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

Drag Your GAN: Interactive Point-Based Manipulation of Images

vcai.mpi-inf.mpg.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 90 posts

Re: Drag Your GAN: Interactive Point-Based Manipulation of Images

#61

Post by u385639 »

famouswaffles wrote: post #38
u385639 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it would be easier. I agree. I just take issue with the "why humans" thing because if anything, the recent advancements highlight just how big the human element really is. Can you imitate a Bach prelude? Sure. And only people who aren't actually familiar with his music would be impressed. Much of AI approaching "human performance", is it approaching the lowest bar. There's a Wittgenstein thing going on here…

>That an LLM can ace the LSAT or GMAT is mostly an indictment of those tests. These kind of comments are always the funniest. You can just tell the person who makes them has never looked at those tests nevermind attempted them.

I scored 159 on the LSAT in 2014, so I am not claiming the tests are easy. I am pointing out that when an AI aces them, it says more about the test than anything else.

Re: Drag Your GAN: Interactive Point-Based Manipulation of Images

#62

Post by famouswaffles »

u385639 wrote: post #61
famouswaffles wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That an LLM can ace the LSAT or GMAT is mostly an indictment of those tests. These kind of comments are always the funniest. You can just tell the person who makes them has never looked at those tests nevermind attempted them.

I scored 159 on the LSAT in 2014, so I am not claiming the tests are easy. I am pointing out that when an AI aces them, it says more about the test than anything else.

No it doesn't lol because you can insert any test you like into your equation. GPT-4 performs well above average on almost anything you throw at it.

"Says more about [insert test]" is not an intelligent argument. It doesn't even make sense. Can you tell me exactly what this mysterious thing is ?

If you have this secret test for "true" intelligence and understanding the entire world is missing on then please share it with us and get your acclaim.

Re: Drag Your GAN: Interactive Point-Based Manipulation of Images

#63

Post by chpatrick »

mrshadowgoose wrote: post #54
chpatrick wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there has to be some kind of cryptographic signature solution, like "The BBC verifies that this image is authentic".

We already have most of the required cryptographic primitives for this. PKI, trusted timestamping, secure hardware with remote attestation are some of the necessary building blocks. All that's really missing are camera sensors with built-in cryptography. And societal care. Our society seems to really like to whine about "the danger of deepfake images", but our actions reveal that we don't really give a crap, as we co…

I think it would also need to have some kind of embedded version control from camera through Photoshop so you know what was changed.

Re: Drag Your GAN: Interactive Point-Based Manipulation of Images

#64

Post by loandbehold »

the_af wrote: post #49
loandbehold wrote: post #25

What do we need human actors for at this point? Everything can be generated by AI now.

> What do we need human actors for at this point? Everything can be generated by AI now. For blockbusters? If the tech still isn't there, it may be soon, and we won't need actors. For cinema where we care it was made by humans, for humans? Actors will always be needed. Also, theater still exists and people enjoy it.

Theater is a niche now. And whenever I go to the theater with my wife we are the only members of the audience under 50. Doesn't look like this form of art will survive very long. I don't think people care very much whether characters are played by real humans. It used to be that dangerous stunts were performed live. Nobody cares that they were replaced by CGI. Nobody cares that Tom Cruise doesn't really jump out of the burning helicopter.

Re: Drag Your GAN: Interactive Point-Based Manipulation of Images

#65

Post by u385639 »

famouswaffles wrote: post #62
u385639 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I scored 159 on the LSAT in 2014, so I am not claiming the tests are easy. I am pointing out that when an AI aces them, it says more about the test than anything else.

No it doesn't lol because you can insert any test you like into your equation. GPT-4 performs well above average on almost anything you throw at it. "Says more about [insert test]" is not an intelligent argument. It doesn't even make sense. Can you tell me exactly what this mysterious thing is ? If you have this secret test for "true" intelligence and understanding the entire world is missing on then please share it…

We must be speaking past each other. I am not out for acclaim and sorry for any confusion. Everything you say is exactly the point I'm trying to make, evidently clumsily. The "mysterious thing" is the human element. I don't know what else to call it? Humans that ace tests prove only that they are good at acing tests. Not that they're good at running businesses or practicing law. Not creating films (in this example), or music, etc.

I am not knocking the advancements, the capabilities are incredible. But machines have been doing what humans cannot since the dawn of time. I'm just pointing out what I think (thought?) was obvious: machines will soon be able to do just about everything that doesn't really matter.

PS. are you familiar with Wittgensteins ruler? Ask chatGPT about it.

Re: Drag Your GAN: Interactive Point-Based Manipulation of Images

#66

Post by vaidhy »

echelon wrote: post #35
apodolny wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Playground AI ( https://playgroundai.com/ ) does a lot of this.

There are a million of these. It's a super crowded space. https://civitai.com/ https://lexica.art/ https://openart.ai/ (Many more)

They are all for image creation. I would love to have one to edit my photos.. not generate images from prompt.

