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

How Imagen Works

assemblyai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 104 posts

Re: How Imagen Works

#41

Post by clircle »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #17

I have shown imagen (and dalle2) to a number of people now (non-tech, just everyday friends, family, co-workers) and I have been pretty stunned by the response I get from most people: "Meh, that's kinda cool? I guess?" or "What am I looking at?"..."Ok? So a computer made it? That seems neat" To me I am still trying to get my jaw off the floor from 2 months ago. But the responses have been so muted and shoulder shrugg…

People dont care because all their text to image needs are well covered by Google Images.

Re: How Imagen Works

#42

Post by SleekEagle »

varispeed wrote: post #32

> is trained on hundreds of millions of images and their associated captions So how do you get access to hundreds of millions of images and use them to create derivative works? Did they get consent from millions of authors? Or is something like that only available to the rich with access to lawyers on tap? I mean I can imagine if a nobody wanted to do something like this, they'd get bankrupted by having to deal with…

Presumably Google's terms of service or fair use laws. The real restriction is that, even if you had the dataset, training costs tens of thousands of dollars. Only corporations can really afford to train these things.

Regarding music - audio generation with Diffusion Models (the main component of Imagen and DALL-E 2) has been done, but not sure about music specifically. We will definitely reach the point where most e.g. pop beats will be able to be made by AI relatively soon.

All a producer has to do is generate 100 beats and select the one s/he likes, potentially interpolate between 2 or finetune it.

Re: How Imagen Works

#43

Post by davikr »

varispeed wrote: post #32

> is trained on hundreds of millions of images and their associated captions So how do you get access to hundreds of millions of images and use them to create derivative works? Did they get consent from millions of authors? Or is something like that only available to the rich with access to lawyers on tap? I mean I can imagine if a nobody wanted to do something like this, they'd get bankrupted by having to deal with…

I've seen an image generated by AI contain an "Alamy" watermark before.

Re: How Imagen Works

#44

Post by danielvaughn »

joshcryer wrote: post #23
Workaccount2 wrote: post #17

I have shown imagen (and dalle2) to a number of people now (non-tech, just everyday friends, family, co-workers) and I have been pretty stunned by the response I get from most people: "Meh, that's kinda cool? I guess?" or "What am I looking at?"..."Ok? So a computer made it? That seems neat" To me I am still trying to get my jaw off the floor from 2 months ago. But the responses have been so muted and shoulder shrugg…

I've made perhaps overly absolutist statements like "don't you see! this kills artists jobs!" and it was shrugged off as if I was insane. I probably could've phrased it differently, but to me this is game changing in several fields. Granted, it will open up a new field of "generative artists" but, having played with these things, this is a pretty trivial job, and their training nets are only going to get better .

To me, it paves the way for creative prototyping. I don't see this as a zero-sum game between artists and AI. Instead, I could see artists using this for some serious time saving, and leveraging that extra time and energy for creating better results.

Re: How Imagen Works

#45

Post by bergenty »

trention wrote: post #26
Workaccount2 wrote: post #17

I have shown imagen (and dalle2) to a number of people now (non-tech, just everyday friends, family, co-workers) and I have been pretty stunned by the response I get from most people: "Meh, that's kinda cool? I guess?" or "What am I looking at?"..."Ok? So a computer made it? That seems neat" To me I am still trying to get my jaw off the floor from 2 months ago. But the responses have been so muted and shoulder shrugg…

It's just an illustration of the fact that the average person doesn't give a sh*t about AI "art" and that it will have ~zero cost and ~zero value.

With the amount of context awareness this AI has, there’s nothing all that special about human “art” to be honest.

Re: How Imagen Works

#46

Post by mortenjorck »

dougmwne wrote: post #33
Workaccount2 wrote: post #17

I have shown imagen (and dalle2) to a number of people now (non-tech, just everyday friends, family, co-workers) and I have been pretty stunned by the response I get from most people: "Meh, that's kinda cool? I guess?" or "What am I looking at?"..."Ok? So a computer made it? That seems neat" To me I am still trying to get my jaw off the floor from 2 months ago. But the responses have been so muted and shoulder shrugg…

I think I can explain this that for most people the whole world is basically magic anyway. They don’t understand any of the details about how any digital tech works so to them they have no framework for which things are impressive and which things are not. The just know that computers can do a great many things that they know nothing about. “Oh I can bank online? Ok.” “Oh, I can have the computer write my book report…

This is the other side of the classic XKCD "Tasks" (https://xkcd.com/1425/).

