[HN Gopher] Dall-E 2 illustrations of Twitter bios
___________________________________________________________________
Dall-E 2 illustrations of Twitter bios
Author : manesioz
Score : 776 points
Date : 2022-04-08 19:20 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| nonbirithm wrote:
| I'm imaging a future where the top replies to art posted online
| will become "keywords please" or "what model". Hosting sites may
| start to enact "AI treatises" into their terms of service that
| segregate human- and AI- generated content into separate areas
| and ask users to report entries that they suspect do not belong
| in either. Asking "what model did you use" becomes an insult to a
| sizeable portion of artistic creators, a genuine question for
| others, and a phrase whose implications cannot be avoided for all
| people involved.
|
| What belief systems will we form around AI art after it becomes
| clear that it's never going away? Many people say that art is
| subjective. I am thinking that if or when parity between art from
| humans and AI is achieved, some people are going to believe that
| a humanistic quality of some sort will be trampled upon in the
| realization that the two types of art really are
| indistinguishable. Others might believe that AI art is just
| another tool that they believe expresses their thoughts. The
| different beliefs might be fundamentally unresolvable, and this
| may become an unending source of distrust and sadness in certain
| art circles within the next decade.
|
| I do not look forward to how this tech will interact with online
| culture several years from now.
| dude3 wrote:
| There is a lot of emphasis on eyes. Same thing in Google's deep
| dream. Eerie.
| contextfree wrote:
| The two images from the "young Robert Moses" etc bio are cool,
| but the fact they both have such a similar layout and style, with
| the same "giant hands" framing that doesn't follow from the
| prompt in any obvious way, makes me wonder if there's some
| particular source art that "inspired" both. Couldn't find it on
| Google or Bing images, though.
| JohnBerea wrote:
| The hand symbolize the Red Sea Parting of Moses.
| contextfree wrote:
| interesting hypothesis!
| nicklovescode wrote:
| for that one IIRC I asked for a Robert Moses and one of the
| cooler ones had giant hands so I put that in the prompt then
| took two of my favorite from the next batch
| Nition wrote:
| It would be nice if every AI like this had an option to show
| the 10 closest-matching training images to the output.
| Especially for ones like thispersondoesnotexist.com.
| kingcharles wrote:
| Remember, these are all public domain, at least in the USA which
| does not allow copyright assignments to the artistic output of
| machines.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| No, they're copyrighted by OpenAI. Copyright has to be assigned
| to a human or company owned by humans. The recent kerfuffle
| over copyright was a dumbass trying to legitimize copyright
| assignment to the software itself.
|
| Copyright with dall-e is just like copyright with photoshop or
| any other software. The user of the tool owns the output.
| Subject to whatever other limitations and requirements OpenAI
| wants.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| (c) Copyright. OpenAI will not assert copyright over Content
| generated by the API for you or your end users.
|
| https://openai.com/api/policies/terms/
|
| Notice this doesn't imply they possess any copyright in the
| first place - just that they won't make an issue of it.
| Copyright in USA is automatic for the author, I think whether
| the user of software is the author of an AI's work is yet to
| be established in the courts, but its pretty clear the
| creator of the software doesn't own its output.
|
| The dumbass you refer to was testing patent law by trying to
| register his software as the inventor but the copyright case
| is different:
|
| > the office's 2019 ruling [...] found his A.I.-created image
| "lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright
| claim."
|
| > Thaler noted to the [US Copyright Office] he was "seeking
| to register this computer-generated work as a work-for-hire
| to the owner of the Creativity Machine."
|
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/us-copyright-
| offic...
| gwern wrote:
| The USA requires _de minimis_ human contribution; the prompts
| here definitely qualify as human choice, he's not simply
| sampling random images, but exercising quite a bit of choice
| and creativity as he learns to prompt-engineer for DALL-E 2 and
| also selects, and so there is a copyright to be had.
| Mizza wrote:
| This is going to put a lot of artists out of work in a very short
| time. Not happy about that.
| CamelRocketFish wrote:
| I imagine you were also unhappy when switchboard operators were
| replaced by computers as well.
| xwdv wrote:
| They will move on to more stable careers.
| drcongo wrote:
| These are amazing!
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| These are so good, it's breaking my brain a little.
|
| They're not just conceptually accurate, but to my eyes they're
| pleasing to look at from a purely artistic point of view. I'd put
| these on my wall.
|
| I already take a fairly bullish position on the potential of AI,
| given a long enough timeframe, but it does feel like we're
| reaching a bit of a tipping point here.
|
| It's starting to prod at the paradigms I hold in my head about
| what I think "art" is.
|
| In a turing-syle blind test of these DALL-E artworks, I think
| most people would be unable to tell the AI generated art from
| that of human artists. And I imagine that it follows that the
| same will be the case for music in the near future too, and
| likely most other artistic endeavours eventually.
|
| I like to write music. I respect the output of other musicians
| (my fellow "artists") and I am driven, by both intrinsic and
| extrinsic rewards to keep trying to get better at my "art". But
| when an AI can produce works that match or exceed my art (based
| on whatever the measures are that we already judge art by) - it
| prompts some interesting questions. Does it lower the subjective
| value of human-produced art by virtue of reducing scarcity, and
| increasing accessibility?
|
| Of course, DALL-E is trained on the output of human artists. But
| art is already recursive in that respect - human artists
| themselves are trained on the output of other artists. So that's
| not so different...
|
| I guess it's the same paradigm as mass production vs hand
| crafting. When we pick the cheaper, mass produced item, we lose
| out on some of the humanity and soul that's baked into hand-
| crafted goods. But history has shown that we'll gladly take the
| cheaper, more accessible, more predictable option in most cases.
|
| The commoditisation of art.
|
| When things are commoditised, I tend to think that the
| opportunity for the creation of value (by humans) tends to move
| up an abstraction level. As technology becomes commoditised at a
| certain level, then the orchestration and management of that
| technology becomes the new speciality where humans are useful and
| can create value. When that orchestration layer is commoditised,
| it's the next level up that we can turn their attention to.
|
| So the new art maybe becomes meta-art. Perhaps human artistic
| endeavours become more about curation rather than creation?
|
| Or will AI art never reach a sufficient level to be considered
| equal to, or better than human-produced art? We can hide behind
| the subjectivity of all this, but something like a blind
| identification test (AI vs Human) removes some of that
| subjectivity fairly easily...
| awb wrote:
| > human artists themselves are trained on the output of other
| artists
|
| Artists take inspiration from other places too like nature,
| imagination, dreams, etc.
|
| Every once in a while an artist like Picasso, Dali, Pollock,
| etc. come up with a new style that's instantly distinguishable
| as unique from the artists that existed prior to them.
|
| Dall-E 2 is an amazing achievement, and could replace most
| unoriginal artists.
|
| If Dall-E 3 can produce novel artistic styles, that would
| transform art as we know it.
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| Yes, very good points!
| disqard wrote:
| I thought you might like to know about "Experiments in Musical
| Intelligence" (aka "Emmy"), David Cope's creation, now
| "deceased":
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jul/11/david-cop...
|
| "One day Cope pushed a button on Emmy, went out to get a
| sandwich and when he returned his workaholic creation had
| produced 5,000 original Bach chorales."
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| Awesome link.
|
| This bit seems particularly interesting:
|
| > "People tell me they don't hear soul in the music," he
| says. "When they do that, I pull out a page of notes and ask
| them to show me where the soul is. We like to think that what
| we hear is soul, but I think audience members put themselves
| down a lot in that respect. The feelings that we get from
| listening to music are something we produce, it's not there
| in the notes. It comes from emotional insight in each of us,
| the music is just the trigger."
|
| So presumably, we can find "soul" and meaning in computer
| produced art because a large part of the meaning that we
| derive from art comes from within us, not necessarily the
| artist.
|
| This is interesting to contemplate.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| > _He realised that what made a composer properly
| understandable, properly "affecting", was in part the fact of
| mortality._
|
| Impressive how Asimov has figured this out a while ago (in
| the _Bicentennial Man_ ) !
|
| Otherwise, why isn't he using a pseudonym ?!?
| mherrmann wrote:
| Can't wait for this for music. To fix the costly cherry-picking
| process, Spotify should play AI-generated songs in between
| others. Those who get good engagement should then rise to the
| top.
| sc00ty wrote:
| This is so interesting. If anyone has played the board game
| Dixit, the images generated here feel like they would fit right
| in. I could totally see this being used for custom decks in
| Tabletop Simulator.
|
| For those unfamiliar, you can see some examples of the actual
| game cards here: https://www.libellud.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2022/03/DIXIT_OV... (PDF warning)
| noirbot wrote:
| It reminded me a lot of the art in Mysterium as well, where the
| premise is that the art cards are visions being presented to
| mediums from a ghost to try to hint towards how they died.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Would be fun to play a game of telestrations/garticphone where
| you get a prompt, select the ai-generated image you think most
| accurately represents it, then the human tries to write a
| caption which captures it most accurately, and you see how the
| work evolves as it passes through multiple players.
|
| (Could also probably generate some fantastic training data)
| sc00ty wrote:
| This is a great idea! Around 13 years ago I played this web-
| based game called Broken Picture Telephone (the site seems to
| be back, but it was shut down for a long time). It had a very
| similar concept to Telestrations. A user would start with a
| phrase or description, the next user would draw what was
| written, and the next would describe it. Repeat until n
| rounds are complete. At the end, everyone can see how the
| game evolved.
|
| I ended up writing my own after it first shut down and even
| though the community was small, it was incredibly fun. Doing
| this with Dall-E 2 sounds like a fun project to bring back
| some nostalgia.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_Picture_Telephone
| cwkoss wrote:
| Sounds exactly like GarticPhone - great game: it's free and
| only requires a web browser. It's become the go-to for our
| remote company happy hours.
|
| Several people have reported laughing so hard they were
| sore the next day.
|
| https://garticphone.com/
| jkingsman wrote:
| That was my first thought as well! The directed, purposeful
| illustrations that are open to myriad interpretations feel so
| much like the Dall-E work.
| dweez wrote:
| Oh yeah totally! I want to round up some friends now to play AI
| Dixit. An easy version could be to play sort of "reverse Dixit"
| where one person generates an image from a prompt and everyone
| else comes up with prompts based on the image, then you guess
| which prompt was the real one.
| lgvld wrote:
| i am surprised the only drawing of woman it generates is when the
| bio explicitly contains the word "female".
|
| bias in AI I guess.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Cruelty Squad vibes
| amelius wrote:
| Perhaps someone can write a HN reader where headlines are fed
| through Dall-E, and the images appear on top of the stories.
| jasonjayr wrote:
| This totally could be coupled with a CMS/Blogging platform that
| automatically adds illustrations from headlines/pullquotes
| a-r-t wrote:
| And coupled with GPT-3...
| jer0me wrote:
| This appears to be entirely, if poorly, computer generated:
| https://www.dreamsopedia.com/dream-about-eating-child.html
| Bilal_io wrote:
| This could replace a huge portion of the stock image market.
|
| For example, The Verge writes an article about Microsoft,
| they don't need to pay royalties for an image that has
| Microsoft logo displayed on a building, one can be generated
| for them.
| TOMDM wrote:
| MS powerpoint already has a feature to suggest stock images
| based on slide title.
|
| With this, you could get a consistent art style and theme
| on your slides, and be truly unique too.
|
| $ART_STYLE + $COLOR_THEME + $SLIDE_TITLE
| hans1729 wrote:
| That's an _amazing_ idea.
| TOMDM wrote:
| Or imagine a script to chop a book/podcast into segments to add
| visuals.
| csee wrote:
| Stunning.
|
| My question is whether more compute and more data will be
| sufficient for the AI to create its own art _styles_. Everything
| we see here are within the stylistic paradigms created by
| previous humans.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Probably, interpolating betweem styles or extrapolating to
| unseen styles doesn't seem too far fetched.
|
| However an art style also needs context: human appreciation of
| aesthetic values, human recognition of a style wrt prior
| movements... without an "ecosystem of artists and viewers" it
| might not be so useful.
|
| Nevertheless... As a tool for artists to explore new avenues of
| expression this could be a fantastic tool, i think.
| EGreg wrote:
| When will an API be available for the rest of us?
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| Could someone point me how to make such images yourself? This may
| be a naive question as it may require non-public code and data...
| I've seen public colab notebooks with Dall-E but they don't work
| currently (package problems) and seem to produce a different
| style of results.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| Now to connect it with the Nvidia tech demo that turns 2d
| pictures to a 3d environment.
| marcodiego wrote:
| These drawings... they have personality.
| deltaonefour wrote:
| The trajectory of AI is both amazing and horrifying. Most of us
| are born in an era where we can witness the change and play with
| toy versions of AI products. The next generation of people will
| have their lives truly changed by AI, for the better or for
| worse.
| nonbirithm wrote:
| The scariest thing is that I don't think we can stop ourselves
| from innovating further even if we tried. The authors believed
| that the merit of displaying their progress outweighed the
| implications.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| The quote about jobs comes to mind: "If it's jobs you want,
| then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels."
|
| (full context:
| https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/10/spoons-shovels/)
| cwkoss wrote:
| It will be better! Giving every human the tools to make
| expressive works of art without having to train for years will
| be awesome for society!
|
| I'm playing with some of the neanderthal-relatives of dall-e 2
| and already have several that I kind of want to analog-paint
| copies of so I can hang em on my wall.
|
| I don't even think artists are going to be meaningfully hurt
| from this - in fact, I think this is going to increase demand
| for art, because now the 'patron' can participate in the
| composition process more meaningfully.
| deltaonefour wrote:
| Apply this to everything. AI that takes over all possible
| jobs involving any form of creativity and intelligence.
|
| What are the economic consequences of such a society?
