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

491–500 of 511 posts

Re: Dall-E 2

#491

Post by hemreldop »

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

When you put it that way… yes since no one is hurt in the process and people with pedophilic conditions may be deterred from doing something in real life.

Re: Dall-E 2

#492

Post by hemreldop »

uoaei wrote: post #353
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

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…

Nonsense, I think the opposite is true where if you can satisfy your urges in a way that doesn’t put you in jail for a decade, most people will take that route.

Re: Dall-E 2

#494

Post by Sateeshm »

astrange wrote: post #373
bufferoverflow wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this paper presents this neural net fairly, it pretty much destroys the market of illustrators. Most of the time when an illustration needed, it's described like "an astronaut on a horse in the style xyz".

The best reason to hire a person to do something is they'll give you what you need, not what you asked for. An ML model does not do this.

I agree. But i'm sure someone will create an ML model that might give what you need, not just what you asked for. Good enough for commercial purposes, mostly.

Personally, I would never buy a painting generated by an ML model, or even a commercial illustration, if i can help it. The artist and their life experience is half the point of art, IMO.

Re: Dall-E 2

#495

Post by randomsearch »

smusamashah wrote: post #488
randomsearch wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Well I suppose a machine could accidentally create good art, just like a human could. But it would only appear to be good art, the same way that randomly enumerating all possible HD images would at some point produce a Picasso.

But deliberately, no, it couldn’t, not yet, and human conceptual artists could make far far superior art than a machine. Because great art requires understanding the human condition and deep reasoning about the world.

Re: Dall-E 2

#496

Post by Sateeshm »

duren wrote: 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

Honestly, that painting is nonsensical. It's great at a glance. But when you look at it for a few seconds, it's just impressionist type blob painting without any features that make impressionist paintings great.

Re: Dall-E 2

#497

Post by gwern »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #188

This is a niche complaint, but I get frustrated at how imprecise open AI's papers are. When they describe the model architecture, it's never precise enough to reproduce exactly what they did. I mean, it pretty much never is in ML papers[0], but open AI's bigger products are worse than average with it. And it makes sense, since they're trying to be concise and still spend time on all the other important stuff besides…

They've added some more details to the paper.

Re: Dall-E 2

#498

Post by gwern »

drewm1980 wrote: post #446
gwern wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The kind of measures they are taking, like simply deleting wholesale anything problematic, don't really have a '-1'. But amusingly, exactly that did happen in one of their GPT experiments! https://openai.com/blog/fine-tuning-gpt-2/

LOL great catch! Assume you're referring to this: "One of our code refactors introduced a bug which flipped the sign of the reward. Flipping the reward would usually produce incoherent text, but the same bug also flipped the sign of the KL penalty. The result was a model which optimized for negative sentiment while preserving natural language. Since our instructions told humans to give very low ratings to continuatio…

Or just rerun that preference learning approach, but deliberately, with the filters as the reward function and the reward being for being filtered.

Re: Dall-E 2

#499

Post by MichaelDickens »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #362
minimaxir wrote: post #122

A few comments by someone who's spent way too much time in the AI-generated space: * I recommend reading the Risks and Limitations section that came with it because it's very through: https://github.com/openai/dalle-2-preview/blob/main/system-c... * Unlike GPT-3, my read of this announcement is that OpenAI does not intend to commercialize it, and that access to the waitlist is indeed more for testing its limits (and…

Regarding cherry-picking, the images of astronauts on horses look stunning, except for their hands. There's something seriously wrong with their hands. Maybe give it another five years, a few more $billion and a few more petabytes/flops and it will be good. Then finally everyone can generate art for their own Magic: the Gathering cards. (That's the end goal, right?)

Just a thought, I wonder if DALL-E would generate more realistic hands if you prompted it with something like

> an astronaut riding a horse, and the astronaut has five fingers on each hand

Re: Dall-E 2

#500

Post by JohnBooty »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #490
JohnBooty wrote: post #470

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 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.

I think there's a big range of possibilities there and they're not mutually exclusive.

There's the possibility that watching FOO directly encourages viewers to do FOO in real life. Like you said, this is the most fragile. I think clearly this is true in some cases -- most of us have seen a food commercial on TV and thought, "I could really go for that right now." I'm less convinced that it's true for something like pedophilia: the average person will be revolted by it, not encouraged, unless they already are into that kind of awful thing.

There's the possibility that watching FOO doesn't directly encourage viewers to do FOO, but serves to kind of normalize it. I think this happens a lot, but I think it takes a carefully crafted context and message.

There's the possibility that AI generated CP could actually helps children, by providing a safe outlet for pedophiles so that they wouldn't need to do heinous shit in real life. I recall reading studies that instances of (adult) rape in societies were inversely correlated with the availability of (adult) pornography, with a possible explanation being that porn provided a safe outlet for people who weren't getting the kind of sex they wanted.

Post reply on HN