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

481–490 of 511 posts

Re: Dall-E 2

#481

Post by numpad0 »

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…

There seems to be a small issue in GP's logical inference to me, in that he places artificial CP as proportional and wholly inferior replacement to real CP. As if, ham sandwiches and boiled sausages are _inferior_ replacements to blocks of body parts of animals on a dish.

I don't think this is the case, from anecdotal experiences; Hollywood chase scenes are much more exciting to me than real life crash footage, I've watched enough. They need cooking, and if you are cooking anyway, mixing artificial and "natural" ingredients can even be a problem than a positive.

Truth is always boring.

Re: Dall-E 2

#482

Post by krageon »

This is really cool, but before you may use it you must give out your name and a phone number. I was almost taken in by it, but OpenAI is and probably always will be invasive and overbearing. It's really a shame.

Re: Dall-E 2

#483

Post by krageon »

uoaei wrote: post #473
ctoth wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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"...

They can by definition not perceive a headshot, it is a visual thing. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, the difference is not germane to the conversation.

Re: Dall-E 2

#484

Post by krageon »

cm2012 wrote: post #334
falcor84 wrote: post #246

>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.

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

Why? Is there something inherently wrong with porn? Is it not noble to supply a base human need, based on some arbitrary cultural artifact that you possess?

Re: Dall-E 2

#485

Post by irae »

Szpadel wrote: post #443
JohnBooty wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thought-provoking post, thanks. Especially the part about maybe generating specifically tailored material to "train" folks. Although, while obviously moral instead of immoral like "gay conversion therapy", I wonder if it would be just as ineffective. 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). Hmmmmm. Will m…

> Finding and prosecuting the people who make real CP is difficult enough already. let's assume that AI generated CP should be illegal. Does it mean that possession of model that is able to generate such content should also be illegal? If not, then it's easy to just generate content on the fly and do not store anything illegal. But when we make model illegal, then how do you enforce that? Models are versatile enough…

Most people are not developers and most people don't provide SaaS products. They are only consumers of existing technology.

In that sense, instead of enforcing non-existance of models, the enforcement could just make ilegal to provide any service that process inputs or provide outputs that are cp-like, by, i.e. obligating people with the models to add filters on input and/or after result is generated but before it is displayed or returned from computation.

Re: Dall-E 2

#486

Post by Sargos »

hollowpython wrote: post #466
Fernicia wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they need to put possums in space suits to tell Dell-E 2 how to render them?

No, but kid genitalia pictures would need to be provided, right?

There are tons of legal medical images of that content as well. Training wouldn't require any damaging material.

Re: Dall-E 2

#487

Post by randomsearch »

smusamashah wrote: post #8

This is mind blowing. I was not expecting the sketch style images to actually look like sketches. Style transfer based sketches never look like sketches. This and the current AI generated art scene makes it looks like that artwork is now a "solved" problem. See AI generated art on twitter etc. There is a strong relation between the prompt and the generated images but just like GPT-3, it fails to fully understand what…

I'm blown away by these results, but one caveat here: the AI is great at creating illustrations, not art.

Creating great _art_ that Grayson Perry (for example) would recognise as such is probably AGI-complete, because it requires a deep understanding of the human condition, society, and a lot of reasoning skills.

A great artist could certainly use Dall-E 2 as part of their method, though.

Re: Dall-E 2

#488

Post by smusamashah »

randomsearch wrote: post #487
smusamashah wrote: post #8

This is mind blowing. I was not expecting the sketch style images to actually look like sketches. Style transfer based sketches never look like sketches. This and the current AI generated art scene makes it looks like that artwork is now a "solved" problem. See AI generated art on twitter etc. There is a strong relation between the prompt and the generated images but just like GPT-3, it fails to fully understand what…

I'm blown away by these results, but one caveat here: the AI is great at creating illustrations, not art. Creating great _art_ that Grayson Perry (for example) would recognise as such is probably AGI-complete, because it requires a deep understanding of the human condition, society, and a lot of reasoning skills. A great artist could certainly use Dall-E 2 as part of their method, though.

If I showed you a generated piece, and don't tell you what prompt generated it, you will find it just as meaningful as any other piece of art made by hand.

This is why we are blown away by some pieces of text generated by GPT-3 as if it has its own mind. Even most abstract art has meaning for anyone who is looking for it.

What I am saying is if a generated artwork is indistinguishable from what a human can make than that's all that was needed.

Re: Dall-E 2

#489

Post by zarzavat »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #449
zarzavat wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jobs of commercial pilots are very safe. Pilots are not there to fly the aircraft, the autopilot already does that. They are there to command the aircraft, in a pair in case one is incapacitated, making the best decisions for the people on board, and to troubleshoot issues when the worst happens. No AI or remote pilot is going to help when say... the aircraft loses all power. Or the airport has been taken over in…

I would agree that a bit more is required of Pilots, but similar to truck drivers, the skill required and hence the salary provided, will go down as the AI gets better and better. I can easily imagine that at some point, pilots are replaced with technicians who are just there to fix redundant AI systems in case of failure.

You’re describing the world we already live in. “technicians who are just there to fix redundant AI systems in case of failure” is one of the jobs of a modern pilot. It turns out that troubleshooting the redundant systems of a modern aircraft while it is in flight is also the hardest part of being a pilot, as it requires knowing every system inside and out, hence why no amount of automation will threaten their jobs.

Re: Dall-E 2

#490

Post by Ajedi32 »

JohnBooty wrote: post #470
Szpadel wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Finding and prosecuting the people who make real CP is difficult enough already. let's assume that AI generated CP should be illegal. Does it mean that possession of model that is able to generate such content should also be illegal? If not, then it's easy to just generate content on the fly and do not store anything illegal. But when we make model illegal, then how do you enforce that? Models are versatile enough…

>> Finding and prosecuting the people who >> make real CP is difficult enough already. > let's assume that AI generated CP should be illegal Well that's a big assumption, lol. I definitely agree that it would be impossible to enforce, for the reasons you say. I personally would not be in favor of such a law at all. Partially because it's unenforceable as you say, and partially on principle. The argument against real…

I think you might be able to argue AI generated CP could cause indirect harm by feeding those desires and making people more likely to act on them, but I agree that's a far more fragile argument.
Post reply on HN