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

61–70 of 511 posts

Re: Dall-E 2

#61

Post by nlh »

pingeroo wrote: post #14
fbanon wrote: post #10

A friend of mine was studying graphic design, but became disillusioned and decided to switch to frontend programming after he graduated. His thesis advisor said he should be cautious, because automation/AI will soon take the jobs of programmers, implying that graphic design is a safer bet in this regard. Looks like his advisor is a few years from being proven horribly wrong.

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...

Large chunks, yes, but all that means is that engineers will move up the abstraction stack and become more efficient, not that engineers will be replaced.

Bytecode -> Assembly -> C -> higher level languages -> AI-assisted higher-level languages

Re: Dall-E 2

#62

Post by croddin »

This reminds me of the holodeck in Star Trek. Someone could walk into the Holodeck and say “make a table in the center of the room. Make it look old.” It seemed amazing to me that the computer could make anything and customize it with voice. We are pretty close to star trek technology now in computer ability (ship’s computer, not Commander Data). I guess to really be like the holodeck it needs to be able to do 3d and be in real time but that seems a lot closer now. It will be cool when this could be in VR and we can say make an astronaut riding a horse, then we can jump on the back of the horse and ride to a secret moon base.

Re: Dall-E 2

#63

Post by dj_mc_merlin »

binarymax wrote: post #44
dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, no, the society! A picture of Joe Biden killing a priest! Society didn't collapse after photoshop. "Responsibility to society" is such a catch-all excuse.

You missed half of my note. An artist can say "no". A machine cannot. If you lower the barrier and allow anything, then you are responsible for the outcome. OpenAI rightfully took a responsible angle.

Yes, but who cares whose responsible? Are you telling me you're going to find the guy who photoshopped the picture and jail him? Legally that's possible, realistically it's a fiction.

They did this to stop bad PR, because some people are convinced that an AI making pictures is in some way dangerous to society. It is not. We have deepfakes already. We've had photoshop for so long. There is no danger. Even if there was, the cat's out of the bag already.

Reasonable people already know to distrust photographic evidence nowadays that is not corroborated. The ones who don't would believe it without the photo regardless.

Re: Dall-E 2

#64

Post by bogwog »

andybak wrote: post #3

Preventing Harmful Generations We’ve limited the ability for DALL·E 2 to generate violent, hate, or adult images. By removing the most explicit content from the training data, we minimized DALL·E 2’s exposure to these concepts. We also used advanced techniques to prevent photorealistic generations of real individuals’ faces, including those of public figures. "And we've also closed off a huge range of potentially int…

It's kind of funny (or sad?) that they're censoring it like this, and then saying that the product can "create art"

It makes me wonder what they're planning to do with this? If they're deliberately restricting the training data, it means their goal isn't to make the best AI they possibly can. They probably have some commercial applications in mind where violent/hateful/adult content wouldn't be beneficial. Children's books? Stock photos? Mainstream entertainment is definitely out. I could see a tool like this being useful during pre-production of films and games, but an AI that can't generate violent/adult content wouldn't be all that useful in those industries.

Re: Dall-E 2

#65

Post by lofatdairy »

KevinGlass wrote: post #26

Something about this makes me nauseous. Perhaps is the fact that soon the market value for creatives is going to fall to a hair about zero for all but the most famous. We will be all the poorer for it when 95% of images you see are AI generated. There will be niches of course but in a few short years it'll be over for a huge swathe of creative professionals who are already struggling. Some of the images also hit me w…

Perhaps a more optimistic way of looking at it: When mass production became available to art, the idea of an "artwork" had to be abstracted from a unique piece (Walter Benjamin gives the example of a statue of Venus, which has value in its uniqueness) to the idea of art as the output of some process. Each piece has no claim to authenticity, and the very idea of an "original" would be antithetical to its production.

I think art will survive, just like photography didn't kill the painting, the idea of art might simply begin to encompass this new mean of production, which no longer requires the steady hand, but still requires a discerning eye. Sure, we might say that the "artist" is simply a curator, picking which algorithmic output is most worthy of display, but these distinctions have historically been fluid, and challenging ideas of art has long been one of art's function as well

Re: Dall-E 2

#66

Post by TaupeRanger »

pingeroo wrote: post #57
TaupeRanger wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "creatives" you seem to mean "people who drum up the equivalent of elevator music for ads and blogs". This will not remotely replace any working "creative" people that I know.