Re: Drag Your GAN: Interactive Point-Based Manipulation of Images

#67

Post by famouswaffles »

u385639 wrote: post #65
famouswaffles wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn't lol because you can insert any test you like into your equation. GPT-4 performs well above average on almost anything you throw at it. "Says more about [insert test]" is not an intelligent argument. It doesn't even make sense. Can you tell me exactly what this mysterious thing is ? If you have this secret test for "true" intelligence and understanding the entire world is missing on then please share it…

We must be speaking past each other. I am not out for acclaim and sorry for any confusion. Everything you say is exactly the point I'm trying to make, evidently clumsily. The "mysterious thing" is the human element. I don't know what else to call it? Humans that ace tests prove only that they are good at acing tests. Not that they're good at running businesses or practicing law. Not creating films (in this example),…

I didn't say test to mean just standardized tests lol. I meant that as problems you throw at it.

Sure seem good enough at law that multiple of the biggest law firms have partnered with Open ai backed Harvey https://twitter.com/ai__pub/status/1644735555752853504 https://www.lawnext.com/2023/04/harvey-ai-raises-21m-in-a-se...

and then there's what microsoft are doing with 4 in medicine. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/04/gpt-4...

There is no "human element" lol. That's the point. That's how you know the argument has no ground. People resort to "human element" when they have nothing to actually say. and because "human element" has no meaning, the goal posts for it just keeps getting moved further and further. apparently now we're at "make the godfather".

Re: Drag Your GAN: Interactive Point-Based Manipulation of Images

#68

Post by u385639 »

famouswaffles wrote: post #67
u385639 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We must be speaking past each other. I am not out for acclaim and sorry for any confusion. Everything you say is exactly the point I'm trying to make, evidently clumsily. The "mysterious thing" is the human element. I don't know what else to call it? Humans that ace tests prove only that they are good at acing tests. Not that they're good at running businesses or practicing law. Not creating films (in this example),…

I didn't say test to mean just standardized tests lol. I meant that as problems you throw at it. Sure seem good enough at law that multiple of the biggest law firms have partnered with Open ai backed Harvey https://twitter.com/ai__pub/status/1644735555752853504 https://www.lawnext.com/2023/04/harvey-ai-raises-21m-in-a-se... and then there's what microsoft are doing with 4 in medicine. https://arstechnica.com/informat…

I'm not a critic of AI or moving any goal posts. I'm not lobbing comments in a vacuum. I was responding directly to the comical proposal that we don't need actors anymore, to which my Godfather comment has every relevance. Thanks anyway!

Re: Drag Your GAN: Interactive Point-Based Manipulation of Images

#69

Post by the_af »

loandbehold wrote: post #64
the_af wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do we need human actors for at this point? Everything can be generated by AI now. For blockbusters? If the tech still isn't there, it may be soon, and we won't need actors. For cinema where we care it was made by humans, for humans? Actors will always be needed. Also, theater still exists and people enjoy it.

Theater is a niche now. And whenever I go to the theater with my wife we are the only members of the audience under 50. Doesn't look like this form of art will survive very long. I don't think people care very much whether characters are played by real humans. It used to be that dangerous stunts were performed live. Nobody cares that they were replaced by CGI. Nobody cares that Tom Cruise doesn't really jump out of t…

What do you mean, "a niche"?

I mean, sure. Reading is a niche, too. HN is a niche as well. Almost everything you care about is a niche.

But back to acting: Broadway and off Broadway exist. Maybe it's not doing so well, I wouldn't know: I don't live in the US... but theaters exist in my city. Both big and indie plays are conducted by young people, for young people. People watch them. People act in them.

It's mistaken to believe that tech will replace things that people value other human beings doing. Theater and cinema -- barring blockbusters -- are not "processes" to "optimize". They exist for their own sake. People love watching other people act.

Want to know what else people love doing: acting themselves! Acting classes are everywhere.

So excuse my extreme skepticism: human actors aren't going anywhere.

Maybe Tom Cruise in Top Gun 5 will be auto-generated by AI, who cares? Those blockbusters sure are within reach of AI, since it's all about the thrills and no-one really cares about the acting behind all those CGI scenes.

> Doesn't look like this form of art will survive very long.

Art is more resilient than you give it credit for. Art has been with us -- mankind -- since our beginnings, and it will never be gone. It's something humans crave doing.

Re: Drag Your GAN: Interactive Point-Based Manipulation of Images

#70

Post by famouswaffles »

u385639 wrote: post #68
famouswaffles wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say test to mean just standardized tests lol. I meant that as problems you throw at it. Sure seem good enough at law that multiple of the biggest law firms have partnered with Open ai backed Harvey https://twitter.com/ai__pub/status/1644735555752853504 https://www.lawnext.com/2023/04/harvey-ai-raises-21m-in-a-se... and then there's what microsoft are doing with 4 in medicine. https://arstechnica.com/informat…

I'm not a critic of AI or moving any goal posts. I'm not lobbing comments in a vacuum. I was responding directly to the comical proposal that we don't need actors anymore, to which my Godfather comment has every relevance. Thanks anyway!

Guess i just don't think your comment has as much relevance as you think it does. Remove the "with ai" and nothing actually changes.

"Please try to make an original movie that meets the standard of The Godfather, without AI" and lets see how well that goes.

Is the human that fails this task also missing the "human element" ?

Post reply on HN