321–330 of 421 posts
> Thanks to our advanced AI algorithms, you won’t tell generated humans from real people If the images posted are the best they can do, then i have some bad news from them
The first image i generated was worse than that A mermaid with plastic looking skin, and badly rendered ocean water in background. https://generated.photos/human-generator/64d6dde03af7f90007c...
I know that currently AI is the hot topic, but if you want to generate pictures of well-known objects like humans, why not just render a 3D model of a human? Something like Poser (the software) is way more efficient than any GAN or diffusion model. But Poser is 28 years old now, I guess it doesn't attract sweet VC money.
This exists! https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/metahuman
> “If you want to use images produced by Human Generator in commercial projects, contact us.” If there is no copyright in AI-generated images, then how can they possibly enforce this?
How could they enforce it? For example, by embedding a steganographic tag, by which human rights activists will be able to identify the author of the picture.
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_id...
I get that most of these are hilarious (this is my favorite comment on HN in some time, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37239909 ). But still, I find this incredibly frightening. These are only going to get better. Does anyone doubt that in a couple years time (if that) we'll be able to put the image of any known public person into whatever generated photo we want, which would be indistinguishable from reality?…
I'm in full-bore accelerationist agreement with this point. Defense lawyers must love this.
What I find sketchy is that it is not easy to find out who is behind this service. The norm is an about us or a link to a parent site. Briefly skimmed the legalese (ToS & Privacy) and still not clear who these people or where they operate from. The linkedin link shows 8 people working there, mostly in BD from outside the US. I don't think there is a nefarious purpose going on, i.e. getting people to sign up and steal…
It could be an attempt at entrapment by a hostile foreign power attempting to get blackmail material on western engineers by tricking people into accidentally viewing CSAM, and then leveraging that to try to turn western engineers into unwilling foreign agents by blackmailing them with the threat of turning them in to law enforcement and/or ruining their marriage. I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory but this…
Yes but why North Korea? This sounds like US 3 letter propaganda from a decade ago
It would be China looking to Exfiltrate IP/Data as that data war has already begun. See : Azure keys.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re suggesting that perhaps allowing people to explore an urge that should be fought and suppressed might dissuade them from pushing that urge further resulting in real-world action? Fascinating, do tell me more. Blatant disregard for children aside, the larger issue here is the presupposition that we should someone permit all urges. Not every thought that passes through your brain should be “explored”; some thing…
Not suggesting either, just putting forward a hypothetical possibility. The idea of using AI to generate kiddy porn is off-putting to me in the extreme, and I can think of plenty of reasons why it's almost certainly a bad idea to permit it, but I'd be wary of relying primarily on my instinctual aversion to it to be so certain it should be banned outright.
Keep in mind that science can tell any story you want it to tell as long as you interpret the data in the way you need. That’s why some things, such as our children, cannot be left to slippery slopes such as this.
We’ve already got more than enough data proving that pornography is absolutely destructive and a net negative on all of humanity. I don’t think we need additional data to prove that bringing kids into the mix would somehow make it better.
So this is a fit Icelandic, adult, woman: https://generated.photos/human-generator/64e6ff848448b800095... Radiation levels??
Also, what the hell was this trained on?!?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
An AI-generated image is just a drawing, not a real human.
Seems like you'd want huge amounts of photos of people (abundant publicly, though not necessarily free for use) with huge amounts of tagging for assorted clothes, body styles, accessories, nationalities, scene types (arduous?).