Except it will only get more powerful with time, probably at an accelerating pace. Everyone always downplays these legitimate fears about AI, pointing out how "it can't do X". They always forget to put the "yet" at the end of that sentence.

The person I responded to literally made the claim that it would happen imminently...

Re: Dall-E 2

#67

Post by Al-Khwarizmi »

binarymax wrote: post #11
andybak wrote: post #3

Preventing Harmful Generations We’ve limited the ability for DALL·E 2 to generate violent, hate, or adult images. By removing the most explicit content from the training data, we minimized DALL·E 2’s exposure to these concepts. We also used advanced techniques to prevent photorealistic generations of real individuals’ faces, including those of public figures. "And we've also closed off a huge range of potentially int…

Removing these areas to mitigate misuse is a good thing and worth the trade off. Companies like OpenAI have a responsibility to society. Imagine the prompt “A photorealistic Joe Biden killing a priest”. If you asked an artist to do the same they might say no. Adding guiderails to a machine that can’t make ethical decisions is a good thing.

In my view, the problem with that argument is that large actors, such as governments or large corporations, can train their own models without such restrictions. The knowledge to train them is public. So rather than prevent bad outcomes, these restrictions just restrict them to an oligopoly.

Personally, I fear more what corporations or some governments can do with such models than what a random person can do generating Biden images. And without restriction, at least academics could better study these models (including their risks) and we could be better prepared to deal with them.

Re: Dall-E 2

#68

Post by dragonwriter »

KevinGlass wrote: post #26

Something about this makes me nauseous. Perhaps is the fact that soon the market value for creatives is going to fall to a hair about zero for all but the most famous. We will be all the poorer for it when 95% of images you see are AI generated. There will be niches of course but in a few short years it'll be over for a huge swathe of creative professionals who are already struggling. Some of the images also hit me w…

> Perhaps is the fact that soon the market value for creatives is going to fall to a hair about zero for all but the most famous.

But...that's always been the case for creatives.

Re: Dall-E 2

#69

Post by educaysean »

duxup wrote: post #16
andybak wrote: post #3

Preventing Harmful Generations We’ve limited the ability for DALL·E 2 to generate violent, hate, or adult images. By removing the most explicit content from the training data, we minimized DALL·E 2’s exposure to these concepts. We also used advanced techniques to prevent photorealistic generations of real individuals’ faces, including those of public figures. "And we've also closed off a huge range of potentially int…

Is this limited to what their service directly hosts / generates for them? It's their service, their call. I have some hobby projects, almost nobody uses them, but you bet I'll shut stuff down if I felt something bad was happening, being used to harass someone, etc. NOT "because bad PR" but because I genuinely don't want to be a part of that. If you want some images / art made for you don't expect someone will make t…

This feels unnecessarily hostile. I've felt a similar tinge of disappointment upon reading that paragraph, despite the fact that I somehow knew it was "their service, their call" without you being there to spell it out for me. It's also incredibly shortsighted of you to assume that people are interested in exploring this tool only as a means of generating art that they cannot themselves do. Eg. I myself am a software engineer with a fine art background, and exciting new AI art tools being released in such a hamstrung state feels like an insult to centuries of art that humans have created and enjoyed, much of which depicted scenes with nudity or bloody combat.

I feel like we, as a species, will struggle for a while with how to treat adults like adults online. As happy as I am to advocate for safe spaces on the internet, perhaps we need to start having a serious discussion about how we can do so without resorting to putting safety mats everywhere and calling it a job well done.

Re: Dall-E 2

#70

Post by jahewson »

dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #24
binarymax wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing these areas to mitigate misuse is a good thing and worth the trade off. Companies like OpenAI have a responsibility to society. Imagine the prompt “A photorealistic Joe Biden killing a priest”. If you asked an artist to do the same they might say no. Adding guiderails to a machine that can’t make ethical decisions is a good thing.

Oh, no, the society! A picture of Joe Biden killing a priest! Society didn't collapse after photoshop. "Responsibility to society" is such a catch-all excuse.

No. Russian society is pretty much collapsing right now under the weight of lies. Currently they are using "it's a fake" to deny their war crimes.

Cheap and plentiful is substantivly different from "possible". See for example, oxycontin.

Post reply on HN