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

Dall-E 2

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 511 posts

Re: Dall-E 2

#471

Post by nemo44x »

JohnBooty wrote: post #406
uoaei wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If people are exposed to stimuli, they will pursue increasingly stimulating versions of it. I.e., if they see artificial CP, they will often begin to become desensitized (habituated) and pursue real CP or even live children thereafter. Conversely, if people are not exposed to certain stimuli, they will never be able to conceptualize them, and thus will be unable to think about them. Obviously you cannot eliminate…

If people are exposed to stimuli, they will pursue increasingly stimulating versions of it. This is not true in any kind of universal way. If you enjoy car chases in movies, does that mean you're going to require more and more intense chase scenes, and then consume real-life crash footage, and ultimately progress to doing your own daredevil driving stunts in real life? No, because at some point it's "enough." Same wi…

> What about sex? Have you had sex? Do you feel the need to seek out crazier and crazier versions of it?

For porn and sex it's different though. Some people are attracted to things that are deviant and taboo. That's the part they're looking for. As pornography has become more widely accepted, a market has developed for more and more extreme forms of it. This has been documented. It's not the content per-se but rather the nature of it that is found attractive. So the idea is to find a line that's reasonable so the people that feel the need to get close to that line can have that urge fulfilled without damaging society.

A market will form for more and more extreme content as soon as the line moves and what was one taboo no longer is. An Overton window of sorts for pornography.

Re: Dall-E 2

#472

Post by nemo44x »

throwaway675309 wrote: post #398
uoaei wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. If people are exposed to stimuli, they will pursue increasingly stimulating versions of it. I.e., if they see artificial CP, they will often begin to become desensitized (habituated) and pursue real CP or even live children thereafter. Conversely, if people are not exposed to certain stimuli, they will never be able to conceptualize them, and thus will be unable to think about them. Obviously you cannot eliminate…

I'm not sure I agree with the statement, you're putting forth a lot of assertions without the actual quantitative data to back up what you're saying, and even though you think it sounds intuitive that doesn't necessarily make it valid. I'd actually argue the reverse, I think you see a lot more effort towards acquiring things that are illegal than you would otherwise.

It's documented well already. The Overton window for pornography has continued to move to more and more extreme forms as what was once considered unacceptable and taboo becomes socially acceptable. It's because there is a market for deviance. Some people are interested in what's taboo and off limits and so long as they are approaching or just crossing that line, they're happy. As we've moved that line these people are no longer happy with the status quo and want content that is taboo, so a new market forms around that.

Pornographers know this and talk about. Read David Foster Wallace's essay on it.

Re: Dall-E 2

#473

Post by uoaei »

ctoth wrote: post #417
uoaei wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is more "can you conceive of a headshot before you've ever witnessed one?" And the assertion is, no. I should be explicit -- I am saying the exposure which makes one seek stimulus is merely a catalyst for deeper urges, not a generator of them as such. A certain level of inhibition (e.g. sociopathy) is required but IMO so is a prior conception of the deed. In your example, if someone is predisposed to wantin…

> "can you conceive of a headshot before you've ever witnessed one?" Am totally blind, have never been able to see, can still conceive of a headshot. So, yes?

"Conceive of" is a different idea than "visualize"...

Re: Dall-E 2

#474

Post by dqpb »

zackmorris wrote: post #459
dqpb wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Juergeb Schmidhuber predicts the “Omega point” of technological development (including AGI) to be around 2040 https://youtu.be/pGftUCTqaGg The MIT Limits to Growth study predicts the collapse of global civilization around 2040 https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/z3xw3x/new-research-vind...

This is my feeling as well, that the rise of AGI conveniently coincides with the end of the world. I find it demoralizing because so many trends look just like that, where solving the ultimate problem results in the destruction of the context in which the original problem resided.

Indeed, once you start down the path of technological development, you enter a race between exponential progress and exponential resource consumption.