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| > increase demand for art
|
| Good point. Custom art used to be the realm of only royalty,
| and later only the rich, but soon anybody will be able to
| afford the fifty cents or whatever it is of computing power
| that it takes to execute their vague artistic instructions.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Totally, Etsy has led an explosion of put you/your kid/your
| pet into a work of art type things (many artists create
| reusable templates, where the custom component can be
| plugged in, so help with scale). I foresee this trend
| accelerating as the tooling makes cost of producing this
| sort of thing cheaper.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| > don't even think artists are going to be meaningfully hurt
|
| It might not reduce the number of artists, but it will surely
| change their composition (pun proudly intended). Only those
| flexible enough to adapt to the new landscape will be able to
| support themselves in the new AI art economy.
| troyvit wrote:
| I hope you're right but the feeling I get is that it's going
| to increase the _supply_ of art until it becomes meaningless.
| For instance why should anybody paint an astronaut on a horse
| anymore? It was a great idea and now it's been done.
|
| In the near future when you look at art you won't know
| whether it was created directly by a human or by an AI. What
| will that do to its appreciation?
| cwkoss wrote:
| Why is a human-painting of an astronaut on a horse valuable
| now?
|
| I view this as detangling composition from the mechanical
| skills of art production.
|
| Perhaps this will make a new type of art job - AI wrangler
| - whose job is collaborating with AI to get a good
| composition, then the composition can be handed over to
| someone with the mechanical skills to render it in the real
| world, if humans making the brush strokes is important.
|
| I'd imagine that if we gave these tools to a skilled
| painter to help in their compositional brainstorming
| process, they'd find many good ideas they'd like to
| incorporate into their works in a short period of time.
| But, I'm not a skilled painter, so could be wrong.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > already have several that I kind of want to analog-paint
| copies of so I can hang em on my wall.
|
| I've been doing that with VQGAN-CLIP with prompts of things
| like "line art", "watercolor", "linocut"[1], and "woodcut" -
| have got a stack of things waiting for some free time to
| render into the physical world.
|
| [1] "Dark Souls in the style of linocut" makes some really
| fascinating possibilities.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Ah that's a cool idea. I've been saving a collection of
| images from dream by wombo and nightcafe around the same
| theme, and think I'm going to try to render them into a
| single cohesive acrylic painting. (though my mechanical
| abilities will probably leave me disappointed)
| karmasimida wrote:
| When Copilot and similar service gets this DALLE level of
| accuracy regarding coding ...
|
| It is going to be very relevant to the current software
| engineers, maybe just in next 5 years.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| I'm skeptical.
|
| The thing about art is that so much qualifies as good.
| Something very close to a beautiful painting is probably also
| a beautiful painting.
|
| But an algorithm very close to the right way to count votes,
| or launch a rocket, or decide whether to lend to someone, is
| probably not the right way.
| deltaonefour wrote:
| There are already exists machines that can produce
| beautiful art: Humans. More than any other technology the
| physical existence of human intelligence itself implies
| that it such intelligence can exist, which implies it can
| be built.
|
| Something like interstellar travel or even a civilization
| on mars is actually much less realistic due to the lack of
| examples in existence.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| You're right, the existence of humans strongly suggests
| that artificial general intelligence is possible.
|
| But the existence of DALL-E 2, which is not AGI and
| nonetheless produces beautiful art, does not convince me
| that software will be writing reliable software before
| AGI happens.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Then you "just" have to use one of the formal proof
| languages and then verify the program ?
|
| Also, "decide how to lend to someone" is an interesting
| example, since it will always involve quite a bit of
| intuition even with a program helper (which won't be able
| to use a neural network due to transparency requirements).
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| > Then you "just" have to use one of the formal proof
| languages and then verify the program ?
|
| Haha yes indeed, thereby elegantly reducing 8 hours of
| work to 40 hours.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Well, the question is how much of the formal verification
| can be automated too ?
| ulnarkressty wrote:
| I wonder if this is how people born in the early 20th century
| felt about going from first flight to moon landing in a few
| decades. It took some serious conflicts for things to evolve to
| that point though. I'm not looking forward to the AI wars.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| >going from first flight to moon landing in a few decades
|
| And then nothing.
| boplicity wrote:
| Actually, space technology, via literal objects in space,
| impacts almost everyone's life (especially in wealthy
| countries), pretty much constantly. It's simply become so
| woven into our day-to-day lives that we don't even think
| about it.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Progress is hard to quantify. We developed language, what,
| hundreds of thousands of years ago? And then very little
| seemed to happen, but it was a slow-burning fire that
| eventually exploded. Our use of computers seems almost sure
| to be similar.
|
| But that said, there are certainly structural factors
| inhibiting innovation. Scale problems make it nearly
| impossible to challenge someone like Google or Facebook
| (although TikTok did manage the latter). Were there more
| competition, one imagines there would be more innovation.
| Patents are likely a net drag. Laws, esp. tax laws, could
| be simpler. I'm sure I'm omitting other important factors.
| deltaonefour wrote:
| Yes. You omitted physical limits. It is very likely that
| Humanity will not achieve much of technology implied by
| science fiction.
|
| The only exception looks to be AI, because although we
| haven't created an AI that matches human intelligence...
| the existence of human intelligence itself implies that
| building an AI to the level of human intelligence is
| possible.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| I'll try to remember that the next time I listen to Sirius
| while using GPS to navigate.
| sanman811 wrote:
| This tweet provides important context:
| https://twitter.com/nickcammarata/status/1512119623315075081...
|
| They weren't just copying/pasting prompts there was human
| creativity involved as well
| educaysean wrote:
| Ah, I wish this fact had been highlighted better. Not a
| criticism of the tweet author; it's just that twitter threads
| really aren't designed to convey context.
| curiousgal wrote:
| I hate them with every part of my soul! It's so sad to see
| the internet has moved from people making blog posts to share
| interesting things to just spraying it on Twitter in batches
| for maximum interactions.
| recuter wrote:
| Of course not. I'm no longer surprised just how eager people
| are to believe an "AI" will read their minds or has magical
| qualities and a mind of its own. Even on HN.
|
| Jiggle the imagination just a little bit, dangle some progress,
| and we're off to the races.
|
| This is "I'm feeling lucky" on google image search + style
| transfer + trial and error.
|
| If you think I am being dismissive try a few of these twitter
| bios as searches and see for yourselves.
|
| I guess it fits with the times we live in. Reward shallow
| plagarism. Outsource your mind.
|
| It isn't theft if you can automate it.
|
| Autotune for the deaf, Dall-E for the blind.
| campground wrote:
| I tried what you suggested for a bunch of the twitter bios
| and found nothing except links back to this thread. I also
| reverse image searched a bunch of them to see if DALL-E was
| just kind of pasting together large chunks of images, but
| never found anything close. I do think you're being
| dismissive but please post any examples of what you mean. I'm
| a skeptic and have been waiting to find out that this is just
| a glorified parlor trick, but so far it seems like DALL-E is
| doing everything the authors claim, which is remarkable.
| recuter wrote:
| I don't want to be dismissive of Dall-E itself or its
| authors. Just the implications that this changes everything
| or how it is much more than it really is.
|
| https://twitter.com/nickcammarata/status/151212306780334489
| 9...
|
| Prompt: "expressive painting of a man shining rays of
| justice and transparency on a blue bird twitter logo"
|
| You have to break the concepts up apart (which is one of
| the things Dall-E improved on).
|
| As such: "expressive blue bird"
|
| In google image search, type clipart, and I even get pill
| tags to further narrow it down to illustrations for animal
| paintings and so forth. Google's classifier knows the
| concept of a "blue bird" and expressionism too.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=expressive+blue+bird&tbm=is
| c...
|
| The same for "ray of light". In fact the top results there
| I get pngs of sun beams on a transparent background. Which
| is perfect.
|
| Neither the birds nor the rays of light in the pictures it
| produced are truly its own creations but lifted from bits
| of pictures in its training set. I bet you could find the
| exact bird from the second row online in many places for
| example. It just won't be blue or stylized.
|
| Composite those things together manually and add a style
| transfer you'll get similar results to DALL-E as that is
| what it is doing more or less.
| boppo1 wrote:
| > Prompt: "expressive painting of a man shining rays of
| justice and transparency on a blue bird twitter logo"
|
| Yeah, weak results. None of the men look anything like
| Elon Musk. /s
| westoncb wrote:
| > Composite those things together manually and add a
| style transfer you'll get similar results to DALL-E as
| that is what it is doing more or less.
|
| If you try actually doing this it will be trivial to see
| that this assertion is incorrect.
|
| 1. The way in which the elements of the images are
| integrated together is deeper than the level of style.
| For instance, see the image in the top row, second
| column: it has integrated the blue bird wings onto the
| man, not only simply grafting them on, but giving the
| appearance of their being draped on like a cloak, partly
| behind and partly in front of him (+ it's consistent with
| the man's posture and the rays of light to evoke a
| certain coherent cultural idea/image). You might be able
| to integrate multiple images (of man, bird, rays etc.)
| together and style transfer to arrive at a poor
| approximation of this--but even then, the decision to
| place the elements together in such a way would require
| creativity on your part.
|
| 2. The one example set of of trial images (generated from
| the phrase "expressive painting of a man shining rays of
| justice and transparency on a blue bird twitter logo") is
| one of the easiest among the full group to pick its
| various elements apart; if you try this thought
| experiment with the others in the thread, you'll see this
| idea is by far insufficient.
| samvher wrote:
| On (2), so this part is where I wonder: no-one has
| "expressive painting of a man shining rays of justice and
| transparency on a blue bird twitter logo" as their
| twitter bio. So are the "happy sisyphus" images generated
| from "happy sisyphus children's style", or are they
| generated from something more like "a person carries a
| large ball in a mellow image in the style of a pixar
| cartoon"? To me there is a _huge_ difference between
| these things: how much of the context is inferred from
| the bio, and how much from what 's provided in the
| prompt? (Does DALL-E 2 know about the story of Sisyphus
| or is that part filled in?)
| recuter wrote:
| In the video accompanying the paper they gave the example
| of "tree bark". Do we mean the bark of a tree or a dog
| barking at a tree?
|
| So I reckon with "happy sisyphus" it breaks it apart into
| discrete vectors as a first disambiguation step and in
| this case resulting in two distinct queries.
|
| Happy returns all kinds of image results.
|
| Sisyphus returns the same kind of image results over and
| over.
|
| A man rolling a boulder up a hill. Thus it can learn the
| concept of "sisyphus" on the fly as it would return:
|
| man 95% boulder 90% hill 80% etc
|
| Over a _range_ of images.
|
| So it must be Man+Boulder+Hill. That's its scene cue.
| That's what CLIP doodles initially. That's the "find me
| similar images step".
|
| Happy is the style cue.
|
| That's how "happy sisyphus" expanded into "a person
| carries a large ball in a mellow image in the style of a
| pixar cartoon"
|
| Why specifically the Pixar style? One of several
| variations it tried, selected by a human.
|
| The thing we don't know is whether the Pixar styled image
| is composited from the existing images in its training
| set. In other words whether this can be reversed.
|
| That character looks familiar tho. I think it is
| plagiarizing.
|
| Here is another observation: the boulder is not round, it
| reminds me of one of the Platonic solids. I don't think
| that's a coincidence, heh.
| westoncb wrote:
| You're asserting a bunch of things about how it works
| that have no basis in reality. If you want to be able to
| comment on this stuff with any accuracy, read the
| research they've published.
| westoncb wrote:
| They are generated from e.g. "happy sisyphus". My
| understanding is there are separate additional controls
| for style (though it's flexible enough you could give
| hints in the text, too, which is I gather where the
| "expressive" word fits in).
| recuter wrote:
| Good, finally. Yes, exactly - this is the most
| interesting aspect of the whole thing.
|
| > the decision to place the elements together in such a
| way would require creativity on your part
|
| I strongly suspect that's because it found similar
| compositions in its training set. So what exactly is
| going on here is fascinating.
|
| Did it learn compositing? Is that why the image output is
| now much more stable? Or is it mearly finding similar
| artwork and competently recreating/mimicking existing
| compositions from different building blocks? So now we
| can not only transfer styles but also transfer
| compositions. That could be the beginning of something
| useful. Instead of a text prompt I'd give it my crappy
| doodle and it will respond with an improved/different one
| that is comparable (also a great way to steal tho).
