Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Style2Paints: AI colorization of images

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: Style2Paints: AI colorization of images

#41

Post by KGIII »

Houshalter wrote: post #29
Jack000 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism = greedy optimization with a Bayesian assumption. It tends to get stuck in local maxima and does weird things when the inputs are biased, but otherwise works ok. There are almost certainly better ways to search the solution space, but most serious attempts attempts thus far have been non-sensical or impractical.

No one objects that capitalism isn't a good optimization processes. Just that it's optimizing the wrong utility function. At one point something like 50% of STEM majors at MIT went to work on wall street. And the ones that don't go there go to work making more efficient targeted advertisements or addictive smartphone games or other unethical shit. Our population has a limited number of "smart people". I don't think a…

They may be smart, but they are still humans. You can't ethically assign them to career paths based on some vision of social good. That goes against the whole free agency thing and I'm pretty sure we've decided it's a horrible way to treat people.

That's well over the line into dictator territory. The results never match the predictions in the brochure. That's pretty much a sure fire way to get a tribunal convened at the Hague or a not-friendly visit from a SEAL team.

Re: Style2Paints: AI colorization of images

#43

Post by avian »

myrryr wrote: post #15

This is amazing. Do you think it would be possible to keep the coloring constant across an animation? If so, you will certainly have a market for this. The coloring work in animation take a lot of time and is very expensive.

I tried Style2Paints on a simple animation I did a while back. No manual color hints. I just played a bit with the references and settings in the web interface and used the provided models. The input were uncolored outlines. Considering it has very little in common with the anime training set I think it looks promising.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZixy1cXQPE

Re: Style2Paints: AI colorization of images

#44

Post by mrmondo »

imaginenore wrote: post #36
mrmondo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, they seem somewhat hypersexualised for their suggested age or at least hypersensualised to some extent. Furthermore, and this is purely my opinion of course - they seem a bit... tacky(?) and I must admit if I had opened this link at work I would have been a bit embarrassed if someone cartoons of young girls like this on my display. Perhaps at least a more diverse range of sketches would be both more relatable…

How do you guys determine their age or even gender? These are fictional characters, they can be 500 years old and have 3 penises.

One of the first images has a girl in what appears to be a school uniform...

Re: Style2Paints: AI colorization of images

#45

Post by imaginenore »

mrmondo wrote: post #44
imaginenore wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you guys determine their age or even gender? These are fictional characters, they can be 500 years old and have 3 penises.

One of the first images has a girl in what appears to be a school uniform...

And that tells you what exactly? How do you know it's not a trans guy?

You see, you can't tell the age, you can't tell the gender, because they are not real.

Re: Style2Paints: AI colorization of images

#46

Post by Houshalter »

KGIII wrote: post #41
Houshalter wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one objects that capitalism isn't a good optimization processes. Just that it's optimizing the wrong utility function. At one point something like 50% of STEM majors at MIT went to work on wall street. And the ones that don't go there go to work making more efficient targeted advertisements or addictive smartphone games or other unethical shit. Our population has a limited number of "smart people". I don't think a…

They may be smart, but they are still humans. You can't ethically assign them to career paths based on some vision of social good. That goes against the whole free agency thing and I'm pretty sure we've decided it's a horrible way to treat people. That's well over the line into dictator territory. The results never match the predictions in the brochure. That's pretty much a sure fire way to get a tribunal convened at…

Capitalism already assigns people career paths. How is that any more ethical? Not many kids grow up saying "I want to work on Wall Street" or "I want to make better targeted advertising." They go into those careers because they offer piles of money, and the jobs they might want to do don't. We could fix that.

Re: Style2Paints: AI colorization of images

#47

Post by KGIII »

Houshalter wrote: post #46
KGIII wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may be smart, but they are still humans. You can't ethically assign them to career paths based on some vision of social good. That goes against the whole free agency thing and I'm pretty sure we've decided it's a horrible way to treat people. That's well over the line into dictator territory. The results never match the predictions in the brochure. That's pretty much a sure fire way to get a tribunal convened at…

Capitalism already assigns people career paths. How is that any more ethical? Not many kids grow up saying "I want to work on Wall Street" or "I want to make better targeted advertising." They go into those careers because they offer piles of money, and the jobs they might want to do don't. We could fix that.

No, it doesn't assign them, they choose them. Many people don't decide on a career path based on the greatest salary potential, but on things they enjoy, problems that interest them, and places they want to be.

We are humans, not unthinking machines.

Re: Style2Paints: AI colorization of images

#48

Post by Houshalter »

KGIII wrote: post #47
Houshalter wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism already assigns people career paths. How is that any more ethical? Not many kids grow up saying "I want to work on Wall Street" or "I want to make better targeted advertising." They go into those careers because they offer piles of money, and the jobs they might want to do don't. We could fix that.

No, it doesn't assign them, they choose them. Many people don't decide on a career path based on the greatest salary potential, but on things they enjoy, problems that interest them, and places they want to be. We are humans, not unthinking machines.

I think empirically people do choose jobs because of money. Otherwise why would Wall Street firms pay so well to attract talent? Why would people go to work there if they didn't care about money?

Re: Style2Paints: AI colorization of images

#49

Post by KGIII »

Houshalter wrote: post #48
KGIII wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't assign them, they choose them. Many people don't decide on a career path based on the greatest salary potential, but on things they enjoy, problems that interest them, and places they want to be. We are humans, not unthinking machines.

I think empirically people do choose jobs because of money. Otherwise why would Wall Street firms pay so well to attract talent? Why would people go to work there if they didn't care about money?

That's a very small number of people, not all of whom are well paid. The work is intellectually stimulating and has the ability to have far-reaching impacts.

I think you're confusing empirically for being significant numerically. I will offer a counter for your Wall Street example, look at how many go into teaching.

Re: Style2Paints: AI colorization of images

#50

Post by Houshalter »

KGIII wrote: post #49
Houshalter wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think empirically people do choose jobs because of money. Otherwise why would Wall Street firms pay so well to attract talent? Why would people go to work there if they didn't care about money?

That's a very small number of people, not all of whom are well paid. The work is intellectually stimulating and has the ability to have far-reaching impacts. I think you're confusing empirically for being significant numerically. I will offer a counter for your Wall Street example, look at how many go into teaching.

>That's a very small number of people, not all of whom are well paid.

By 2006 about a quarter of MITs entire graduating class went to Wall Street. Some firms were offering $400K salaries to junior level positions. They weren't just taking huge numbers of people, but the ones they were taking were the best of the best. Other companies at the time had a terrible time recruiting anyone because they couldn't compete with that kind of money.

The problem with this is I don't think these firms are actually doing anything productive for society. The amount of work, money, and resources that go into getting a nanosecond edge for high frequency trading is just obscene. And all of the stuff they develop must be kept top secret and under NDAs. So even if they invent something cool by chance, they can't share it with the world or let anyone else benefit from it.

Post reply on HN