91–100 of 421 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, this was my first attempt: https://generated.photos/human-generator/64e648819c8c0400088... Not quite right. I am, however, impressed that the fingers are generally "mostly" correct.
my first attempt created some kind of gym monster lol https://generated.photos/human-generator/64e64a2f412bec0009b...
> “If you want to use images produced by Human Generator in commercial projects, contact us.” If there is no copyright in AI-generated images, then how can they possibly enforce this?
There haven't been any solid rulings on the copyright validity of human-driven AI generation yet. There have been a few cases, but they've been muddied by complicating factors (not a human doing the generation - that is, autonomous generation - or the generation being used as a base work for something else). Additionally, even if there's no copyright, the terms of service may still apply separately (see OpenAI disall…
FYI: the site places 3 cookies on the visitor's computer without consent
One cookie looks like it just records whether or not a tooltip that they want to show to first time users has been shown. The other two appear to be some kind of session cookies.
They might count as strictly necessary cookies.
We detected that generated image contains nude content. Try changing parameters.
Not sure what to make of this, but it feels wrong, somehow?
Edit: This was the prompt it generated for me on page load: "Minerva McGonagall in Hogwarts, wearing Hogwarts robe and witch hat" - https://generated.photos/human-generator/64e650a39563e6000e0....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's pretty easily fixable if you train a LoRA or similar so that the model has a specific likeness in mind. (You can look at - and despair at - Civitai if you want proof.) It's harder to do at inference time without training, but I wouldn't assume it'll be impossible forever, especially with the existence of ControlNet.
This is a GAN, so you can just project the image of yourself into the latent space (which will give you a near-pixel-perfect reconstruction), fix the identity-relevant variables in the _z_, and edit it as necessary. (No workarounds like finetuning necessary. Just one of the many forgotten advantages of GANs.)
What I find sketchy is that it is not easy to find out who is behind this service. The norm is an about us or a link to a parent site. Briefly skimmed the legalese (ToS & Privacy) and still not clear who these people or where they operate from. The linkedin link shows 8 people working there, mostly in BD from outside the US. I don't think there is a nefarious purpose going on, i.e. getting people to sign up and steal…
My only hope is that this extreme enshittification of online images will make people completely lose trust in anything they see online, to the point where we actually start spending time outside again.
The only thing I changed from the default parameters was Age == Teenager. That resulted in this error: We detected that generated image contains nude content. Try changing parameters. Not sure what to make of this, but it feels wrong, somehow? Edit: This was the prompt it generated for me on page load: "Minerva McGonagall in Hogwarts, wearing Hogwarts robe and witch hat" - https://generated.photos/human-generator/64e…
I would be more surprised to get SFW results from that prompt, considering the result would be based on more heavily regulated (less common) photographs of minors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there is no copyright in AI-generated images, then how can they possibly enforce this? We don't have precedent here. Whether a person using a website with a generative AI tool counts as having a non-human creator isn't clear, and it seems to me like the answer is that it does have a human creator. Using a horse-hair brush to paint a painting doesn't mean that the painting was created by a horse and isn't subject…
Was there not just precedent set for this? The horse hair example is nonsense. One might argue that artists take inspiration from other artists to make the argument that what the AI is doing is fine. But the ai is actually only capable of blending what it’s been trained on, whereas an artist is not similarly limited. And this is how the horse hair sample is stupid.
No, there was a recent case where someone tried to claim an AI as an author for copyright and themselves as owner via work for hire, where it was ruled invalid because AI can’t be an author under copyright law; the ruling was explicit that it was not addressing copyrightability by humans of images they create using an AI generator as a tool, only the claim of copyright with AI as the author.