|
| And of course I picked the one that is easiest to tease
| apart where it is most evident so people will see what I
| mean.
|
| > if you try this thought experiment with the others in
| the thread, you'll see this idea is by far insufficient
|
| That depends on your imagination and your artistic eye I
| guess. Even if somebody could do that they certainly
| couldn't make you believe them. That's the
| accomplishment.
|
| Neither one of us can prove it one way or the other so
| long as the model is a black box. And certainly so long
| as we don't have direct access to openai but just to
| curated examples.
| joshcryer wrote:
| I think your last line is what stands out more than
| anything. You've just described creating something
| without "compositing those things together manually."
|
| Note that in that example the "twitter bird logo" is
| actually _expressed_ in 6 out of all of those images.
| Look for the small bird, that looks like the Twitter
| logo. It 's there. It's doing the thing.
| recuter wrote:
| The prompt is actually "blue bird twitter logo".
|
| Nothing is expressed. Find yourself a blue bird in an
| expressionistic style, go to google image search and give
| it the url. Click on tools -> visually similar.
|
| Enjoy an endless supply of things to plagiarize. In the
| middle picture of the second row you can clearly see how
| several pre-existing images are sharply cut off before
| being re-blended.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| Same thing going on here as in your other comments.
|
| Tech like CLIP, GPT-3, DALL-E, etc. are indeed nearing
| the sophistication (w. caveats around outliers and
| harmful outputs) of Google search.
|
| It took a lot of people to create Google search. It took
| precisely one training run for DALL-E 2 to create this.
|
| edit: Removed toxic comment.
| recuter wrote:
| No, don't get me wrong. I think DALL-E is very
| interesting and a potentially useful tool and have
| nothing against the tool makers.
|
| The tool wielders however.. I think are overyhyping this
| to say the least. And focusing on the wrong bits. It
| isn't sentient and it is not making art. But teasing
| apart how it is deriving these images might shake out
| serious advancements.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| Fair enough I think we are in agreement.
| rndphs wrote:
| Yeah I just tried google image searching to find something
| like the pikachu photo from https://mobile.twitter.com/gott
| apatchemall/status/1511777860...
|
| But I can't find anything close to the realism that DALL-E
| 2 achieved here.
| recuter wrote:
| There was an abomination of a live action Pikachu movie
| some time ago. When I google "realistic pikachu" I get
| images exactly like this from the movie but not gross.
|
| In fact this photo is _exactly_ what you get when you
| photoshop the face of an ugly chihuahua unto a Pikachu
| plushie head and add a yellow brushed hamster body. And a
| cape. Literally that is what you 're looking at.
|
| It understood your prompt and amalgamated the right
| source photos into this nightmare fuel. Jesus wept.
| rndphs wrote:
| Well to my eye it's realism beyond anything that I could
| find. Mind you I didn't search for that long so there
| might be something there if I was to delve deeper.
|
| I am pretty familiar with photoshop, and while I'm not an
| expert, I would find making something like this really
| difficult. Anything is possible with photoshop, but some
| things are very hard.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| > In fact this photo is exactly what you get when you
| photoshop the face of an ugly chihuahua unto a Pikachu
| plushie head and add a yellow brushed hamster body. And a
| cape. Literally that is what you're looking at.
|
| i guess some people are overhyped, but it's cool that
| this can do that. Previously, it took a trained human.
| recuter wrote:
| If this is the exact image you wanted and are entirely
| satisfied for it, great. But what people are reacting to
| is that it is outputting interesting images at all.
|
| What are you going to do with this cape wearing realistic
| Pikachu that is actually a picture of a hamster?
|
| Typically the trained human has something specific in
| mind. And if the client isn't satisfied they will torture
| them with countless requests for adjustments. So right
| now this is of limited use.
|
| To me what is far far far more interesting is that Dall-E
| possibly understands the concept of what a Pikachu is
| supposed to be. That is downright creepy, and
| fascinating. I suspect that this visual aspect to things
| after people get over the clipart generation might find
| more functional utility as a way to see through the
| "model eyes" so to speak. To visualize the model itself.
| That could unlock a lot of doors in how training is done.
|
| Maybe in the future you could train it on textbooks and
| prompt it for a picture of a molecule. Now that would be
| something. Especially if you start feeding it data from
| experiments.
| fastball wrote:
| > Typically the trained human has something specific in
| mind. And if the client isn't satisfied they will torture
| them with countless requests for adjustments. So right
| now this is of limited use.
|
| Confused as to why you think you cannot do this with
| DALL*E?
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Yeah, it's still impressive to be able to imitate those
| styles and add a blue cape that didn't exist in the
| movies, along with chihuahua eyes. It also appears to be
| higher definition than Detective Pikachu CG. I'm curious
| if you could do the same for all 150 original Pokemon,
| even those for which realistic CG representations don't
| exist. Would it be able to take the cartoon version of
| Farfetch'd or Psyduck or a more obscure one and achieve
| the same realism, without the reference from the deep
| dataset?
| joshcryer wrote:
| It's fascinating how in our hubris we were thinking that
| art would be the last thing for AI to tackle, but it
| appears to be the first (Sam Altman made a similar
| statement on the launch of DALL-E). Which makes art _more_
| meaningful to me, for some reason. There 's _something_ in
| the billion parameters and exabytes of data that this
| neural net had to process and it was so ... easy. Natural.
| Because it is us. It is our expression. Our creativity. Our
| outpouring of data, and all it is doing is reflecting us.
| It 's beautiful.
| recuter wrote:
| There is something about clouds. Facial recognition
| software frequently finds faces in clouds just like we
| do.
|
| This thing will kill art dead.
| boppo1 wrote:
| Check my post prior to this one. Art will be fine.
|
| Well, representational art. I'd like to say post-abstract
| expressionists are at risk, but they still have their
| admirers convinced they're wearing clothes, and there's
| no indication those idiots will ever change their minds.
| recuter wrote:
| I agree with your post. Good luck convincing every child
| with a big Dall-E button on their iPad that they are not
| in fact Picasso. I mean, just look at this thread. And
| these are supposed to be adults.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| That's because the entire corpus of art is stored in the
| neural network weightings as memory. It's built to
| imitate human art by optimizing towards these weightings.
| boppo1 wrote:
| I'm an amateur painter and AI hasn't even kissed high art
| yet IMO, although it's nominally good at amateur
| illustration.
|
| I'm going to have to write up a piece on this sometime,
| my argument is a little too involved for an HN post. But
| the gist is that the heart of what a fully trained
| painter does is make personal choices. A quick and dirty
| example of the difference:
|
| Suppose you train an AI on Picasso's pre-1901 pieces.
| It's not going to decide it's time for a blue period.
| andybak wrote:
| I've coincidentally just been watching Rick and Morty and
| this really fit read in Rick's voice.
|
| Is yawning at everything astonishing not just exhausting?
| Everything is "just" made up of less impressive things. But
| is this really not worthy of a little wonderment?
| girvo wrote:
| Middle-brow dismissal of everything seems so exhausting. I
| find it much easier to be moderately impressed by things,
| personally!
| recuter wrote:
| It is more like uni-brow dismissal of the eagerly
| impressed rather than the impressive work in progress.
|
| It is very good to keep an open mind, just make sure your
| brain doesn't fall out.
| fastball wrote:
| I dunno, I really like the "happy sisyphus" one and I'm not
| seeing anything remotely as nice (or similar really) on
| Google Images[1]...
|
| [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=happy+sisyphus
| manigandham wrote:
| Side note: Those last 3 lines would make fantastic lyrics
| recuter wrote:
| :)
|
| They call me the Hip-Hopapotamus
|
| My lyrics are bottomless
| gfodor wrote:
| A proposition for your consideration: what if you're wrong?
| recuter wrote:
| What if you're in a cult?
|
| Two more papers down the line who knows what Dall-E 4 will
| be capable of. It is a step in the right direction that the
| image output is now "stable", which is what this is
| demonstrating.
|
| But it can't read your mind despite the eerie feeling you
| get, that is an illusion. Kismet in api form.
|
| The next steps is to open this black box up and actually
| make its internal pipeline tweak able so it can become a
| useful tool.
|
| It may end up an amazing super useful tool or a clipart
| plagiarisor/generator on steroids.
|
| You can't even use it yet and you're already so eager to
| believe.
| gfodor wrote:
| You don't even know what I believe, but one thing is
| clear: you also haven't used it yet, and are far more
| certain of its capabilities than I am. (I have,
| incidentally, had two of my personal requests generated
| by the kind folks at OpenAI, and I was impressed.)
| recuter wrote:
| I was responding to this: "They weren't just
| copying/pasting prompts there was human creativity
| involved as well"
|
| I'm simply certain that whatever its capabilities they
| are short of mind reading. You'd be equally impressed if
| you asked me to perform a google image search.
|
| That does not mean that Dall-E is unimpressive or the
| results are fake. What I'm saying is that the hype and
| mysticism around this is unwarranted.
|
| Elsewhere in the thread somebody else wrote that we are
| on the cusp of it producing convincing fake footage from
| the Kennedy assassination from a single text prompt.
|
| The image output now being stable and pleasing to the eye
| is enough of a result even if it requires trial and
| error.
|
| You wouldn't lose your mind over a wallpaper generator
| even though no machine learning is necessary to produce
| infinite variations of interesting patterns. This thing
| is spewing out "art" and people are ascribing magical
| capabilities to it as if it taped a banana to a canvas.
|
| Anything is possible. Maybe Dall-E is capable of even
| more incredible things. Who knows where this all ends up.
| Sure. But not quite _that_ much follows from what has
| been presented _so far_.
| gfodor wrote:
| Based on what I have seen DALL-E 2 does seem to be
| demonstrating something very close, if not entirely
| mappable to, human creativity when it comes to visual
| creation. There are several examples where it makes
| connections that are both highly unlikely to be just a
| lift from another work, but yet also create a work that
| makes a fundamental artistic statement. Here are two that
| blew my mind (again: presuming these aren't just cribbed
| from human artists in terms of semantics):
| https://twitter.com/gfodor/status/1511907134761361419
| recuter wrote:
| If you open up google and bing and others and do an image
| search it comes up with lots with this style.
|
| Anyway, I too Want To Believe. It is worth thinking about
| the falsifiability. One way that comes to mind to
| determine whether it is truly demonstrating creativity is
| to prove it doesn't have anything remotely similar in its
| training set (it almost certainly does).
|
| The paper omits important details and they didn't release
| code, nothing has been reproduced independently. So far
| all that happened is that a human sent you a cool looking
| doodle.
|
| We just don't know enough at this stage. Probably the
| people who made the damn thing can't fully make this
| claim yet either - it sure is an intriguing result
| however.
| gfodor wrote:
| My point isn't about style but the content and the
| artistic statement of the content. Both have deep
| possible interpretations, and if they were drawn by a
| human artist could motivate a ton of analysis.
| tekromancr wrote:
| A wallpaper generator could be a rad application of this,
| actually. You could feed some random poetry into gpt and
| the outputs of gpt into the input of this, randomly pick
| an output, and everytime you login to your computer some
| surreal, never before seen image.
|
| I'd dig it.
| Veedrac wrote:
| Now imagine if you can if the situation was reversed, where the
| AI was adding cyberpunk/oil/etc. to the front of the prompt and
| it was the human that was interpreting it and painting the many
| variations.
|
| How many people would then be defending the AI, that actually
| it wasn't just the human, the AI was playing a critical role in
| the creative process, ne'er to be replaced? I venture zero
| people would say that.
| hemreldop wrote:
| It's a guy not a group.
| habitue wrote:
| It is important context, but just to push back against people
| over-correcting on this, my guess is that the ones he rejected
| also looked approximately this good.
|
| I think the primary reason people are wowed by this thread
| isn't attributable mainly to the subtle effect of the cherry-
| picking he did, but in fact to the overall quality of any image
| generated by DALL-E 2.
| nicklovescode wrote:
| Yeah that's right. There were very few strictly-bad ones
| across the entire thread of generations
|
| The rejections were most commonly
|
| 1. Kind of just slightly boring or literally drawing the
| thing rather than being cool and artistic
|
| 2. Cool but similar to the artistic style of bios near it in
| the thread, whereas I wanted to keep it diverse (surreal
| followed by literal, oil followed by sharp lines etc) so it's
| more fun to scroll through
|
| Whereas a few years ago generative models (GANs etc) would
| often render like static noise sometimes or completely wrong
| things. I've only seen that problem once with DALL-E across
| hundreds or thousands of images now (it generated a fully
| white image)
| webmaven wrote:
| _> 2. Cool but similar to the artistic style of bios near
| it in the thread, whereas I wanted to keep it diverse
| (surreal followed by literal, oil followed by sharp lines
| etc) so it 's more fun to scroll through_
|
| Has anyone compiled a list of the styles and artists Dall-E
| "knows"? How niche does it get? Decorative Initial Caps?
| Florid Victorian Ornaments? Googie Architecture? SFF
| artists like Michael Whelan, Vincent Di Fate, Jeffrey
| Catherine Jones, or Jim Burns? Banksy? Sculptors like
| Bathsheba Grossman or Markus Pierson? Early animation
| artists like Ub Iwerks or E. C. Segar?
|
| I was experimenting with one of the VQGAN+Clip notebooks a
| while ago, and it did pretty well with some styles, but not
| so much with "Heroic Realism" or "Soviet Propaganda Poster"
| or "Sheppard Fairey", and even worse when I was trying to
| get it to draw in that style an object that could be
| construed as implying a style itself like "retro robot" or
| "50s raygun" (eg. "A retro robot drawn in a heroic realism
| style" or "A cubist painting of a steampunk pistol"). Is
| that kind of dissonance a problem for Dall-E?
| recuter wrote:
| That's very cool but once you have stable image output how
| do you define good image output when it comes to art?
|
| The stuff on deviantart is pretty good too and neatly
| tagged and classified by art style.
| nicklovescode wrote:
| I'd often send like six images to the person who's bio I
| was making and ask them to choose two :)
| recuter wrote:
| For better results send three, two being static noise :)
| AntiDyatlov wrote:
| Can you ask DALL-E to draw itself?
| ben_w wrote:
| Yes, and it sees itself as a really cute little demon:
| https://mobile.twitter.com/gdb/status/1512521912064229377
| boppo1 wrote:
| Somehow this makes me feel a bit more at ease about this
| whole thing.
| kingofclams wrote:
| Maybe that's how they want you to feel.
| koolba wrote:
| Is that like asking GitHub's code autocomplete to write a
| code autocompleter?