A non-technical person in 2014 (when the above was originally published) would likely have the same conception of the difficulty of recognizing a bird from an image as they would in 2022, even though the task itself has gone from near-insurmountable to off-the-shelf-library in eight years.

Even as Imagen and Dall-E 2 amaze us today, these feats will likely be commonplace in a few years. The non-technical may have only a vague sense that their new TikTok filter is doing something that was impossible only a few years prior.

Re: How Imagen Works

#47

Post by GrabbinD33ze69 »

dougmwne wrote: post #33
Workaccount2 wrote: post #17

I have shown imagen (and dalle2) to a number of people now (non-tech, just everyday friends, family, co-workers) and I have been pretty stunned by the response I get from most people: "Meh, that's kinda cool? I guess?" or "What am I looking at?"..."Ok? So a computer made it? That seems neat" To me I am still trying to get my jaw off the floor from 2 months ago. But the responses have been so muted and shoulder shrugg…

I think I can explain this that for most people the whole world is basically magic anyway. They don’t understand any of the details about how any digital tech works so to them they have no framework for which things are impressive and which things are not. The just know that computers can do a great many things that they know nothing about. “Oh I can bank online? Ok.” “Oh, I can have the computer write my book report…

A pretty common generalization I've witnessed is many non technical people (even people who are tech savvy but have no CS background do this) is people assuming the feature that is in reality quite difficult to implement won't take much effort, and vice versa.

Re: How Imagen Works

#48

Post by trention »

bergenty wrote: post #45
trention wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just an illustration of the fact that the average person doesn't give a sh*t about AI "art" and that it will have ~zero cost and ~zero value.

With the amount of context awareness this AI has, there’s nothing all that special about human “art” to be honest.

I am willing to bet that the revenue from AI-generated "art" will be smaller than the revenue from human-generated art in 5 years (or even 10 years) despite the former probably being at least 2 orders of magnitude higher in volume. This is basic supply and demand + acknowledging the fact that humans don't care about AI "achievements".

Re: How Imagen Works

#49

Post by Miraste »

trention wrote: post #26
Workaccount2 wrote: post #17

I have shown imagen (and dalle2) to a number of people now (non-tech, just everyday friends, family, co-workers) and I have been pretty stunned by the response I get from most people: "Meh, that's kinda cool? I guess?" or "What am I looking at?"..."Ok? So a computer made it? That seems neat" To me I am still trying to get my jaw off the floor from 2 months ago. But the responses have been so muted and shoulder shrugg…

It's just an illustration of the fact that the average person doesn't give a sh*t about AI "art" and that it will have ~zero cost and ~zero value.

The apocryphal Henry Ford quote about the average person wanting better horses comes to mind. People off the street have no concept of the impact this tech and the methods behind it will have. Sure, no one is going to be printing these and hanging them in museums. Very few artists support themselves that way, though. The people diffusion models are coming for are the graphic designers, the concept artists, the marketers, and everyone else with a copy of Photoshop and a Getty subscription. GPT-3 is amazing, but it's also not good enough to be useful. Imagen is industry-destroying.

Re: How Imagen Works

#50

Post by trention »

Miraste wrote: post #49
trention wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just an illustration of the fact that the average person doesn't give a sh*t about AI "art" and that it will have ~zero cost and ~zero value.

The apocryphal Henry Ford quote about the average person wanting better horses comes to mind. People off the street have no concept of the impact this tech and the methods behind it will have. Sure, no one is going to be printing these and hanging them in museums. Very few artists support themselves that way, though. The people diffusion models are coming for are the graphic designers, the concept artists, the market…

Although I agree that a somehow less extreme version of that will happen in the course of this decade bar a legal decision to prohibit using those models, that won't translate to comparable revenues. The companies providing those services will struggle to make even 10% of the salaries of the displaced workers in revenue. In fact, this will probably be a GDP-destroying (though not value-destroying) application of technology.
Post reply on HN