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

Alias-Free GAN

nvlabs.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 83 posts

Re: Alias-Free GAN

#61

Post by godelski »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #60
godelski wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say chill because you're freaking out. The scientific method is being followed here. Code is not needed for the scientific model to be followed. Even data. Literally every other field is able to advance without public code or data (in fact most areas of CS). There's absolutely no reason to believe that they won't release their code. They have a history of doing so. Models and checkpoints are not the bare-minimum fo…

I'd be no scientist if I didn't update my priors. I retract my claims. You're right. Thanks for calling me out. I will say that it's... a gargantuan effort to do the things that you're proposing. But as someone who did them you're right, you can. (BigGAN-Deep took a year to track down the bug https://github.com/google/compare_gan/issues/54 ) BigGAN-Deep is a decent example of the thing I was really worried about: rep…

Hey man, I respect that. I also understand your frustration. Reproduction is difficult. I'm going through it right now with a paper that has no code attached. You bet I'm pulling out my hair. I just think taking your frustration out on this paper is not the right vector. Please continue to call out papers that aren't reproducible. Please continue to push forward higher standards. But also recognize where we are and where we've come from. And most importantly, pick your battles. The passion is right, and I agree with the spirit of what you wrote, just not the direction.

And I'm not trying to say you suck. But you said you've been studying the subject for only 2 years. So I am going to check you. It's easy to grow an ego, but it often isn't useful. Sucking at something is the first step to being somewhat good at something. And you're clearly past the step of "sucking" but not to the step of "wizard." I don't know where you are between there tbh. But I do understand the frustration haha. That is normal.

Side note: usually it is good practice to note that you edited comments. It was rather confusing to look back and see something different.

Re: Alias-Free GAN

#62

Post by throwaway879 »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #60
godelski wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say chill because you're freaking out. The scientific method is being followed here. Code is not needed for the scientific model to be followed. Even data. Literally every other field is able to advance without public code or data (in fact most areas of CS). There's absolutely no reason to believe that they won't release their code. They have a history of doing so. Models and checkpoints are not the bare-minimum fo…

I'd be no scientist if I didn't update my priors. I retract my claims. You're right. Thanks for calling me out. I will say that it's... a gargantuan effort to do the things that you're proposing. But as someone who did them you're right, you can. (BigGAN-Deep took a year to track down the bug https://github.com/google/compare_gan/issues/54 ) BigGAN-Deep is a decent example of the thing I was really worried about: rep…

Men have an almost non-existent ability to regulate their emotions, so whether it's blame or condescension (I'm doing it here, too, you see?), and yet they believe that they are in full control, above it all, and high and mighty in their crooked, emotionally rigged rationality. Oh, whatever. Downvote to hell. :)

Re: Alias-Free GAN

#63

Post by Doxin »

Chilinot wrote: post #20
minimaxir wrote: post #5

The first two demo videos are interesting examples of using StyleCLIP's global directions to guide an image toward a "smiling face" as noted in that paper with smooth interpolation: https://github.com/orpatashnik/StyleCLIP I had ran a few chaotic experiments with StyleCLIP a few months ago which would work very well with smooth interpolation: https://minimaxir.com/2021/04/styleclip/

That first picture of mark zuckerberg smiling is just straight up cursed. Interesting write up though.

I audibly went "GAH!" when that scrolled into view. Impressive work.

Re: Alias-Free GAN

#64

Post by phreeza »

godelski wrote: post #58
phreeza wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get your frustrations with this state of affairs, but for the reasons I mentioned above, I don't think providing the model and code is a panacea here. Maybe the last few years have also set an unrealistic expectation for the pace of progress. In my (former) field of theoretical neuroscience, if a paper was not reproducible, this knowledge kind of slowly diffused through the community, mostly through informal conver…

To be honest I don't think the StyleGAN papers are benchmark chasing. If you read StyleGAN[0], StyleGAN2[1], StyleGAN2-ADA[2], and this paper there is a clear story. They call out the mistakes in the previous papers and resolve them. The papers themselves even admit to where they fall short. But it is research. Problems don't get solved all at once. But if you pay attention to these 4 papers it is very clear Kerras h…

Good point, I wanted to make a more general point about the state of ML literature, I am not super familiar with this particular sequence of papers.