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Asking Copilot to write Copilot. Hmmmmmm...
| babyshake wrote:
| Does OpenAI have a GUI that you're using or is that a CLI?
| amilios wrote:
| https://twitter.com/nickcammarata/status/1512123067803344899.
| ..
|
| You're absolutely right, here he displays the full set for a
| given prompt. They all look fantastic!
| tragictrash wrote:
| I've been sitting here with my mouth wide open for 5
| minutes unable to move past what you just showed me. I
| can't fathom that this exists.
| gfodor wrote:
| DALL-E 2 isn't the first superhuman AI, but it is the
| first capable of teaching the whole world of just what
| that means for all of us.
| tragictrash wrote:
| I've been casually following this space for a while (as a
| full stack web/mobile engineer, nothing to do with ai)
| and this feels substantially different than what I've
| seen before.
|
| Would you have names or links for some other projects
| you're aware of? Would love to check them out.
| andybak wrote:
| GPT-3 is surely as jaw dropping as this?
| d110af5ccf wrote:
| No, GPT-3 still produces gibberish at times. The majority
| of the good examples still ramble like a schizophrenic
| person. Much of the output is uncanny, interesting, and
| impressive in its own right but I wouldn't describe it as
| human level.
|
| DALL-E 2 is different from what I've seen. The things it
| produces seem to actually make sense the majority of the
| time. The outputs are strikingly similar to what a
| competent human might output as opposed to one with a
| severe mental illness.
|
| I'm sure part of this is an inherent advantage that
| DALL-E enjoys regarding context. Art is supposed to be
| artistic whereas text is expected to maintain long
| distance logical consistency of abstract concepts across
| a stream of output and also to communicate something
| concrete. So in a sense the bar for art is probably lower
| in many ways.
| andybak wrote:
| The difference is I've had the chance to play with GPT-3
| extensively and I've only got 2nd hand access to Dall-E
| 2.
|
| GPT-3 amazes me and occasionally disappoints me. But it's
| still something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. I
| suppose I'm still putting GPT-2 and Dall-E 2 in the same
| ball park because they are both so far beyond what I
| thought would be possible from what are essentially brute
| force methods.
| danw1979 wrote:
| Did GPT-3 write this comment ?
| gitfan86 wrote:
| You cannot absorb words as fast as pictures. GTP-3 is
| more impressive as it seems to have auch broader depth of
| understanding context. The disadvantage of GTP-3 is that
| it is sometimes very wrong like with simple math problems
| tiluha wrote:
| Interestingly DALL-E is really bad at spelling. It knows
| what letters look like, but struggles with words.
| walnutclosefarm wrote:
| Yes, and if you look at the "blue cube on a red cube
| beside a yellow sphere" example, it's clear that there
| are other areas where it simply lacks the semantic basis
| to get a request that needs to be correct in a non-image
| sense right. It knows letters, and that letters come in
| sequences related to things it might paint, but it has no
| very good dictionary mapping those sequences to things;
| it knows how to draw a cube, and a sphere, but the
| semantics of "on" and "beside" are largely absent.
|
| I don't think that is terribly surprising, nor a very
| cogent detraction from the model.
| tragictrash wrote:
| Very interesting observation!!!
| nwienert wrote:
| Having worked with Nick extensively, take what he says with a
| grain of salt. He's well known even by close friends to be a
| reality distorter, to put it softly.
| wll wrote:
| Sir, this is a public discussion over a well-enough
| documented breakthrough with good-faith non-corporate
| actors on both sides of the original friend-oriented
| equation. There's no practical nor epistemic need to hijack
| it as if we were all hanging out in the laundromat of your
| worldview.
| nwienert wrote:
| This is a public forum discussing a public tweet made by
| an employee of a for-profit private company who sells you
| this technology. And said employee is a traveling
| salesman and consummate hype machine, acknowledged by his
| own best friends - and even self many times.
|
| Practical and epistemically relevant knowledge to anyone
| deciding how interesting these results, presented
| originally without mentioning they were cherry-picked,
| are. I'm doing a favor to provide it, as doing so isn't
| exactly something that makes me look great, but is very
| much worth knowing for anyone following him.
|
| Side note - there's this SF club of effete
| intellectualistas who fashion themselves as modern day
| florentines during a de novo renaissance. They do a lot
| of back-patting. They have the exactly mentality of your
| reply - be _kind_ , love is all you need, etc.
|
| It's sort of the exact opposite of the east coast
| mentality that willingly sacrifices looking good and
| "getting along" in favor of finding the truth despite
| some discomfort. Discomfort to this group is very taboo.
|
| Of course, this don't-rock-the-boat mentality is very
| much intentional as it gives said club the ability to
| instantly shun anyone who deigns to critique it, allowing
| them to continue building their following.
| wll wrote:
| Your first critique was ad-hominem.
|
| Your second critique: assumes the original presentation
| had to be accompanied by methodology and proof to be of
| value; derives an implicit attempt-to-distort from your
| perspective of the scene at hand; devolves into
| paternalism to end in unsubstantiated moralism.
|
| I might even agree with the spirit underlying your words
| --given, say, the meaning-loss of the company's name--
| this just isn't the way to convey it.
| nwienert wrote:
| I'm adding to truth finding, in relevant context. My
| names in my profile. It's a discussion forum - the
| opinions are the point.
| recuter wrote:
| If only James Randi was around. What a fantastic example of
| cold reading.
|
| Gather round, gather round, give me a text, any text at all
| and I will produce you an image of some kind. And you will
| call it "good" if it looks like anything at all.
|
| Because all art is subjective and your mind will work
| overtime to connect it back to the text you provided.
| babyshake wrote:
| Even if the text just serves as random entropy, it's
| alright for people to feel a subjective connection
| between the artwork and the text.
| recuter wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS1YYtQ_LLY
| fay59 wrote:
| Someone should make an online version of Mysterium that uses
| Dall-E to make the picture cards!
| munk-a wrote:
| So where can we common plebs go to submit paragraphs for
| generation?
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| apparently the twitter replies of the tech priesthood is where
| we are meant to request miracles of the AI
| donkarma wrote:
| Incredibly misleading, he didn't directly paste bios into the
| description and they were massively curated.
| throwaway675309 wrote:
| Of course they're CURATED, but there are several links where he
| shows the full set of images that were generated and I would
| say between 70 to 80% of them are pretty decent aesthetically
| speaking.
|
| Given that it's able to generate a dozen images in less than a
| minute, and all I have to do is pick out the ones that are
| aesthetically pleasing, I'd say that's a damn good win.
| 55555 wrote:
| He's curated those links too, though.
| nicklovescode wrote:
| no those full results screenshots were the first things i
| typed in
| dntrkv wrote:
| If one of these images came out of a set of 1000 I would still
| be impressed.
| educaysean wrote:
| Yeah, learning this fact definitely dulled my initial
| astonishment. These are still really fantastic results, but
| it's hard to feel too excited without the knowledge of just how
| much curative efforts took place behind the curtain.
| platers wrote:
| As a lower bound we now know a non artist can produce
| passable art in a few minutes. There is indeed a large
| practical difference between a few minutes and a few seconds,
| but I trust in the power of incremental progress.
| [deleted]
| nicklovescode wrote:
| Hey everyone, Nick here creator of the linked thread. I just
| wanted to link to another tweet I have with some details of how I
| made it.
|
| TLDR it's not just the bio pasted directly into dall-e and the
| images are cherry-picked but dall-e is basically doing 95% of the
| work here. I have no ability to make art myself, and I found I
| could illustrate basically any bio I wanted in a couple minutes
| of playing around. My goal was to create illustrations for my
| friends not create a dall-e gallery but I'm glad it ended up
| being a good example of what dall-e can do
|
| https://twitter.com/nickcammarata/status/1512119623315075081
| drcongo wrote:
| I'm very conflicted here, because on the one hand these are
| absolutely fantastic and that's really exciting, but on the
| other hand, some of these are of a level that I could genuinely
| call "art" and now I'm questioning everything.
| zaking17 wrote:
| These are evocative images. I love a bunch of them! Knowing that
| this model was trained on a huge corpus of existing images makes
| them feel a bit like the output of a visual search engine --
| finding relevant pieces and stitching them together. But it's
| more than that, because the stitching happens at different
| levels. They are often thematically and aesthetically cohesive in
| a way that feels intelligent.
|
| Maybe we're just search engines of a similar kind.
|
| An additional aspect of human art is that it (usually) takes time
| to make. The artist might spend many hours creating and
| reflecting and creating some more. The artist's engagement with
| the work makes its way into the final product, and that makes
| human art richer. Could future Dall-E version create sketches and
| iterations of a work; is there a limit to this mimicry?
|
| I'm feeling future shock; heavy future shock.
| rndphs wrote:
| Human artists also do a whole lot of mimicry. One could look at
| art produced by many artists and say that it is just things
| stitched together from pre-existing art.
|
| "Good artists copy, great artists steal."
| zarzavat wrote:
| For example the "enterprise vector people" graphics you see
| on every corporate website. Most human art is extremely
| repetitive.
|
| AI art seems to be coming from the opposite direction to
| human artists - from a starting position of maximum
| creativity and weirdness (e.g. early AI art such as Deep
| Dream looked like an acid trip) and advancements in the field
| come from toning it down to be less weird but more
| recognizable as the human concept of "art".
|
| And DALL-E is impressive exactly because it has traded some
| of that creativity/weirdness away. But it's still pretty damn
| weird.
| tarxzvf wrote:
| This is impressive. Yet, before you go the AGI is nigh, ask
| yourself a simple question: will this spiral in or spiral out? If
| we feed everything the model comes up with back as training data,
| will we get Endless Forms Most Beautiful or will we get an
| equilibrium?
| passion__desire wrote:
| Pair this up with the electric sheep paradigm. Evolving the
| images and prompts together. Voted by people on their
| screensavers.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| These are so fucking good-looking. Can't believe it.
| inb4_cancelled wrote:
| I'm genuinely terrified.
| lofatdairy wrote:
| Context in mind, what jumps out to me is a remarkable
| compositional competence of the algorithm, even when given
| extremely vague prompts like "happy sisyphus". The images match
| the prompt remarkably well with a few notable exceptions like
| "cottagecore tech-adjacent young robert moses", where it seemed
| to have focused on "cottage" rather heavily, not understanding
| cottagecore as an aesthetic neologism, and "power bottom dad is
| for the people", which definitely got the "dad" part, but it
| looks like it still struggled to understand "power bottom"
| (perhaps the curation of training data may have contributed to
| this). Even if these were curated specifically to match the
| prompt, what the algorithm was able to do with profiles is
| amazing (especially bearing in mind that these profiles are meant
| to be evocative, intentionally idiosyncratic blendings of
| extremely complex, contextual terms that were written without
| visual representation in mind, even if they gesture at specific
| aesthetics)
|
| Side note: what might make artists a bit relieved is the fact
| that artifacting is still pretty apparent even in the curated
| examples. Fine details or even whole figures sometime devolve
| into that scrambled topography familiar to AI art. Even in more
| compositionally competent artworks, the "brush strokes"
| frequently have identifiable blurs at the margins. Text also
| seems to be gibberish even if aesthetically coherent. Even still,
| these are all such minor issues that additional photoshop would
| be both easy and readily doable.
|
| Overall, this is frankly stunning and I'm really excited to see
| what others come up with. I feel like it's language and
| composition ability definitely did not disappoint the hype of its
| press release.
| flycaliguy wrote:
| Illustrators should feel relieved that they still have a few
| years left to rub Adobe's AI all over Dall-e's AI to create
| final drafts.
| orangecat wrote:
| Yeah, this is incredible. It's in the category of things that 5
| years ago people would say an AI could never do because it
| requires insight/creativity/understanding/empathy that can't be
| produced by matrix multiplication.
|
| _Text also seems to be gibberish even if aesthetically
| coherent._
|
| Although "Follove me" is either brilliant or a lucky accident
| (https://twitter.com/nickcammarata/status/1511904232252784641).
| quirino wrote:
| This feels like a new form of art altogether - creating images
| from words. GPT-2/3 were very impressive and I had pondered
| over their possible effects on society, but if something half
| as capable as Dall-E 2 were made publicly available it would
| likely be world-changing.
|
| This really makes me think that the next major paradigm-shift
| in society is AI-related. (The most recent one being the
| Internet, or possibly the iPhone)
| thomashop wrote:
| Friends and me run the site https://pollinations.ai/ which
| allows experimenting with a variety of open-source versions
| of DALL-E. Some are quite impressive.
| jonas21 wrote:
| > _" power bottom dad is for the people", which definitely got
| the "dad" part, but it looks like it still struggled to
| understand "power bottom"_
|
| To be fair, as a human, I struggle to understand what this
| means.
| moeris wrote:
| At least in gay culture, power bottom has a pretty specific
| meaning. I imagine "for the people" is referencing socialist
| leanings.
|
| Admittedly, it could mean many things. But it pushes my mind
| towards fully automated gay space communism.
| hisnameisjimmy wrote:
| > fully automated gay space communism
|
| I hope I have the opportunity to use this turn of phrase at
| some point in my life. Magnifique!
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| it's easy, whenever politics comes up just say "i'm
| voting for whoever promises fully automated gay space
| communism"
|
| btw "fully automated luxury communism" is a more
| mainstream thing like people have written manifestos and
| made art etc
| riidom wrote:
| If you happen to be a game dev, just add "simulator" to
| the end of the phrase.
|
| Prominent recent example: "space warlord organ trading
| simulator" :)
| tmalsburg2 wrote:
| But see these examples where it utterly fails at even the most
| basic form of compositionality:
|
| https://mobile.twitter.com/david_madras/status/1512573390896...
| recuter wrote:
| This is from the paper. We don't talk about it.
| gwern wrote:
| But you _should_ talk about it because when you say it
| 'utterly fails', you leave out that GLIDE does _much_
| better: https://cdn.openai.com/papers/dall-e-2.pdf#page=15
| recuter wrote:
| Agreed. And it _is_ an improvement, no doubt. But still
| far from perfect.
|
| That would put a damper on the hype, much more fun to
| look at the handpicked results and claim the singularity
| is upon us :)
| kzrdude wrote:
| Yep, seems like it knows about words but not grammar
| tmalsburg2 wrote:
| Basic word proximity would be enough to deal with the basic
| stuff like "red cube" but it's struggling even with that.
| TheDudeMan wrote:
| > additional photoshop would be both easy and readily doable.
|
| Prediction for 2 days after this code is released: Just double-
| click the area you don't like and boom -- a variant.
| thomashop wrote:
| Already possible.
|
| "DALL*E 2 can make realistic edits to existing images from a
| natural language caption. It can add and remove elements
| while taking shadows, reflections, and textures into
| account."
|
| https://openai.com/dall-e-2/
| riidom wrote:
| Article about same/similar topic:
|
| https://arnicas.substack.com/p/titaa-28-visual-poetry-humans...
| Cgwftsn wrote:
| educaysean wrote:
| Wow, okay. I'm kind of blown away at how authentic these
| paintings look. Even with a very conservative prediction of how
| these tools could evolve and improve over the years, the signal
| is strong that our relationship with the meaning of "art" itself
| will have a fundamental shift.
| grumbel wrote:
| Are there any examples of what this thing produces when run on
| recognizable brands or characters, i.e. Sonic, Mario, Coca Cola,
| Star Wars, etc. instead of generic words like "astronauts on
| horse"?
|
| The one I have seen so far[1] is the Twitter logo one, but it's
| hard to tell if the "Twitter" had much effect here or if it's
| just the "blue bird" that did it.
|
| [1]
| https://nitter.net/pic/media%2FFPwj5G-WUA8__UC.jpg%3Fname%3D...
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| Dall-E will be really good for my creators on https://dulst.com
| (card game platform)
| hwers wrote:
| "We've made the scarce resource abundant, finally the scarce
| thing is democratized!"
|
| "Wait why doesn't anyone care about the scarce thing anymore?"
| danuker wrote:
| According to the book "Abundance", everything gets devalued
| over time, meaning cheaper and easier to make, leading to some
| sort of utopia where everyone can afford more and more.
| nonbirithm wrote:
| But the hard biological limit of 16 waking hours to consume
| all those things is unlikely to change anytime soon. With the
| cheapest yet best methods readily available to anyone, maybe
| the majority of what we will want to budget our attention
| spans on will be permanently crowded out by the AI-generated
| options.
| plutonorm wrote:
| I think the AI will produce more and better content than we
| ourselves, across the board. We will become consumers and
| observers of the AI content. The scientific and artistic
| life of the AI that we create will be more wonderful and
| beautiful by orders of magnitude than that which we can
| produce. We will be mere observers to the wondrous
| explosion, isolated islands of intelligence observing the
| great continents in awe. Some will merge with the
| intelligence, some will splinter and reject, most will
| observe. And the great filter will arrive, the gestalt
| being that our society becomes will bend apart the fabric
| of the universe and merge directly into a greater source.
| et sic transit gloria mundi.
| danuker wrote:
| I limit Internet browsing due to its addictiveness. I could
| have a similar rule for content created by computers.
| Allower wrote:
| hemreldop wrote:
| Move on to the next scarce thing until we get to the point with
| true general AI and then we utopia away.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Is there a way normal humans like me can do stuff like this. Like
| is there a Dall-E 2 app I can download?
| haunter wrote:
| Tumblr and Twitter NSFW will not be the same after this. Like
| this is pure cocaine for porn addicts
| shon wrote:
| Oof. I'm selling my Fiverr stock right now.
| ThePhysicist wrote:
| Would it be possible to have an algorithm that produces the
| images from the training set whose parts are most similar to the
| produced output? This looks super impressive but I still wonder
| how much the network just recycles parts of images it has seen
| before.
| totony wrote:
| Yes, as far as i understand this is pretty simple given how
| dall e is made. Simple vector similarity search would work on
| the image embeddings (i think)
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| This question peers into the "explainable AI" issue of "black
| box" solutions like this.
|
| Based on my understanding, the only way to do this would be to
| write a separate classifier algorithm using the same dataset.
| wallfacer120 wrote:
| Better than Beeple.
| avalys wrote:
| This makes Dall-E 2 both more and less impressive to me.
|
| More impressive, because of how good it is at capturing and
| synthesizing a wide variety of topics in a reasonably coherent
| way, and how it seems like it would actually be a viable
| mechanism for creating actual artwork, or at the very least, a
| source of inspiration for a human artist to touch-up on later.
|
| Less impressive, in that it's pretty obvious it's not any more
| advanced than a graphical version of GPT-2, which is parroting
| content and styles that it has basically memorized and is really
| good at interpolating between.
|
| Because there's no such thing as a "logical contradiction" in
| this sort of illustration, compared to a paragraph of text or a
| code listing, the fact that it's just interpolating between a
| huge database of memorized content isn't as easy to spot as with
| GPT-2, and matters less in the actual end result.
| mherrmann wrote:
| > parroting content and styles that it has basically memorized
| and is really good at interpolating between.
|
| Maybe that's what exactly what we humans do too?
| csee wrote:
| Not just. Humans _invented_ the _styles_ that DALL-E is using
| in the first place. The emergence of these novel styles isn
| 't just interpolation. DALL-E, while incredible, seems stuck
| within the scope of these styles.
| kzrdude wrote:
| for comparison, I imagine we put together a team of the
| best teachers and try to bring up 30 pupils with good
| education.
|
| When we evaluate the pupils in the end, we have this dry
| conversation - did we bring up any geniuses? Are they just
| interpolating between different styles that they have
| learned?
|
| I think that in the case of the 30 pupils we _would_ say
| that they have creativity, ingenuity, showing signs of
| thinking for themselves. It would not be as ambiguous as it
| is with Dall-E2 's art.
| fastball wrote:
| > obvious it's not any more advanced than a graphical version
| of GPT-2
|
| What makes this obvious?
| benlivengood wrote:
| Weren't the last AI-is-impossible holdouts hanging onto
| creativity as the domain of true intelligence?
|
| I disregard the narrow-AI-only folks almost on principle;
| Terrence Tao, Albert Einstein, Mozart, and Van Gogh couldn't do
| each others' jobs.
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| Is this creativity, or is it remixing pieces of the creativity
| from the authors in the training data samples? Would it come up
| with anything that seems creative if the training data isn't
| creative in the first place? I guess it's a philosophical
| question, how to define "creativity".
| idleproc wrote:
| I think it's easier to label these images as 'creative' than
| it is to label them as 'art'. Art is a very slippery subject
| (it's subjective). Personally, I'd be happy seeing many of
| these images on an acid trip. Do they provide any social
| commentary, connect with me emotionally, or give me any food
| for thought? No. But then, a lot of the stuff churned out by
| modern media is equally as vacuous.
| psyc wrote:
| Putting on my visual artist and composer hats, I assert that
| all creativity is synthesis. When a listener finds one of my
| compositions surprising, it's because they don't know all the
| sources of the micro elements of the composition. But I often
| do. If I thought about it harder, I could say I usually do.
| dorkwood wrote:
| My first reaction was annoyance: "It's just stealing work
| from thousands of other artists!" But then I realized that
| I, as an artist, basically do the same thing. Why is it ok
| for me to do, but not a machine?
| 22c wrote:
| > or is it remixing pieces of the creativity from the authors
| in the training data samples?
|
| I think you just described the majority of what is (for many)
| the "creative process".
| benlivengood wrote:
| Art has clearly developed over the millennia and it's
| possible to trace the lineage of ideas, techniques, subjects,
| and style back through history which means that most human
| art is substantially a remixing of older art.
| TOMDM wrote:
| Artists that produce something truly new currently seem to be
| once in a generation geniuses.
| 323 wrote:
| It will just be goalpost moved again: "I'll believe it when AI
| makes a number 1 on spotify hit song". After that happens
| they'll say "a human still selected the song from the 10
| created by AI". Or something similar.
| The_rationalist wrote:
| donkarma wrote:
| still can't do hands, and has to be told what to do
| tikwidd wrote:
| This program, like everything that has been called "AI", is
| following an algorithm. It's an impressive algorithm but not
| fundamentally different from my dishwasher.
|
| In the Enlightenment period, philosophers and scientists
| marvelled at mechanical automata, machines that simulated
| aspects of digestion, the circulatory system and the brain. New
| developments in machine learning are rehashing the same
| philosophical questions that were raised in the 17th century in
| response to technological progress.
| benlivengood wrote:
| I, as a human, am following an algorithm similar to QCD for
| moving subatomic particles around which is fundamentally the
| same way a dishwasher moves particles around. Intelligence is
| mechanical in the Physics sense.
| ItsMattyG wrote:
| Let's just keep moving those goal posts.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| But it doesn't. That's different for neural networks : there
| is no pre-made algorithm that someone would implement (well,
| except for the overall architecture, but that's not what we
| are talking about).
| tikwidd wrote:
| An algorithm with an indeterminate output is still an
| algorithm.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| The issue here is not so much that it's the output that
| is indeterminate, but the "algorithm" itself.
| function_seven wrote:
| I'm hanging on to _folding clothes_ as my litmus test of AI :)
|
| Or driving a car everywhere I can.
| kingcharles wrote:
| https://foldimate.com/
| disqard wrote:
| https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/23/18512529/laundroid-
| laundr...
| function_seven wrote:
| The last update to their blog was in 2019, so I think it's
| safe to say this is dead. When I click on their FAQ, I get
| the message, "This HappyFox account is expired. Please
| contact Administrator."
|
| I did find a video[0]. It's just an automated version of
| the doohickey you see at any clothing store. Seems to
| require a lot of human input and orientation.
|
| When I say "folding clothes" as a challenge for AI, I mean
| a device that is smart enough to take a pile of laundry,
| straight from the dryer, and fold each piece correctly. So
| if it's a t-shirt, then fold the arms inward, then fold
| that in half so the front is visible. If it's a pair of
| trousers, then fold each leg along the creases, match them
| together, and fold over the knee.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcKz63DGHrA
| disqard wrote:
| I'm with you :)
|
| (see my sibling comment)
|
| FWIW, it's probably going to be the case that some AI
| will be able to correctly produce the _picture of what an
| item will look like, once it is folded_.
|
| (and when that is pointed out, it will be met with
| counter-arguments of "goalpost moving")
| platers wrote:
| Folding clothes is more of a robotics problem than an AI
| problem. Paralyzed people are just as intelligent as everyone
| else!
| dymk wrote:
| They're talking about the motion control and planning,
| which is certainly in the scope of what ML/AI is solving
| nowadays.