Re: Dall-E 2

#475

Post by whateveracct »

Traster wrote: post #270

To be honest the Girl with a Pearl Earing "variations" look a little bit like a crime against art. It's like the person who built this has no idea why the Girl with a Pearl Earing is good art. "Here's the Girl with a Pearl Earing " - "OK, well here's some girls with turbans" Art is truth.

Yeah Dall-E makes stuff that qualifies as art to the eye of a philistine. Makes sense it was built with VC money.

Re: Dall-E 2

#476

Post by whateveracct »

hcks wrote: post #299
ordu wrote: post #204

Dall-E 2 seems to be incapable to catch the essence of the art. I'm not really surprised by it, I'd be surprised a lot if it could. But nevertheless: if you looked in the eye of a Girl With A Pearl Earring[1], you'd be forced to stop and to think what does she have on her mind right now. Or may be you had some other question in your mind, but it really stops people to think. But none of Dall-E interpretations have th…

On the meta level, we are now at the point where the dubious comments downplaying the AI starts arguing on the plane of art criticism

Well that's mostly because the entire conversation in this thread has been calling the generated images Art

Re: Dall-E 2

#478

Post by BlueTemplar »

scotty79 wrote: post #305
ohgodplsno wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you of the idea that we should let everyone get automatic rifles because, after all, pistols exist? Because that is the exact same line of thought. > People believe what they want to believe. Regardless of quality of provided evidence. That is a terrible oversimplification of the mechanics of propaganda. The entire reason for the movements that are popping up is actors flooding people with so much info that they…

I'm sorry. I believe I wasn't direct enough which made you produce metaphor I have no idea how to understand. Let me state my opinion more directly. I'm for developing as much of deep fake technology in the open so that people can internalize that every video they see, every message, every speech should be initially treated as fabricated garbage unrelated to anything that actually happened in reality. Because that's…

South Park creators have jumped on this occasion :

"Sassy Justice with Fred Sassy" (reporting on Deep Fakes) :

https://youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM

Re: Dall-E 2

#479

Post by snek_case »

Jack000 wrote: post #230
snek_case wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe very very short (single-gene) sequences. The thing with DNA is it's the product of evolution. The DNA guides the synthesis of proteins, then the proteins fold into a 3D shape, and they interact with chemicals in their environment based on their shape. In the context of a living being, different genes interact with each other as well. For example, you have certain cells that secrete hormones (many genes needed t…

This is all true, but it doesn't preclude the possibility of generating DNA. Human share a lot of DNA sequences with other animals, and the genetic differences between individual humans are even smaller. You might have trouble generating a human with horns or something, but a taller one is probably mostly an engineering problem. What GPT-3 and DALL-E shows is that you can infer a lot based on the latent structure of…

Deep learning is probably not the right tool to generate a taller human. We've mapped the human genome. You could probably create a statistical model that pretty accurately maps different versions of genes to height. Then it would mostly be a question of swapping different versions of genes to get the result you want. With a statistical model, you would need a relatively small dataset (hundreds, or thousands of human genomes), and you wouldn't have to worry about errors being introduced.

Re: Dall-E 2

#480

Post by causticcup »

zackmorris wrote: post #462
causticcup wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost everything stated here is simply wrong or misinformed. >For example, I went to an AI talk about 5 years ago where the guy said that any of a dozen algorithms like K-Nearest Neighbor, K-Means Clustering, Simulated Annealing, Neural Nets, Genetic Algorithms, etc can all be adapted to any use case. They just have different strengths and weaknesses. At that time, all that really mattered was how the data was prepa…

I appreciate your sentiment but can't agree with it. What I mean is, if I had the resources to not have to work for 10 years, I give myself greater than a 50% chance of building an AGI. So I don't understand why the world is taking so long to do it. The flip side is that these narrow use cases progressed so quickly that we have to worry about stuff like deep fakes now. Something's not right here. As a programmer, I f…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN