Live data from Hacker News

Dall-E 2

openai.com

331–340 of 511 posts

Re: Dall-E 2

#331

>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

People take their experiences of porn into real relationships, so I do not think this removes suffering overall, no.

Re: Dall-E 2

#332
post #290

I've been playing around with it today and have been super impressed with its ability to generate pretty artful digital paintings. Could have big implications for designers and artists if and when they allow you use custom palettes, etc. Here's an example from my prompt ("a group of farmers picking lettuce in a field digital painting"): https://labs.openai.com/s/jb5pzIdTjS3AkMvmAlx69t7G

Neat! Were you part of the initial testing batch or granted access via waitlist?

Re: Dall-E 2

#333
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you went to an artist who takes commissions and they said "Here are the guidelines around the commissions I take" would you complain in the same way? Who cares if it's a bunch of engineers or an artist. If they have boundaries on what they want to create, that's their prerogative.

Of course it's their prerogative, we can still talk about how they've limited some good options. I think your analogy is poor, because this is a tool for makers. The engineers aren't the makers. I think a more apt analogy is if John Deere made a universal harvester that you could use for any crop, but they decided they didn't like soybeans so you are forbidden to use it for that. In that case, yes I would complain, a…

I think there's an interesting parallel between your John Deere harvester and the Nvidia GPUs that can-but-restricts crypto mining, which people have, indeed, largely complained about.

Re: Dall-E 2

#334

>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

I suspect that if a free version of this comes out and allows adult image generation, 90% of what it will be used for is adult stuff (see the kerfuffle with AIDungeon).

I can get why the people who worked hard on it and spent money building it don't want to be associated with porn.

Re: Dall-E 2

#335
post #95
post #19

Am I the only one to think that the AI world is divided into 2 groups: 1. Deepmind, who solved go, protein folding, and that seems really onto something. 2. Everyone else, spending billions to build machines that draw astronauts on unicorns, and smartish bot toys.

Your second group represents the core "inner loop" of about a thousand revolutionary applications. Take the basic capability of translating image->text->speech (and the reverse), install it on a wearable device that can "see" an environment, and add domain-specific agents. From this setup, you're not too far away from having an AI that can whisper guidance into your ear like a co-pilot, enabling scenarios like: 1. st…

These are good examples of what we're getting close to, but I'd add that Copilot is already an extremely helpful tool for coding. I don't blindly trust its output, but its suggestions are what I want often enough to save a lot of typing.

I still have to do all the hard thinking, but once I figure out what I want written and start typing, Copilot will spit out a good portion of the contextually-obvious lines of code.

Re: Dall-E 2

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what they demo - they lock a scene and add a flamingo in three different locations. In another one they lock the scene and add a corgi.

Not quite, it looks like this: - Provide an existing image - Provide a text prompt ("flamingo") - Select from X variations the new image that looks best to you - It does the equivalent of a google image search on your "flamingo" prompt - It picks the most blend-able ones as a basis to a new synthetic flamingo - It superimposes the result on your image Very cool don't get me wrong. Now I want to tweak this new floatin…

That's not how this works. There is no 'search' step, there is no 'superimposing' step. It's not really possible to explain what the AI is doing using these concepts.

If you pay attention to all the corgi examples, the sofa texture changes in each of them, and it synthesizes shadows in the right orientation - that's what it's trained to do. The first one actually does give you the impression of weight. And if you look at "A bowl of soup that looks like a monster knitted out of wool" the bowl is clearly weighing down. I bet if the picture had a more fluffy sofa you would indeed see the corgi making an indent on it, as it will have learned that from its training set.

Of course there will be limits to how much you can edit, but then nothing stops you from pulling that into Photoshop for extra fine adjustments of your own. This is far from a 'cool trick' and many of those images would take hours for a human to reproduce, especially with complex textures like the Teddy Bear ones. And note how they also have consistent specular reflections in all the glass materials.

Re: Dall-E 2

#337
post #316
post #59

I'm only part way through the paper, but what struck me as interesting so far is this: In other text-to-image algorithms I'm familiar with (the ones you'll typically see passed around as colab notebooks that people post outputs from on Twitter), the basic idea is to encode the text, and then try to make an image that maximally matches that text encoding. But this maximization often leads to artifacts - if you ask for…

While the whole narrative of your comment totally makes sense, I don't really see the difference between the two approaches, not on a conceptual level. You still needed to train this so called "prior" at some point (so, I'm also not sure if it's fair to call it a "prior"). I mean, the difference between your two descriptions seems to be the difference between descriptions (i.e., how you chose to name individual parts…

Yeah, my comment didn't really do a good job of making clear that distinction. Obviously the details are pretty technical, but maybe I can give a high-level explanation.

The previous systems I was talking about work something like this: "Try to find me the image the looks like it most matches 'a picture of a sunset'. Do this by repeatedly updating your image to make it look more and more like a sunset." Well, what looks more like a sunset? Two sunsets! Three sunsets! But this is not normally the way images are produced - if you hire an artist to make you a picture of a bear, they don't endeavor to create the most "bear" image possible.

Instead, what an artist might do is envision a bear in their head (this is loosely the job of the 'prior' - a name I agree is confusing), and then draw that particular bear image.

But why is this any different? Who cares if the vector I'm trying to draw is a 'text encoding' or an 'image encoding'? Like you say, it's all just vectors. Take this answer with a big grain of salt, because this is just my personal intuitive understanding, but here's what I think: These encodings are produced by CLIP. CLIP has a text encoder and an image encoder. During training, you give it a text caption and a corresponding image, it encodes both, and tries to make the two encodings close. But there are many images which might accompany the caption "a picture of a bear". And conversely there are many captions which might accompany any given picture.

So the text encoding of "a picture of a bear" isn't really a good target - it sort of represents an amalgamation of all the possible bear pictures. It's better to pick one bear picture (i.e. generate one image embedding that we think matches the text embedding), and then just to try to draw that. Doing it this way, we aren't just trying to find the maximum bear picture - which probably doesn't even look like a realistic natural image.

Like I said, this is just my personal intuition, and may very well be a load of crap.

Re: Dall-E 2

#338

>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,…

I don't think it's necessarily certain villainy for those who fight that fight as long as they are fighting it correctly.

There's a huge case to be made that flooding the darknet with AI generated CP reduces the revictimization of those in authentic CP images, and would cut down on the motivating factors to produce authentic CP (for which original production is often a requirement to join CP distribution rings).

As well, I have wondered for a long time how the development of AI generated CP could be used in treatment settings, such as (a) providing access to victimless images in exchange for registration and undergoing treatment, and (b) exploring if possible to manipulate generated images over time to gradually "age up" attraction, such as learning what characteristics are being selected for and aging the others until you end up with someone attracted to youthful faces on adult bodies or adult faces on bodies with smaller sexual characteristics, etc - ideally finding a middle ground that allows for rewiring attraction to a point they can find fulfilling partnerships with consenting adults/sex workers.

As a society we largely just sweep the existence of pedophiles under the rug, and that certainly hasn't helped protect people - nearly one in four are victims of sexual abuse before adulthood, and that tracks with my own social circle.

Maybe it's time to all grow up and recognize it as a systemic social issue for which new and novel approaches may be necessary, and AI seems like a tool with very high potential for doing just that while reducing harm on victims in broad swaths.

I'd not be that happy with an 8chan AI just spitting out CP images, but I'd be very happy with groups currently working on the issue from a treatment or victim-focus having the ability to change the script however they can with the availability of victimless CP content.

Re: Dall-E 2

#339
My main question is - is this really 'open' meaningfully? And are concepts of kindness and freedom being applied to the minds inside the boxes? I dont know where the 'openai' brand is at on these things personally.

Re: Dall-E 2

#340
post #290

I've been playing around with it today and have been super impressed with its ability to generate pretty artful digital paintings. Could have big implications for designers and artists if and when they allow you use custom palettes, etc. Here's an example from my prompt ("a group of farmers picking lettuce in a field digital painting"): https://labs.openai.com/s/jb5pzIdTjS3AkMvmAlx69t7G

Neat! Were you part of the initial testing batch or granted access via waitlist?

I was invited
Post reply on HN