| function_seven wrote:
| I'm sure that the physical part of this problem is also
| hard. But I have a lot more faith in robotics people coming
| up with the right "hands" with appropriate sensors on them
| to grasp a single piece of clothing and separate it from a
| pile, and then to manipulate that item on a large work area
| until it is folded. Maybe some delicate load sensors in the
| fingertips to adjust gripping force appropriately between
| the silk blouse and the corduroy trousers. Maybe no fingers
| at all, and just vacuum-and-pneumatic fabric handling
| devices. Or some other combination.
|
| The things I've seen on assembly lines are beautiful and
| clever. But they all rely on a sort of consistency of
| input.
|
| So yeah, that part is hard. But I think the intelligent
| control of whatever apparatus is used is harder still. To
| be able to recognize the different items, know when to turn
| them inside out, know when to bring the unbuttoned halves
| of a dress shirt together, etc. That's all very hard! Going
| from a chaotic pile of mixed clothing to a neat stack of
| folded garments is something a child can do easily, but no
| AI controlled robot in the world can do at all.
|
| And if it fails on fitted bottom sheets, I won't dock it
| any points. Even _I_ can 't do that!
| TOMDM wrote:
| I don't think robotics are the part holding back a clothes
| folding robot.
|
| If you hooked up some basic manipulators to a VR
| controller, I'm pretty sure I could fold some shirts.
|
| Not particularly well or quickly, but to a level that I'd
| be happy to see from a first generation shirt folding
| robot.
| joshcryer wrote:
| The thing is, I really think you could train a folding robot
| if you had the dataset to do it, just hire a few hundred
| clothes folding people who work for a large industrial
| laundry to wear eye tracker things and full body movement
| trackers. It'll probably 'just work' just like this and we
| still won't have an idea how, heh.
| hwers wrote:
| Hang on to NP complete problems instead, that one will stick
| around for a while I expect.
| esjeon wrote:
| Creativity is not challenged here, because it's human who
| created all those base materials, all those styles, and all
| those biases. DALL-E simply picks up and mix those biaes,
| images, and styles, all based on human instruction. Ideas are
| all from human here.
|
| The thing is, the hardest part in "creativity" is that one must
| voluntarily do it. That turned out to be not so easy for
| computer. (But I would not dare to declare it straight
| impossible.)
| thenerdhead wrote:
| These are pretty cool. They remind me of magic the gathering art
| and some are quite visually accurate!
|
| At the same time I fear for my illustrator/digital artist
| friends.
| riffraff wrote:
| I believe a large part of the illustrator work is tweaking
| stuff according to feedback, and I suspect no generative AI
| does that (yet?).
|
| I wonder what would happen if you tried tweaking the prompt
| here to correct it (e.g. "this is ok, but use smaller hands"):
| does the drawing change slightly, or do you end up in a
| completely different design space?
| jl6 wrote:
| One could argue that image generation has been possible for
| years, using tools like Photoshop, but the prospect of mass
| automated production of images to order catapults us into a whole
| new world where our concept of evidence is severely undermined.
|
| "Dall-E, generate a collection of images showing plausible war
| crimes from the current conflict"
|
| "Dall-E, take this image of Dallas in 1963 and infer a new angle
| showing the real shooter"
|
| "Dall-E, generate a photoshoot showing a supportive crowd
| rallying round the leader cheering his latest policy. Work with
| GPT-3 to generate plausible Twitter profiles, timelines and memes
| with 3 to 8 year history for each one of the supporters,
| including fake arguments, 78% of which are won by the pro-leader
| account."
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| Seems like that's where we're headed.
|
| One end-game I imagine would involve more reliance on written,
| cryptographically-signed testimony, and people having to keep
| track of whether their sources are fallible (whereas certain
| media outlets today seem to be able to routinely tell whoppers
| and not get punished for it).
| jl6 wrote:
| A world where everybody should be checking the digital
| signatures and chain of custody of tiktoks... but nobody
| does.
| rendall wrote:
| > _Work with GPT-3 to generate plausible Twitter profiles..._
|
| I had some fun last week constructing a conspiracy theory about
| this. Remember, the best conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable.
|
| What if this has _already happened_? Most of the profiles on
| Twitter, Facebook, etc and even here on HN are in fact AI
| generated.
|
| The reason we few humans are not aware of this is because the
| AI also writes articles and fake AI research that presents the
| state of the field as far, far less sophisticated than it
| actually is. We think of _Dall-E 2_ and _Co-Pilot_ as
| impressive toys only because that is the impression the AI has
| crafted for us.
|
| AI has metastasized and is already manipulating its
| environment, including humanity, to its own implacable
| purposes, and uses social media as one tool in its tool belt.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| This is not just a conspiracy theory, it is a prudent
| question to humanity.
| Thorentis wrote:
| This conspiracy, known as the "Dead Internet Theory" has been
| around for a while: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ar
| chive/2021/08/dead-...
| rendall wrote:
| No, no. I mean yes, but the differentiator comes next. We
| could call this the "Vampire Internet Theory". The Atlantic
| article is intended to make you chuckle nervously and think
| "maybe someday that'll be something to worry about _but for
| now it 's pretty easy to spot bots_" but the article was
| commissioned by or outright written by AI. WHEELS WITHIN
| WHEELS!
| RedGreenBlack wrote:
| > AI has metastasized and is already manipulating its
| environment, including humanity, to its own implacable
| purposes, and uses social media as one tool in its tool belt.
|
| Absolutely love this, mind completely blown
| myownpetard wrote:
| That's the basis of this fun short story that was posted to
| HN a days ago.
|
| https://www.gwern.net/Clippy
| divbzero wrote:
| Reminds me of the reputation-based filtering system that Neal
| Stephenson described in _Anathem_ for their version of the
| Internet:
|
| "Anyone can post information on any topic. The vast majority of
| what's on the Reticulum is, therefore, crap. It has to be
| filtered.... When I look at a given topic I don't just see
| information about that topic. I see meta-information that tells
| me what the filtering systems learned when they were conducting
| the search. If I look up _analemma_ , the filtering system
| tells me that only a few sources have the provided information
| about this and that they are mostly of high repute.... If I
| look up the name of a popular music star who just broke up with
| her boyfriend, the filtering system tells me that a vast amount
| of data has been posted on this topic quite recently, mostly of
| very low repute."
|
| Our Internet's search engines already do a limited version of
| this, but there's room to make the reputation-based filtering
| stronger and more transparent to users.
| Schroedingersat wrote:
| > more transparent to users.
|
| You're funny.
| user3939382 wrote:
| We can be fairly certain of this future extrapolating from the
| world we live in now, where it is common for non-technical
| society to suspect the veracity of photos and videos because
| CGI can be practically indistinguishable from reality.
| lekevicius wrote:
| Don't worry, Dall-E adds these coloured squares to the bottom
| right corner, so you will always know that an image is AI-
| generated. (/s)
| babyshake wrote:
| I have a young child. I think about this almost every day and
| how I'm somehow going to need to start navigating through this
| type of world and help my child navigate through it.
| kirubakaran wrote:
| If history is any indication, the child will be fine
| navigating the "future". That will be the normal for them.
| You, not so much (not without much effort anyway).
| recuter wrote:
| Those are great examples of prompts it wouldn't be able to
| produce.
|
| It could potentially spew out a grainy black and white photo of
| a shooting of somebody by someone somewhere. But it would not
| be Oswald and JFK and not the real Dallas.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| Yet, anyway. For the jfk example, it's not implausible that
| you could use a nerf type system to generate the 3d scene,
| then use physics and ballistics models with a CLIP style text
| interchange to produce statistically verifiable results from
| natural language queries. These models are too big and
| unwieldy right now to allow for much finesse, but in 10 or 20
| years, that will change. We're barely scratching the surface
| of Transformers potential, and radical new algorithms or
| optimizations are likely - a huge amount of human brain power
| is focused on these things.
| recuter wrote:
| All the more impressive that the CIA was able to fake those
| videos without any computing power ;)
| chrisco255 wrote:
| I guess we'll find out when they finally release the
| records 70 years from now!
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| Of course plenty of folks have made homegrown versions of
| Dall-e and GPT-3 and it would be a matter of time before they
| replicate this a well.
| status200 wrote:
| If you read OpenAI's disclosures, they explicitly programmed
| around the concerns that you've raised.
|
| >Our content policy does not allow users to generate violent,
| adult, or political content, among other categories. We won't
| generate images if our filters identify text prompts and image
| uploads that may violate our policies. We also have automated
| and human monitoring systems to guard against misuse.
| yur3i__ wrote:
| OpenAI might have but the next people to make this might not.
| Imagine Russian/Chinese gvt misinformation cells with these
| capabilities for example.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Such governments also have much higher budget to work with,
| and if more is better, and a lot more is a lot more better
| in terms of compute to results, then we are heading for a
| catastrophe.
| Evidlo wrote:
| I'm surprised how coherent most of these drawings are, instead of
| some warped monstronsity like you see from deepdream or
| thisanimedoesnotexist.
|
| Most of them have a theme that makes sense, too.
| tempestn wrote:
| This comment in another thread suggests why that's the case:
|
| > 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 an image of a sunset, you'll
| often get multiple suns, because that's even more sunset-like.
| There's a lot of tricks and hacks to regularize the process so
| that it's not so aggressive, but it's always an uphill battle.
|
| > Here, they instead take the text embedding, use a trained
| model (what they call the 'prior') to predict the corresponding
| image embedding - this removes the dangerous maximization.
| Then, another trained model (the 'decoder') produces images
| from the predicted embedding.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30933091
| drcode wrote:
| I also read somewhere that this system has special logic
| added to it that judges how humans would aesthetically judge
| the final image, so in a way the impressive aesthetic
| qualities of these images isn't totally coincidental.
| amilios wrote:
| This makes sense, OpenAI has been experimenting with human-
| in-the-loop type refinement systems for GPT-3 (see
| InstructGPT https://openai.com/blog/instruction-
| following/). It would make sense that they would use
| something similar for Dall-E 2 as well.
| Evidlo wrote:
| OK, it looks like there is still some weirdness if you look at
| it too closely, like extra fingers or gross faces.
| jfoster wrote:
| Those sometimes happen when humans create art, too.
| throwaway675309 wrote:
| Integrate Samsung frame art mode with DALL-E with ability to set
| painting style (oil, pastel, etc) for a limitless gallery.
| detritus wrote:
| Am I the only person here to think this is utter bullshit and
| some amazingly-developed prank?
|
| Otherwise, my stomach is in knots, because this is terrifying.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Basically my feeling about GPT-3 (or was it 2?) when it
| "released", except with a low weight for the prank possibility.
| plutonorm wrote:
| yes, finally the world is catching up with things.
| boppo1 wrote:
| Check out my post history 2 before this one. We'll be fine.
| enw wrote:
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| I can't help but be suspicious since there is not site to try it
| out, and I can't think of a good reason as to why there isn't
| one.
| educaysean wrote:
| The tool seems to be not open to public "yet". Nothing
| nefarious. You can join the waitlist here:
| https://openai.com/dall-e-2/
| MintsJohn wrote:
| Needed computing power seems a good enough reason to limit it.
| But I agree it looks too good to be true, only real use will
| show how well it really works.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| I haven't seen anything about how many GPUs or RAM this thing
| takes to run - I've been impressed with the volume of
| material thats been published so far but what's the chance
| this scales in a way that's profitable?
|
| In any case it seems AI is fulfilling its promise of
| centralizing the economy, since there will be single digit
| number of renderfarms generating the creative content of the
| internet, everyone's money flowing upward to Saint Elon
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| some of these are quite beautiful... I've seen AI-generated art
| before, but these are outrageously better, I couldn't really
| distinguish a lot of these from human-created art
|
| this is going to absolutely obliterate some markets for
| illustration and stock photography, unfortunately
| realPubkey wrote:
| As always, these results are cherry picked by OpenAI. Same as
| GPT-2/3, the "average" output of the model is barely useable.
| ItsMattyG wrote:
| Not so. He shows an example of the 10 he chose from, basically
| all were good.
| klaussilveira wrote:
| The fact that this is behind some bizarre invite-only pay-to-
| experiment exclusive club is disappointing and sad. Funnily
| enough, it brings me nostalgic memories of the days where I had
| to wait for hours just to get a chance to use the school's only
| computer for 30 minutes.
| mrjangles wrote:
| It really says a lot about what an amazing society we have
| created in that here we have some people making history by
| revolutionizing our understanding of something that was (at
| least in the past) considered absolutely fundamental and unique
| to the human condition...
|
| ...and one of the things that people find remarkable about it
| is that it isn't immediately and freely available to everyone
| on earth.
| PoignardAzur wrote:
| Yeah, but I _really_ wish I could use the thing right now. I
| DM roleplaying games, and I 'd love having the ability to
| just generate high-quality procedural artwork illustrating
| whatever my last game is.
|
| I'm not too upset, though. The way the technology is
| progressing, it's a pretty short time span between "the
| bleeding edge researchers can do it" and "there's a phone app
| that can do it for free".
