Live data from Hacker News

No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

oneusefulthing.org

281–290 of 373 posts

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#281
post #3

This is a before/after moment for image generation. A simple example is the background images on a ton of (mediocre) music youtube channels. They almost all use AI generated images that are full of nonsense the closer you look. Jazz channels will feature coffee shops with garbled text on the menu and furniture blending together. I bet all of that disappears over the next few months. On another note, and perhaps other…

Image generation is still very slow. If it generated many images instantly like Google’s image search, it would be a lot more fun to use, and we would learn to use it more effectively with practice.

>Image generation is still very slow.

Only because the free ones slow things down.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#282

There is circumstantial evidence out there that 4o image manipulation isn't done within the 4o image generator in one shot but is a workflow done by an agentic system. Meaning this, user inputs prompt "create an image with no elephants in the room" > prompt goes to an llm which preprocesses the human prompt > outputs a a prompt that it knows works withing this image generator well > create an image of a room > and th…

>This is because in the workflow that is one of the steps that is naively applied without consideration of multi edit possibility. If this was a one shot solution where editing is done within 4o image model by itself, the sepia problem wouldn't be there.

I don't really see that with chatgpt, what I do see is that it's presumably running the same basic query with just whatever you said different each time instead of modifying the existing image. Like if you say "generate a photo of a woman", and get a pic and then say "make her hair blonde", the new image is likely to also have different facial features.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#1, it’s extremely easy to coerce direct copies out of models that artists could be pursued for infringement if they drew, but companies reselling said copyrighted artwork face no penalty #2, yes, it’s a group of people who came together to build an algorithm that learns to extract features learned from images made by other people in order to generate images somewhere between these images in a high dimensional space.…

> it’s extremely easy to coerce direct copies out of models that artists could be pursued for infringement if they drew, but companies reselling said copyrighted artwork face no penalty The purpose of the model isn't to make exact reproductions. It's like saying you can use the internet for copyright infringement. You can, but it's the user who chooses the use, so is that on AT&T and Microsoft or is it on the users d…

>It's like saying you can use the internet for copyright infringement.

I think that a comparison that could help to elucidate the problem here is to a search engine. Like with imagegen, an image search is using infrastructure+algorithm to return the closest match(es) to a textual input over some particular space (whether the space of indexed images or the latent space of the model). Immediately, however, there are qualitative differences. A search company, as an entity, doesn’t in any way take credit for the work; it bills itself as, and operates as, a mechanism to connect the user to others’ work, and in the service of this goal it provides the most attribution it’s reasonably able to provide given technical limitations (a url).

For me this is the difference. Image gen companies, at least all that I’m aware of, position themselves more as a kind of pseudo-artist that you can commission. They provide no means of attribution, rather, they deliberately obfuscate the source material being searched over. Whether you are willing to equate the generation process to a kind of search for legal purposes is really the core disagreement here, and beyond an intuition for it not something I feel I can prove.

So what’s the solution, what’s a business model I’d find less contentious? If an AI company developed a means to, for example, associate activation patterns to an index of source material, (or hell, just provided an effective similarity search between output and training data) as a sort of good-faith attribution scheme, made visible the training set used, and was upfront in marketing about its dependence on the source material, I’d struggle to have the same issues with it. It would be leagues ahead of current companies in the ethical department. To be clear though, I’m not a lawyer. I can’t say how image gen fits into the current legal scheme, or whether it does or doesn’t. My argument is an ethical one; I think that the unethical behavior of the for-profit imagegen companies should be hampered by legality, through new laws if necessary. I feel like this should answer your other questions as well but let me know if I missed something.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#284
post #176
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nearly every artist I've spoken to or have seen talk about this technology says it's evil, so at least among the victims of this corporate abuse of the creative community, there's wide consensus that it's bad. > but I certainly don't think that AI without restrictions is going to lead to fewer people with art jobs. It's great that you think that but in reality a lot of artists are saying they're getting less work the…

>in reality a lot of artists are saying they're getting less work these days

Good. That means we as a society get more art cheaper. I've long since grown tired of sponsoring greed of artists.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#285
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's unfair for artists to have their works sucked up I never thought it was unfair to artists for others to look at their work and imitate it. That seems to me to be what artists have been doing since the second caveman looked at a hand painting on a cave wall and thought, ‘huh, that’s pretty neat! I’d like to try my hand at that!’

You don't see a massive difference in the shear number of images that the AI can look at and the speed at which it can imitate it as a fundamental difference between AI and a human copying works or styles? For a human it took a lot of practice and a lot of time and effort. But now it takes practically no time or effort at all.

>For a human it took a lot of practice and a lot of time and effort. But now it takes practically no time or effort at all.

And why is this not a good thing?

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#286
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's unfair for artists to have their works sucked up I never thought it was unfair to artists for others to look at their work and imitate it. That seems to me to be what artists have been doing since the second caveman looked at a hand painting on a cave wall and thought, ‘huh, that’s pretty neat! I’d like to try my hand at that!’

You don't see a massive difference in the shear number of images that the AI can look at and the speed at which it can imitate it as a fundamental difference between AI and a human copying works or styles? For a human it took a lot of practice and a lot of time and effort. But now it takes practically no time or effort at all.

>You don't see a massive difference in the shear number of images that the AI can look at and the speed at which it can imitate it as a fundamental difference between AI and a human copying works or styles?

I don't.

>For a human it took a lot of practice and a lot of time and effort. But now it takes practically no time or effort at all.

So effort is what makes it ok?

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#287

> 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…

> and then we more or less agreed that it's unfair for artists to have their works sucked up with no recourse.

No we didn't agree with that.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#288
post #3

This is a before/after moment for image generation. A simple example is the background images on a ton of (mediocre) music youtube channels. They almost all use AI generated images that are full of nonsense the closer you look. Jazz channels will feature coffee shops with garbled text on the menu and furniture blending together. I bet all of that disappears over the next few months. On another note, and perhaps other…

A restaurant near me has a framed monitor that displays some animated art with a scene of a cafe on a street corner. I looked closely and realized it was AI. Chairs were melted together, text was gibberish, trees were not branching properly etc.

If a local restaurant is using this stuff we're near an inflection point of adoption.

Re: No elephants: Breakthroughs in image generation

#290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting philosophy, what is this predicated on? Do you mean that people should not have to work for a living, ie labor versus play?

Is that not self evident? When people engage in labor for the task itself (as opposed to a heavily abstracted version of not wanting to starve) we generally refer to that as a hobby. So stating that people shouldn't need to worry about starving (metaphorically or otherwise) would be roughly equivalent.

What do you mean? For example, are vets or artists working to pay their bills laboring or practicing a hobby?
Post reply on HN