71–80 of 511 posts
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.
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.
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 generati…
Eventually somebody will use the research to train the model to do whatever they want it to do.
I'm only part way through the paper, but what struck me as interesting so far is this: In other text-to-image algorithms I'm familiar with (the ones you'll typically see passed around as colab notebooks that people post outputs from on Twitter), the basic idea is to encode the text, and then try to make an image that maximally matches that text encoding. But this maximization often leads to artifacts - if you ask for…
But there's no real rhyme or reason, it is a sort of alchemy.
Is text encoding strictly worse or is it an artifact of the implementation? And if it is strictly worse, which is probably the case, why specifically? What is actually going on here?
I can't argue that their results are not visually pleasing. But I'm not sure what one can really infer from all of this once the excitement washes over you.
Blending photos together in a scene in photoshop is not a difficult task. It is nuanced and tedious but not hard, any pixel slinger will tell you.
An app that accepts a smattering of photos and stitches them together nicely can be coded up any number of ways. This is a fantastic and time saving photoshop plugin.
But what do we have really?
"Kuala dunking basketball" needs to "understand" the separate items and select from the image library hoops and a Kuala where the angles and shadows roughly match.
Very interesting, potentially useful. But if doesn't spit up exactly what you want can't edit it further.
I think the next step has got to be that it conjures up a 3d scene in Unreal or blender so you can zoom in and around convincingly for further tweaks. Not a flat image.
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.
Society is going to utter dogshit and tearing itself apart merely through social media. The US almost had a coup because of organized hatred and lies spread through social media. The far right's rise is heavily linked to lies spread through social media, throughout the world. This AI has the potential to absolutely automate the very long Photoshop work, leading to an even worse stat eof things. So, yes, "Responsibili…
But notice how all of these deep faking technologies weren't actually necessary for that.
People believe what they want to believe. Regardless of quality of provided evidence.
Scaremongering idea of deep fakes and what they can be doing was militarized in this information war way more than the actual technology.
I think this technology should develop unrestricted so society can learn what can be done and what can't be done. And create understanding what other factors should be taken into account when assesing veracity of images and recordings (like multiple angles, quality of the recording, sync with sound, neural fake detection algorithms) for the cases when it's actually important what words someone said and what actions he was recorded doing. Which is more and more unimportant these days because nobody cared what Trump was doing and saying, nobody cares about Bidens mishaps and nobody cares what comes out of Putins mouths and how he chooses his greenscreen backgrounds.
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…
Am I the only one to think that the AI world is divided into 2 groups: 1. Deepmind, who solved go, protein folding, and that seems really onto something. 2. Everyone else, spending billions to build machines that draw astronauts on unicorns, and smartish bot toys.
For example, recent phone cameras can estimate depth per pixel from single images. Hundreds of millions of these devices are deployed. A decade ago this was AI/CV research lab stuff.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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…
Or when synthesizers and computer music was invented, that they will displace talented musicians that know how to play an instrument and how now everybody without a musical education will be able to produce music, thus devaluing actual musicians.
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.