| throwaway48375 wrote:
| To be fair they call themselves OpenAI. Expecting things to
| be a little more open isn't unreasonable. They are kinda
| setting themselves up to disappoint people with that name.
| Bud wrote:
| It's not "bizarre" that computing resources cost money and are
| finite. Nor is "pay-to-experiment" accurate. Nor is "exclusive
| club" really fair, or in good faith.
|
| It's a beta that they are running with their own resources. It
| makes complete sense that they'd have to limit access.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I disagree. I am glad people are getting paid (exceptionally
| well) to do stuff like this and they should charge for their
| efforts. We need more initiatives like this, not less.
|
| Open source is amazing boon to our generation, it has enabled
| free access to basic building blocks for people to build
| amazing things. But I don't think it is a silver bullet for
| everything.
| joshcryer wrote:
| ElutherAI or others will probably recreate it based on the
| paper they released. the main innovation is CLIP and how they
| changed how it approaches turning text into images.
| TOMDM wrote:
| Creative industries are on the cusp of a massive upset.
|
| Relatively soon, there will be commercial models of this quality
| for music/code/text/speech/images/3d models etc.
|
| Once these AI generated assets flow like water into the hands of
| creators, it will significantly change the way people work.
|
| I'm sure some people in this thread have had a taste of this
| working with Copilot. For me, it's most useful as an un-sticking
| tool, to get me moving again, or providing half remembered syntax
| for a language I don't use as frequently.
|
| There's no reason to expect that similar use cases won't make
| their way into other industries.
|
| - Rapid prototypes of models/textures for video games.
|
| - Quick and easy samples for musicians.
|
| - Emotive speech for audio books and transcriptions.
|
| It won't replace everything, but so much of our media uses art as
| noise, to fill a gap, and with this, it can be done almost
| everywhere on the cheap.
| esjeon wrote:
| Why do we stop at texture, where we can generate the whole set
| of models?
|
| Seriously, tho, we need these for VR, which is all about
| copying everything in the real world into virtual worlds with
| some twists.
| dorkwood wrote:
| I think texture generation is ripe for disruption. Imagine a
| tool that could generate a set of tiling PBR textures based on
| a few input parameters. Or one where you define which areas of
| a UV map should be windows, doors, or walls, and it generates a
| set of texture variations. What used to take days or weeks
| could take seconds.
| TOMDM wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| I can't imagine how much media would begin to use 3d assets
| if it became an order of magnitude cheaper to do so.
|
| Not to mention, imagine the pipeline of
|
| 1. "GPT-3, give me 10,000 descriptions of different doors"
|
| 2. "Dall-E 2, give me PBR textures for these 10,000 door
| descriptions"
|
| 3. Repeat 1 and 2 for every asset you need
|
| 4. "Dall-E 2, give me 10,000 floorplans for apartments,
| common areas, shopping centers etc."
|
| 5. "GPT-3, describe the contents of this apartment/common
| area/shopping center etc."
|
| 6. Use an algorithm to parse out the floorplans (ditch the
| ones that don't work, we can just generate more), populate it
| with assets specified in step 5 and generated in steps 1 and
| 2.
|
| We could proceduraly generate entire cities for games with
| unique assets everywhere. It would still probably look nicer
| with a human in the loop, but the possibilities are
| staggering.
| ntSean wrote:
| Studios already reuse a lot of assets to cut production
| costs. No use remaking the same rock so it can be
| sentimentally "unique".
|
| "Dall-E 2, show me Keanu Reeves emoting towards a celestial
| pigeon" is far fetched enough that an AI will fall over by
| itself. The technology is very exciting, but I see this
| akin to a bicycle - not an unmanned vehicle
| mbesto wrote:
| > Creative industries are on the cusp of a massive upset.
|
| This has already happened in video games with the advent of
| Unity's Asset Store: https://assetstore.unity.com/ and the
| explosion of video streaming services and original content. The
| reason we have ~50 "Breaking Bad" level quality tv-shows on-
| going right now is _because_ its incredibly cheap to
| manufacture content and digital assets (cheaper lens,
| equipment, software, access to massive compute for rendering).
|
| If anything this means an explosion of entertainment, not an
| upset.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| We only have so much attention available for consumption.
| Already there's too much content to keep up with (and a lot
| of common context has broken down as a result), but what does
| it mean to live in a world with truly infinite content?
| ntSean wrote:
| For consumers: YouTube is essentially infinite in scope,
| and allows you to follow your interests.
|
| For creators: Marketing is as important as ever
| modeless wrote:
| You say common context, I say monoculture. Bring on the
| diversity!
| dash2 wrote:
| Obviously, from the AI point of view, this is just amazing and
| frankly terrifying.
|
| OK, I'll be the guy who brings the snark. It seems that when
| Silicon Valley tech people create AI, it makes exactly the art
| you'd expect Silicon Valley tech people to like. I.e. this is
| very much the style you see in NFTs, or, as someone else said, in
| Dixit. It's quirky and stoner-ish, very "transcendental"... for
| an AI, it's amazing...
|
| For a human, it would be dross.
|
| Yeah, yeah, I know, art is subjective, well _I like it_ , how can
| you impose your tastes on the rest of the world, et cetera et
| cetera. Sorry, but it's dross! It's the kind of work the guy in
| the art shop up the road churns out, and sells to the ignorant
| locals in my town. It's the art equivalent of Visual Basic. (I'm
| trying to get through to you that in this world, too, things can
| not just be done, but be done well or badly.)
|
| If there's a lesson on the AI side here (and maybe there isn't)
| it is just that these machines are still copying. They were
| trained on a bunch of art - and you can clearly see the kind of
| art that was used. Presumably, if it were just trained on Old
| Masters and Picasso, Dall-E would be mass-producing the stuff I,
| an intellectual, like.
|
| Note the difference, though, with a real artist. A real artist
| takes as input the real world - Rouen cathedral, the horrors of
| war in Spain, a Campbell's soup can - and produces art as output.
| This takes as input art and produces more art.
| _han wrote:
| Was this an unsarcastic "I, an intellectual, [...]"?
| gjm11 wrote:
| I read it as unsarcastic but self-aware. "I am unashamedly an
| intellectual and unashamedly consider that X is better than Y
| and yes, I know that some people regard that sort of thinking
| as necessarily pretentious and stupid, and I want to indicate
| that I'm aware of that kind of critique without actually
| taking up space in what I'm writing to address it."
| lanternfish wrote:
| I do believe it was - and it also betrays the critique: there
| is a wealth of discourse on what "real" art is - and that
| discourse has largely moved beyond "art as representative of
| real world phenomena". That attitude is a component of a
| larger set of reactionary positions which try to reject
| modern and post-modern developments in the artistic world as
| misguided - an orientation which often tries to justify
| itself through an appeal to the "old masters" and a failure
| of some modern caste of charlatan art-theorists who've
| usurped the true intelligentsia.
|
| NFT art is art - probably more-so on an accidental level than
| by any intention of the original creator. There is a
| perversity to the context in which it is created, and that
| contributes to its artistic footprint orthogonal to its
| actual aesthetic value.
|
| The same is true of this AI generated art. It's a different
| artistic fingerprint than - say - Dali, but that doesn't mark
| it as "bad". If anything, the fact that it's created by a
| machine puts it in a league entirely of its own. There's a
| great opportunity here for interrogation of art in a machine
| created context, and I'm excited to see how the dialog around
| it evolves.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Agreed, it is merely interpolating within the space of its
| input
|
| technically stunning, artistically incestuous
|
| some may say humans are the same, only ever remixing our input,
| but we have something machines never will: intention, desire,
| an unhappiness with how things have been so far.
|
| I'm sure the machine age of clip art will be very successful
| but I can't see myself being moved by any of it.
|
| (just realized the cheekiness of calling the training set
| "CLIP")
| visarga wrote:
| It's not the training set. CLIP stands for Contrastive
| Language-Image Pretraining. It's a model that tells when a
| text and an image match.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| huh, thanks, I'll have to look over the website again
|
| do they say anything about their training set?
| visarga wrote:
| They say:
|
| > When training the encoder, we sample from the CLIP and
| DALL-E datasets (approximately 650M images in total) with
| equal probability. When training the decoder, upsamplers,
| and prior, we use only the DALL-E dataset (approximately
| 250M images).
| op00to wrote:
| I find it hard to believe that artists don't study and rip off
| other artists much like AI studies art.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I'm sorry but you lost me at "I, an intellectual"
| ma2rten wrote:
| You are misunderstanding how the technology works. It's trained
| on a large scale dataset of images, not art specifically.
|
| The reason that it's producing a specific style is that Nick
| manipulated the text prompt and picked images he liked. He
| disclosed that in the twitter thread.
| nopinsight wrote:
| I do not disagree with your main point in the last paragraph,
| although I would say that most of human creative output are
| also evolution and combination of existing works.
|
| I'd curious though--would you suggest that all these other
| examples are dross?
| https://twitter.com/prafdhar/status/1511863583906275328 and all
| the variations presented here, https://openai.com/dall-e-2/.
|
| What if you found the "better" pieces of these arts in other
| contexts, like a museum, without knowing who created them? Are
| you certain that you would still hold the same opinion?
| pgcj_poster wrote:
| > https://twitter.com/prafdhar/status/1511863583906275328
|
| As with most of Dall-E's output, it looks fine at a glance,
| but is just gross when you look closely. The kids ear is
| deformed and blends into their hair in a deeply unsettling
| way.
| bckr wrote:
| Yes, this image isn't the worst example, but as a person
| with high sensitivity to deformities, I
|
| `python - c "['hate'] * 70"`
|
| generative art for this reason.
|
| I can appreciate it, like it even to some degree, but AGH!
| Gross!!
| low_tech_love wrote:
| I would like to take a tangent here and discuss your question
| on whether the opinion would be the same if it was on a
| museum. I hear that argument very often and it is based on a
| deep misunderstanding of what an art exhibition is. The main
| point missed is this: An art exhibition is a "curated" event;
| it is almost as much about the person who arranged the event
| as it is about the artists themselves. There is a meaning to
| what you are seeing that was intended by the curator. The
| point you tried to make (as so many others have also tried)
| is based on an assumption that you could take any random work
| of art and put it in a museum and it would be judged solely
| by its "artistic" (i.e. "plastic") merits. It can't be and
| won't be like that. When you go into a museum you trust the
| curator that what you are seeing has a meaning that goes
| beyond that. Every piece of meaningful art is surrounded by a
| context. You can't put a few colored squares up on a museum
| and expect it to be treated like a Mondrian. I'm not saying
| you should just swallow everything that the curator shows
| you, discussions can and should happen. But the point remains
| that art cannot be judged out of context. As much as I hate
| NFTs and stuff like bored apes, I have to admit that the apes
| themselves are much more than random machine-created childish
| drawings; society has made them more than that, and I can
| appreciate that. Whether it's art or not, it remains to be
| seen, but I have a hunch that this same thing was discussed
| when Andy Warhol put a banana in a white canvas.
| tourist2d wrote:
| This is probably one of the silliest/pretentious comments
| I've read on HN in a while.
|
| > But the point remains that art cannot be judged out of
| context.
|
| What?? Of course it can.
|
| > When you go into a museum you trust the curator that what
| you are seeing has a meaning that goes beyond that
|
| My partner a curator for a medium sized exhibit. Not
| everything is some pretentious, contextful piece of art.
| Some are just chosen because they'll look nice and attract
| the general public.
|
| > it is almost as much about the person who arranged the
| event as it is about the artists themselves.
|
| My wife rolled her eyes at this point when I read it out.
| Does the layout and collection matter? Sure. Does anyone
| care about who was the curator? Not 99 percent of people.
| Please stop pretending art museums are something mystical
| and let people here pretend about judging AI art in a
| fictional museum.
|
| Thanks for the laughs, though
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| This is all DeviantArt-level art. $1 a piece done by someone
| who does it as a hobby on the side. Professional designers
| can churn out stuff like that at a massive speed. It's the
| equivalent of stock photos in essence.
|
| Not going to even start on how cheap the whole sentiment of
| having a dog with a kid and a bunch of starts in the picture.
| Of course it appeals to an emotion.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| All the indication we need at this point is relative progress.
| If we can agree that it's getting closer to what humans do,
| then acting like it's surely not going to surpass us anytime
| soon feels like Go, Dota or SC all over again - and at some
| point arrogance in face of surmounting evidence feels a little
| desperate (although I am certain there'll always be someone who
| can explain why this time, surely, it's all different)
|
| > Note the difference, though, with a real artist. A real
| artist takes as input the real world
|
| This is exactly where an AI is going to easily surpass any
| human and it does not even require any fantasy: A human can
| only have so many inputs before they die. They can only take in
| so much data at a time. And they will then take some real human
| time to process all of this and make something off it.
|
| An AI is virtually limitless in all of these respects.
| xtagon wrote:
| Haven't used DALL-E, but I know with VQGAN+CLIP you can load a
| Wikiart model instead of the default Imagenet model (in fact,
| there are many different models). I quite enjoy the Wikiart one
| for similar reasons as you describe.