Re: Alias-Free GAN

#65

Post by phreeza »

nerdponx wrote: post #36
phreeza wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expecting fully executable code to accompany every publication is kind of unique to the modern ML research Scene. As someone from a very different computational research field, where zero code is the norm, not the exception, this reads as a somewhat entitled rant. Reimplementation of a paper is actually a test of the robustness of the results. If you download the code of a previous paper, there may be some assumption…

It's not an entitled rant, other fields just have dismally low standards.

I tried to give reasons why publishing code may actually not be universally desirable.

Re: Alias-Free GAN

#67

Post by enriquto »

godelski wrote: post #52
sillysaurusx wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you had to say "chill" three times indicates that you're trying to convince yourself, not me. None of what you said is responsive to what I wrote. I think it's an opinion piece, but I'm not sure. The issue here is the scientific method. I've listed the things that are required, as I see it. And I've also listed the reasons why I haven't been able to verify it exists here, despite trying for two years. I…

I say chill because you're freaking out. The scientific method is being followed here. Code is not needed for the scientific model to be followed. Even data. Literally every other field is able to advance without public code or data (in fact most areas of CS). There's absolutely no reason to believe that they won't release their code. They have a history of doing so. Models and checkpoints are not the bare-minimum fo…

> If you require someone else's code to reproduce results then you're not convincing me you're a good ML researcher nor programmer.

I call bullshit. In computer science, not releasing the code of an algorithm whose output you describe is akin to maliciously obfuscating your methods. No serious paper should be accepted without a script to reproduce the exact same results again.

Re: Alias-Free GAN

#68

Post by phreeza »

skybrian wrote: post #38
phreeza wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get your frustrations with this state of affairs, but for the reasons I mentioned above, I don't think providing the model and code is a panacea here. Maybe the last few years have also set an unrealistic expectation for the pace of progress. In my (former) field of theoretical neuroscience, if a paper was not reproducible, this knowledge kind of slowly diffused through the community, mostly through informal conver…

I have no particular expertise here, but I wonder if you've learned to accept a mostly-broken process? We have the Internet, so why settle for slow diffusion over years instead of rapid communication? Why should graduate students have to spend years trying to reproduce stuff that turns out to be no good? Nobody should have to put up with getting their time wasted like that.

I think it is a social problem, not a technical one. A healthy research field should have some level of cooperation between participants. If you go ahead and publish a "this does not reproduce" paper, you can easily ruin someone's career, so in most cases you don't. I know this is not the platonic ideal of science, but it is the reality, especially of smaller research communities. I agree this is not ideal, but not sure if I would call the process broken though.

Re: Alias-Free GAN

#69

Post by dannyw »

forgotpwd16 wrote: post #66

Why weren't the same pictures used for StyleGAN2 and Alias-Free GAN?

Because the latent space to picture pipeline is considerably different. There's no weight to output compatibility.

If you ask styleGAN to generate a specific image, that's possible, but you are no longer looking at how well these models generate images.

Re: Alias-Free GAN

#70

Post by black_puppydog »

godelski wrote: post #47
sillysaurusx wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't true. I do ML every day. You are mistaken. I click the website. I search "model". I see two results. Oh no, that means no download link to model. I go to the github. Maybe model download link is there. I see zero code : https://github.com/NVlabs/alias-free-gan Zero code. Zero model. You, and everyone like you, who are gushing with praise and hypnotized by pretty images and a nice-looking pdf, are doing dam…

> I do ML every day. > I go to the github. Maybe model download link is there. I see zero code Paper was released today. Chill. They said they will release the code in September (I'm guessing late September). The paper is also a pre-print. They're probably aiming for CVPR and don't want to get scooped. > Model first. Code second. Paper third. That's how you produce ML code and documentation but that is not how you re…

> They're probably aiming for CVPR

The template screams NeurIPS though. Page limit for that would be 9 pages, this is 9.5, they might have started adding things after the first deadline, anticipating an extra page for camera ready?

I mean, that's just a bit of paper astrology of course. But if I'm right, then the author notification is September 28 and camera ready will be due in October, assuming it is accepted. So in that case releasing code (end of) September makes sense.

Edit: regardless of the (good) work NVidia have been doing over the last years, there is an issue here about big teams breaking the blind review process by putting themselves on the front of not just HN, but by now probably also the relevant twitter, fb, reddit pages. They know full-well that a release by NVidia will gain attention, and by the time review really gets started it's very likely any reviewer in their field will know exactly who they're reviewing.

Post reply on HN