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

501–510 of 511 posts

Re: Dall-E 2

#501

Post by [deleted] »

astrange wrote: post #388
drusepth wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be noted that most "AI-generated" images shared (Sam's included here) are typically just a first pass, whereas most recent models also include some kind of inpainting method, where you can then mask off various parts of an image and continue to edit those specific areas until the whole image is what you're looking for. This process makes it feel a lot more like a "tool" used by artists than a simple magic b…

I'm not sure how the embeddings ("descriptions") work in DALL-E yet, but in a lot of models they're fixed-length. So there's a natural limit on how many concepts you mention in the first pass before it'll just start leaving them out.

[deleted]

Re: Dall-E 2

#502

Post by totony »

randomsearch wrote: post #495
smusamashah wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

Models are not in a vacuum, their outputs are selected and guided by humans (here captions). The human can have the deeper understand while the model has specific understanding on styles for example.

Re: Dall-E 2

#503

Post by wolverine876 »

gitfan86 wrote: post #468
wolverine876 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a virtual girlfriend/prostitute I'm not picking on the commenter - by itself it's not a big deal - but look at the assumptions behind that comment, which I almost didn't notice on HN.

what assumptions? That there may be a market for AI girlfriends?

The assumptions that HN commenters find cis-normal females sexually appealing, and that they can't get a date.

Re: Dall-E 2

#504

Post by blingbleng »

I am disappointed to hear it wasn't released, but what disappointed me more is that people actually approve this decision. Seriously? We shouldn't teach people how to write because that can be abused, can be used to transfer malicious ideas. Sounds absurd? So does limiting people's access to AI tools.

Re: Dall-E 2

#508

Post by [deleted] »

chrisco255 wrote: post #52
pingeroo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean was he really wrong? As models like OpenAI Codex get more powerful over time, they will start eating into large chunks of dev work as well...

Yes. Translating business requirements, customer context, engineering constraints, etc. into usable, practical, functional code, and then maintaining that code and extending it is so far beyond the horizon, that many other skillsets will replaced before programming is. After all, at that point, the AI itself, if it's so smart, should be able to improve itself indefinitely. In which case we're fucked. Programming will…

[deleted]

Re: Dall-E 2

#509

Post by randomsearch »

totony wrote: post #502
randomsearch wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

Models are not in a vacuum, their outputs are selected and guided by humans (here captions). The human can have the deeper understand while the model has specific understanding on styles for example.

I definitely think a human could use an AI to assist in the creation of great art (and to be clear, that is synonymous with conceptual art to me and also most people with a modern degree in fine art).

A comparison can be made with Damien Hurst’s or Anthony Gormley’s use of assistants to create the pieces as instructed by the artists.

Duchamp’s urinal isn’t brilliant because the urinal was difficult to acquire or to make, but because it expresses so much and asks so many questions.

Re: Dall-E 2

#510

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…

Conceptual art is not about the artefact that comprises the work, but the conversation that artefact creates with the viewer.

If you put both in front of someone with no idea about conceptual art, there’s a real chance you might be right. If they happen not to “get” the work or understand the context or just know enough about conceptual art, then a viewer might easily miss the point.

But a computer could not have conceived Duchamp’s urinal, not with our current technology. You’re probably going to need AGI for that (which I’m certain will arrive eventually).

Post reply on HN