301–310 of 519 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've also built a similar service[1] that does this with inpainting instead of textual inversion, so it preserves the face exactly and returns in seconds, not hours. [1] - https://app.gooey.ai/FaceInpainting/
doesn't show any controls after the loading banner in my Firefox
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have... ~11TBs of free disk space and a 1080ti. Obviously nowhere close to being able to crunch all of Wikimedia Commons, but I'm also not trying to beat Stability AI at their own game. I just want to move the arguments people have about art generators beyond "this is unethical copyright laundering" and "the model is taking reference just like a real human".
To put things in perspective, the dataset it's trained on is ~240TB and Stability has over ~4000 Nvidia A100 (which is much faster than a 1080ti). Without those ingredients, you're highly unlikely to get a model that's worth using (it'll produce mostly useless outputs). That argument also makes little sense when you consider that the model is a couple gigabytes itself, it can't memorize 240TB of data, so it "learned"…
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdiD-9MMpb0 Lex Fridman podcast with Andrej Karpathy
P.S. To counteract that (unintentionally actually, likely because of a simple optimization of instruments' duty cycle) in astronomy people come up with a concept of "observatory" (Like Hubble, JWST) instead of "experiment" (like LHC, HESS telescopes) where outside people can submit their proposals, and if selected get observational time. Along with raw data authors of the proposals get required expertise from the collaboration to process and analyze that data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When our c suite decides on an ad campaign and tells our artists to draw normal humans, those people have 3 legs or upside down teeth exactly 0% of the time. Humans have many many limitations, but with every model I’ve tested there’s a set of errors that would virtually never be made by any human.
> with every model I’ve tested there’s a set of errors that would virtually never be made by any human I guess you've never seen my drawings...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah I am glad to see someone else talking about using public domain images! Honestly it baffles me that in all this discussion, I rarely see people discussing how to do this with appropriately licensed images. There are some pretty large datasets out there of public images, and doing so might even help encourage more people to contribute to open datasets. Also if the big ML companies HAD to use open images, they would…
Human artists derive their inspiration and styles from a large set of copyrighted works, but they are free to produce new art despite of that. Art would have developed much slower and be much poorer if, for example, Impressionism or Cubism had been entangled in long ownership confrontations in courts. Then there's the fact that humanity has been able to develop and share art and literary works for thousands of years…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've also built a similar service[1] that does this with inpainting instead of textual inversion, so it preserves the face exactly and returns in seconds, not hours. [1] - https://app.gooey.ai/FaceInpainting/
doesn't show any controls after the loading banner in my Firefox
Here's the bug that caused this too - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1689099
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Porn has driven many tech advances. I predict that models trained on specific porn genres will appear as soon as training a good model is doable for under $5000. They’ll get here much quicker if we get video to that mark first.
You could probably already get people to pay for a subscription to generate images. Wouldn't be surprised if someone is already working on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They know they are going to be the next target in the war on general purpose computing. They're trying to stave it off for as long as possible by signalling to the authorities that they are the good guys. A confrontation is inevitable, though. Right now it costs moderate sums of money to do this level of training. Not always will this be so. If I were an AI-centric organization, I would be racing to position myself a…
Banknote printing is primarily protected against on the hardware level of printers, no? With the nigh-invisible unique watermark left by every printer, there’s virtually no way you’d get away with it. My guess is that the Photoshop filter exists mostly as a barrier against the crime of convenience.
Hopefully related: If I'm a photographer wanting to improve resolution of my content for printing, what's my current best bet for upscaling? Is it realistic to make use of this on the command line, feeding it my own images? Or has someone wrapped it in an app or online service?
As a counter-recommendation, Topaz’s much-advertised Gigapixel AI is rarely useful. Their Denoise and Sharpen apps are good though.
[1] The new Photo AI, on the other hand, is slow, clunky, and not infrequently glitches out wildly. But on the plus side it does combine sharpening and denoising into one workflow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banknote printing is primarily protected against on the hardware level of printers, no? With the nigh-invisible unique watermark left by every printer, there’s virtually no way you’d get away with it. My guess is that the Photoshop filter exists mostly as a barrier against the crime of convenience.
It’s possible that the end game is hardware in GPUs, to detect whatever they want to prevent, before it’s displayed.
Indeed, what they're already doing is already hobbling the models.
Emad is right that we learn new things from the creativity unleashed by accessible models that can be run (and even fine tuned) or consumer hardware.
But judging from what people post, one thing we learn is that it seems models fine tuned on porn (such as the notorious f222 and its derivative Hassan's blend) can be quite a bit better at non-porn generation of diverse, photorealistic faces and hands too.