imagegen workflows very often have more input from the human creating the image than a text prompt.
Textures, sample images, something like that?
AI real-time human full-body photo generator
261–270 of 421 posts
Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator
#262If you're wondering how it's so fast and cheap and they can generate variants so easily, it's because they're using GANs (see the footer). GANs are way faster than diffusion models because they generate the image in a single forward pass and their true latent space encoding makes editing a breeze. (And if you're wondering how it can look so good when 'everyone knows GANs don't work because they're too unstable', a wi…
How it can look so good? ROFL!! It just created a guy with a hand coming off his left ankle in place of a foot, and toes or fingers or something poking out the end of the show on his right foot! https://generated.photos/human-generator/64e682308448b8000c5...
If it isn't my old friend, Willie McGreg. With a leg for an arm and an arm for a leg!
Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator
#263crash
"you got thirst trap instagram photos in my david cronenberg dataset"
"you got cronenberg photos in my thirst trap instagram data set"
Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The most powerful image deepfake AI ever created. See any girl clothless with the click of a button. This is just disgusting. I thought it would just be a uncensored generative AI but certainly wasn't expecting peeping-tom as a service. And advertise it so blatantly as being able to virtually strip any girl you have pictures of just makes me sick.
[flagged]
It's okay to have morals and to talk about them.
Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree it’s gross, but I’m not sure how to articulate it. It’s making real something people have done in their minds-that is imagine people with no clothes on. These pictures aren’t the actual subject naked. There’s nothing being discovered or disclosed. It’s a pure fiction. But it still bothers me.
It is fiction yes, but if it is lifelike enough does the difference matter? Even without the ick factor of making porn of someone without their consent, it would be so easy to destroy someone's career or relationship by making these deepfakes and then spreading them around. Especially once the tech gets more life-like and loses the current AI gen tells. And the same would apply to doing this the old fashioned way in…
I’d also add that the knowledge of what’s possible diffuses to abusers a lot quicker than it diffuses to, say, the grandparents of victims.
Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator
#266Incredible. In the time I'd spend creating one image that exactly fits my or my client's needs or buying a high quality stock photo, I can generate literally millions of photorealistic, unappealing, images that would require a skilled commercial artist to make useful for all but the most throwaway uses. What about for some high-volume throwaway use case? I generated like 5 images before I got a 3/4 shot instead of a…
But think of how much easier this makes believeable spam and scams!
"Does your new romantic partner that texted you out of the blue have what could only be described as cleft eyeballs, four or five labiodental grooves, or other biological anomalies that vary from picture to picture? They might be an AI scammer."
Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator
#267ummmm, seems pretty messed up! https://generated.photos/human-generator/64e6c3249563e6000a0...
Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you're wondering how it's so fast and cheap and they can generate variants so easily I assume its cheap because they are burning money to build a business, its not fast at all, and the quality... sucks. > And if you're wondering how it can look so good I’m not. I'm wondering why they’re trying to get people to use something worse than using a decent photorealistic SD1.5-based checkpoint with some basic prompt te…
Looking at the poses, it feels optimized for generating porn, but one example someone showed had a child's face (good god please don't let your "AI" system generate child anything if you want to sell it for porn purposes), and another user noted that their attempt error'd out because it "detected nudity", even though other users get given a nude model by default.
> it feels optimized for porn
So I was relatively unimpressed with the first few images, they looked incredibly unrealistic. But then after reading this message i decided to add "topless" to the notes just to see how crazy the result was.
I was actually impressed, it returned an image that actually looks lifelike once I gave it an adult request. Which reinforces the idea that this was optimized for porn.
For those curious, this was the result I was provided. NSFW of course, topless female gender (ai generated): https://generated.photos/human-generator/64e6c26e190809000fb...
Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator
#269We know about all of the potential harms that deepfakes can cause, the problems with inherent bias in training data, etc. Creating/publicising a tool that winks at these issues (consider the difference between the poses offered for 'male' and 'female' bodies) but does nothing to mitigate them - and a lot to enable them - is irresponsible at best.
Feel free to create your own software that mitigates those issues. The rest of us will use whichever tool performs the best and does what it's asked to do.
Re: AI real-time human full-body photo generator
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
> everyone knows GANs don't work because they're too unstable Is that a wide spread myth? I thought it’s widely accepted that GAN is really good generating these artificial pictures (it’s what started DeepFake after all) when you know your model’s “button”. Similar to how this uses GAN since they have a model “boundary condition”. While humans are diverse, we have a set of repeatable features (two legs, two arms, etc…
It is very widespread. You will see people in this very thread dismissing GANs as fundamentally failed, and hotly objecting to any kind of parity, even if they have to fall back to 'well ok GANs do scale, but they're more complicated'. I also have some representative quotes in my linked draft essay from various papers & DL Twitter discussions. (Another way to put it would be: when was the last time you saw someone be…
> Another way to put it would be: when was the last time you saw someone besides me asserting that GANs can scale to high-quality general images and are not dramatically inferior to diffusion? I rest my case.
Get off of Twitter, maybe? I don't know but I have seen a ton of work done on large scale GANs. The incentives are pretty fucking obvious - they are faster to use. Of _course_ people want them to work for the same usecases as diffusion.
Maybe they will someday! But they aren't currently. You're referencing a zeitgeist that I am not familiar with and therefore come across overly defensive.