Live data from Hacker News

Dall-E 2

openai.com

271–280 of 511 posts

Re: Dall-E 2

#271
post #204

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…

Initial Outputs from New AI Model Not As Good at Nuance as Historic Artwork, Approach Deemed Hopeless

Oh... Not hopeless. The very fact that I spent some minutes watching Interpretations of Girl With a Pearl Earring, is the enough evidence that it is not hopeless. I praise the work that was done. Moreover I hoped that people would get it as an inspiration to do even more.

Re: Dall-E 2

#272
post #213

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.

Research Deep Learning. That's the technique they are using to generate the images. Theres a lot of applications. Once you understand _how_ it works, look up Two Minute Papers to see what it is being used for. He covers more than just deep learning algorithms, but his videos on deep learning are quite insightful on the potentials of this technology.

Re: Dall-E 2

#273

To be honest the Girl with a Pearl Earing "variations" look a little bit like a crime against art. It's like the person who built this has no idea why the Girl with a Pearl Earing is good art. "Here's the Girl with a Pearl Earing " - "OK, well here's some girls with turbans" Art is truth.

To be honest it's hard for me to imagine alternate reality where the 'original' is not swapped with one of the 'variations' without same comment underneath. Why is the 'original' good art?

Re: Dall-E 2

#274

To be honest the Girl with a Pearl Earing "variations" look a little bit like a crime against art. It's like the person who built this has no idea why the Girl with a Pearl Earing is good art. "Here's the Girl with a Pearl Earing " - "OK, well here's some girls with turbans" Art is truth.

Maybe. https://cdn.openai.com/dall-e-2/demos/variations/modified/gi... was pretty impressive.

I think the results are being poisoned by the fact that most old paintings have deteriorated colors, so the training data looks nothing like the originals. It's certainly a lot yellower than https://cdn.openai.com/dall-e-2/demos/variations/originals/g...

Re: Dall-E 2

#275

Something about this makes me nauseous. Perhaps is the fact that soon the market value for creatives is going to fall to a hair about zero for all but the most famous. We will be all the poorer for it when 95% of images you see are AI generated. There will be niches of course but in a few short years it'll be over for a huge swathe of creative professionals who are already struggling. Some of the images also hit me w…

  >  for all but the most famous
OK DALL-E, generate our logo in the style of ${most famous}

Re: Dall-E 2

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is kind of like complaining about having too many meetings at work. Yup, everyone feels it. …but, does complaining help? Nope. All it does is make you feel a bit better with out really putting in effort in. We can’t have nice things because people abuse them. Not everyone. …but enough people that it’s both a PR and legal problem. specifcally a legal problem in this case. To have adults treated like adults online…

None of this is true. It’s not a legal problem. Every single time OpenAI comes out with something, they dress it up as a huge threat, either to society or to themselves. Everyone falls for it. Then someone else comes along, quietly replicates it, and poof! No threat! Isn’t it incredible how that works? There are already a bunch of dalle replicas, including ones hosted openly and uncensored by huggingface. They’re not…

The DALL-E replicas on hugging face are not sophisticated enough to generate credibly realistic images of the kind that would generate bad PR. I suspect the moment it becomes possible for a pedophile to request, and receive, a photorealistic image of a child being abused there will be bad PR for whatever company facilitates it. Or consider someone who wants to generate and distribute explicit photos of someone else without their permission.

Is it a legal issue? I'm not sure, though I believe that cartoon child porn is not legal in the US (or is at least a legal gray area). Regardless, I sympathize with OpenAI not wanting to enable such behavior.

Re: Dall-E 2

#277
Interesting, yes, but I went to the link, and browsed the 'generated artwork' and all if it was subjectively inferior to the original that it generated from. Every single piece. So I am not sure what the 'value' in it is, at this stage.

As far as the text driven, I would have to mess with some non pre-canned presentations to see how useful it was.

Re: Dall-E 2

#278

>We’ve limited the ability for DALL·E 2 to generate ... adult images. I think that using something like this for porn could potentially offer the biggest benefit to society. So much has been said about how this industry exploits young and vulnerable models. Cheap autogenerated images (and in the future videos) would pretty much remove the demand for human models and eliminate the related suffering, no? EDIT: typo

Depends whether you think models should be able to generate cp. It's almost impossible to even give an affirmative answer to that question without making yourself a target. And as much as I err on the side of creator freedom, I find myself shying away from saying yes without qualifications. And if you don't allow cp, then by definition you require some censoring. At that point it's just a matter of where you censor,…

There are so many excellent, thought-provoking comments in this thread, but yours caught me especially. Something that came to mind immediately upon reading the release was the potential for this technology to transform literature, adding AI generated imagery to turn any novel into a visual novel as a premium way to experience the story, something akin to composing D-Box seat response to a modern movie. I was imagining telling the cyberpunk future story you were elaborating, which is really compelling, in such a way and couldn't help but smile.

Re: Dall-E 2

#279
This is going to be mostly a rant on OpenAI's "safer than thou" approach to safety, but let me start with that I think this technology I think is really cool, amazing, powerful stuff. Dall-E (and Dall-E 2) is an incredible advance over GANs, and no doubt will have many positive applications. It's simply brilliant. I am someone who has been interested in and has followed the progress of ML generated images for nearly a decade. Almost unimaginable progress has been made in the last five years in this field.

Now the rant:

I think if OpenAI genuinely cared about the ethical consequences of the technology, they would realise that any algorithm they release will be replicated in implementation by other people within some short period of time (a year or two). At that point, the cat is out of the bag and there is nothing they can do to prevent abuse. So really all they are doing is delaying abuse, and in no way stopping it.

I think their strong "safety" stance has three functions:

1. Legal protection 2. PR 3. Keeping their researchers' consciences clear

I think number 3 is dangerous because researchers are put under the false belief that their technology can or will be made safe. This way they can continue to harness bright minds that no doubt have ethical leanings to create things that they otherwise wouldn't have.

I think OpenAI are trying to have the cake and eat it too. They are accelerating the development of potentially very destructive algorithms (and profiting from it in the process!), while trying to absolve themselves of the responsibility. Putting bandaids on a tumour is not going to matter in the long run. I'm not necessarily saying that these algorithms will be widely destructive, but they certainly have the potential to be.

The safety approach of OpenAI ultimately boils down to gatekeeping compute power. This is just gatekeeping via capital. Anyone with sufficient money can replicate their models easily and bypass every single one of their safety constraints. Basically they are only preventing poor bad actors, and only for a limited time at that.

These models cannot be made safe as long as they are replicable.

To produce scientific research requires making your results replicable.

Therefore, there is no ability to develop abusable technology in a safe way. As a researcher, you will have blood on your hands if things go wrong.

If you choose to continue research knowing this, that is your decision. But don't pretend that you can make the algorithms safer by sanitizing models.

Re: Dall-E 2

#280

To be honest the Girl with a Pearl Earing "variations" look a little bit like a crime against art. It's like the person who built this has no idea why the Girl with a Pearl Earing is good art. "Here's the Girl with a Pearl Earing " - "OK, well here's some girls with turbans" Art is truth.

> It's like the person who built this has no idea why the Girl with a Pearl Earing is good art.

The people didn't program Dall E how to make art. They taught it to recognize patterns and create something by extrapolating from the patterns, all on its own. So the AI isn't a projection of what they think is good art, it's projecting what it thinks is good art, based on a prompt. The output is its best effort of a feeling, even if the feeling had to be inputted by a living person. So it's still art that's as good as the feeling that it came from-fleeting feelings being lower quality than those that required more time and thought

Post reply on HN