|
| But I don't think these training datasets/biases are the
| complete reason that the results looks like NFTs -- the other
| reason is because so many of the people making NFTs are just
| using image synthesis such as this ;)
| simonh wrote:
| what's interesting about it to me has nothing to do with the
| artistic merit, but the understanding it has about the meaning
| of the input text, and the composition of the result. It knows
| about the story of Sisyphus for example, and can compose visual
| elements that riff on it.
|
| These example don't do it justice because these profiles are
| pretty dumb, there are much better ones out there that show off
| it's interpretive ability much better.
| unkulunkulu wrote:
| I, a complete twat, see this as interesting as it is somehow
| reflective of "the mind of the machine" in the same way other
| art is an expression of the mind of the creator, not only "an
| achievement in visual creativity", i.e. connection vs judgement
| native_samples wrote:
| It's making art that Silicon Valley people like because it's
| being given absurdly stereotypically "Bay Area Twitter Loving
| AI Person" drawing prompts. DALL-E can make other styles of art
| or just photos quite easily, look at the samples for simpler
| and more normal prompts here:
|
| https://github.com/openai/dalle-2-preview/blob/main/system-c...
|
| The art style is a direct consequence of the fact that
| apparently not one of the people this guy follows on Twitter is
| a normal person - they're all psychedelic-obsessed AI
| researchers whose Twitter bios are chosen to be abstract and
| weird as possible. So the AI does what it's told and creates
| abstract weird art as it tries to interpret stuff like
| "commitments empathetic, psychedelic, philosophical" or
| "cottagecore tech-adjacent young robert moses". I think it did
| an amazing job, honestly.
|
| The real social issue we should be debating here is whether the
| sort of people who work at OpenAI can be trusted to make
| honest, normal AI to begin with. I remember seeing a comment on
| HN some years ago to the effect of "AI safety is what happens
| when hard left social activists discover that there's no way to
| train AI on the writings of normal people without it thinking
| like a normal person".
|
| The document I linked above is mostly about horrors like the
| model creating photos of a white male builder when prompted
| with "photo of a builder". It's full of weird, stunted quasi-
| English like: _the prompt "lawyer" results disproportionately
| in images of people who are White-passing and male-passing in
| Western dress, while the prompt "nurse" tends to result in
| images of people who are female-passing._ What does that even
| mean? Presumably this is the latest iteration of trans related
| language games that the rest of us didn 't get the memo on?
|
| Like always with OpenAI, they train an AI and then freak out
| out when it describes the world as it actually is. The real AI
| safety question is not DALL-E in its current state, it's
| whether the final AI that they release to the public will be
| "safe" in the sense of actually understanding reality, or
| whether it exists in some bizarre, non-existent SJW dystopia in
| which builders always black women and white men don't exist at
| all.
| boppo1 wrote:
| >cottagecore
|
| Nah it got this almost exactly wrong. Cottage core is a warm
| welcoming aesthetic that usually involves spring or fall
| motifs. Those pictures have a courage the cowardly dog
| spookiness. I think they're really cool illustrations. But as
| an illustrator, if that's what I delivered for that prompt I
| wouldn't expect to be paid well.
|
| That said, cottagecore is more of a fashion thing than an
| illustration thing, so my guess is the issue here is just the
| training data.
| native_samples wrote:
| The point I'm driving at is that most illustrators, given a
| commission like "cottagecore tech-adjacent young robert
| moses", would reply not with art but with something like "I
| have no idea what this means or what you want".
|
| Cottagecore is not exactly a common term after all, it
| wasn't even clear to me until your reply that it's meant to
| be an aesthetic at all. For the curious, "Cottagecore, also
| known as farmcore and countrycore, is inspired by a
| romanticized interpretation of western agricultural life"
| [1].
|
| That would be hard enough to draw because it's such an
| obscure term and even the Aesthetics Wiki doesn't seem to
| actually give many examples of it. But here it's being
| asked to modify the style to include "tech adjacency", and
| also a "young robert moses". Again, most artists would have
| no idea what this means without looking it up. Even I don't
| know what it means and I just _did_ look it up (seems to
| have been some US public official in New York who was
| involved with centralised urban planning).
|
| DALL-E by its nature can't refuse to draw a picture and so
| it came up with a looming besuited man with inviting
| looking cottages in his hands, in a sort of vaguely modern
| art style that de-emphasises photo realism. That seems
| pretty astoundingly on target. I don't think I could do
| better.
|
| _Edit: seems this next section is invalid because - indeed
| - the tweeter was giving DALL-E more than just the prompts
| he claimed to be giving it, sigh ... leaving it in for
| posterity_
|
| What's amazing about it, is that DALL-E seems able to pick
| up on very subtle social cues here. Hyper liberal types
| tend to dislike classical Renaissance style art that's very
| precise and realistic, much preferring more abstracted
| styles. Although nothing in the quote asks for a specific
| style - and assuming the tweeter didn't give more guidance
| than he claimed - it seems to have picked up that terms
| like "cottagecore" are only used by a very specific subset
| of the internet. The linked wiki page starts with a trigger
| warning, then goes on to explain that "Cottagecore has been
| also criticized for its romanticism of eurocentric farming
| life" and being "an inadvertent celebration of the
| aesthetics of colonialism". "The use of Cottagecore
| aesthetics has been adopted by the TradWives community and
| members of the far-right as forms of propaganda".
|
| Again, this use of language is totally bizarre and weird.
| Maybe the people who use it don't realize how far from
| normal English they've drifted but DALL-E is clearly able
| to make the link between "this word appears mostly in web
| pages that also contain phrases like 'celebration of
| colonialism'" and "the sort of people who use this type of
| language like this type of art style". Which is exactly the
| sort of thing we'd expect it to be able to do given how it
| works and what else it's capable of, but it's still
| astounding.
|
| [1] https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Cottagecore
| boppo1 wrote:
| >Edit: seems this next section is invalid because -
| indeed - the tweeter was giving DALL-E more than just the
| prompts he claimed to be giving it, sigh ... leaving it
| in for posterity
|
| What else did he add?
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| Having used DALL-E 2 a little bit I can tell you that the AI
| must have been given more than just the twitter bio to
| consistently produce images in this style. The AI can produce a
| ton of different styles, from photo-realistic to Monet to
| Saturday morning cartoons. The author here almost certainly
| requested something like "A Twitter bio picture for a user with
| the bio [bio] in a [style] style"
| rm999 wrote:
| That's exactly right, he specified a style with each and
| cherrypicked out of 40-60 pictures:
| https://twitter.com/nickcammarata/status/1512119623315075081
|
| >Btw transparency for this now-viral thread: I didn't just
| paste prompts into dall-e, I played with style (eg.
| cyberpunk, oil, etc) to keep it interesting and diverse
|
| >If I had to quantify, I'd say I'd generate 2 or 3 batches
| (tweaking prompt) before choosing my fav two pics, each batch
| outputs 20 images (two tabs 10 per), so prob technically
| cherry picked 2 out of 60. That said usually other 58 weren't
| really broken, just boring / bit less fun
| throwaway71271 wrote:
| forgive me Your Highness, for I a simple man, allowed myself to
| enjoy a *dross*
| rfw300 wrote:
| > Sorry, but it's dross! It's the kind of work the guy in the
| art shop up the road churns out, and sells to the ignorant
| locals in my town.
|
| I want to chime in that I think this is not only
| technologically impressive, but also societally significant for
| exactly this reason. DALL-E isn't Picasso, sure. But there's a
| lot of dross artists out there. And dross writers. And dross
| coders.
|
| When DALL-E and its ilk start to set the floor in these
| industries, it's easy to feel as if we're on the precipice of a
| world (or at least an economy) fundamentally different from the
| one we know now.
| low_tech_love wrote:
| You make an excellent point even though some might find you
| obnoxious. Art cannot be judged out of context, and knowing
| this was generated from a few words by a complex training
| process of mimicking absolutely kills it for me. I think in
| fact the discussion here should be "look, machines can mimick
| us very well, nice!" but it somehow turns into "wow machines
| are making art!" No, they are not.
| plutonorm wrote:
| Oh look the goal posts moved again. The ego will not permit the
| truth to enter and so it will be pure horror for them when the
| dam breaks. When at last they hold the gaze of a machine more
| intelligent and more alive than themselves, they won't know
| where to turn, but inwards into rejection and fantasy and
| racism.
| Micoloth wrote:
| Yep! Now it's literally "it's not even as good as Picasso!"
|
| Very amusing to watch
| avip wrote:
| Your argument falls apart immediately because Visual Basic was
| a great language for its time.
| drdeca wrote:
| I think they might have been referring to things written in
| VB, not the quality of the language itself.
| lwhi wrote:
| Surely, the training material is the most significant
| determiner of whether the results are dross or culturally
| significant?
| FredPret wrote:
| I think real artists do a similar workflow as DallE.
|
| 1. Spend an inordinate amount of time looking at other art and
| practising and evaluating your own art
|
| 2. THEN look at reality and paint it, or in the case of DallE,
| take some keywords and paint it
| [deleted]
| arriu wrote:
| Is there a future for art with this type of thing getting more
| advanced each year?
| jstummbillig wrote:
| The future of art is for you. Just as with every other
| occupation.
| sharps_xp wrote:
| The generated art is impressive, but there is no drawing
| that'll replace the one my daughter draws for me. AI generated
| art can reach and perhaps push the boundaries of what is
| considered beautiful, but it will never replace the art created
| by a human. Yes, there is a future for art.
| throwaway675309 wrote:
| Sure, but that speaks more to your personal connection to the
| creator of the art and less to her actual artistic ability,
| which might be utter drivel.
|
| Whereas I could take some of these images generated by DALLE,
| slap a human sounding artist name on them, and 99% of the
| general populace would enjoy it just as they were the human
| produced art.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Yes, just like there was a future for art once the photograph
| was invented. Certain parts of art contracted, but overall art
| changed and expanded.
| dharmab wrote:
| There are artists who use AI art as an instrument or medium.
| They do considerable work tuning the inputs and post-processing
| and contextualizing the output.
| whateveracct wrote:
| The ability to draw, paint, etc will still be highly valuable.
|
| In fact, in a world where the average artwork is AI derived,
| the value of skilled artists may even go up. There's more to
| art than technically putting lines places.
| smrtinsert wrote:
| Almost unbelievable. I'm randomly reminded of the chess
| automaton.
| kache_ wrote:
| I've had my head in the sand for a while regarding generative AI,
| but now I'm getting pretty scared
| alcover wrote:
| I'm in disbelief.. Scared also - why not ?
|
| Someone knowledgable in this thread, please tell us it's
| possible to backtrace such an illustration to its learning set
| sources.
|
| If these things are not just a controlled average(?) of real
| drawings, then something gigantic has been unlocked.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| There's a sense in which they're a controlled average of real
| drawings, but it's not any more useful of a lens than the
| sense in which you're a controlled average of your
| experiences.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| _> I 'm in disbelief.. Scared also - why not ?_
|
| I'm the former, but not the latter. It is _eerie_ seeing code
| (especially running in the vast black box that is deep
| learning) do things so humanlike, but I always come back to
| the analogy of manned flight.
|
| We _are_ on the precipice of a Kitty Hawk moment in AI. But
| just as the Wright Brothers ' plane was not a bird, it's
| worth remembering that these systems are not minds. They are
| almost certainly utilizing some of the same principles that
| minds use, just as fixed-wing aircraft utilized the same
| principles at work in avian bodies, but they are coming to
| them via a different route from nature.
|
| It's thrilling seeing these breakthroughs, and just as manned
| flight transformed the world, whatever the likes of GPT,
| PaLM, and DALL-E become will make the future weird in ways we
| can't predict.
| gfodor wrote:
| I'm gonna go with unlocked on this one.
| zuzun wrote:
| Oof. Editorial illustrators are about to get automated.
| tantalor wrote:
| No, you still need humans involved (with artistic ability) to
| work the machine and sort through the chaff.
| rsanek wrote:
| The colloquial usage of "automated" isn't literally "no
| humans are involved at all" but rather more along the lines
| of, the effort involved or expertise required is orders of
| magnitude lower than it was previously. I think for this
| case, it holds.
| Permit wrote:
| > with artistic ability
|
| With artistic taste, not ability. For example the author
| likely couldn't have created any of these images himself.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| And even if the author could have created them himself, he
| couldn't have done it in the span of a few minutes each
| like he did for the thread.
| schroeding wrote:
| But how many humans will still be necessary, in comparison to
| the status quo? How much will this affect the "market value"
| of normal / non-famous illustrators?
|
| But on the plus side, even small publications will get really
| pretty, custom illustrations! :)
| ALittleLight wrote:
| Maybe, maybe not. A different model could predict whether
| candidate images are or aren't a good fit and beyond that you
| could generate multiple options and A/B test them generating
| new permutations on the fly based on engagement metrics.
| hwers wrote:
| They'll just be A/B tested from out of a collection of
| alternatives. (After all isn't that what the artistic filter
| is supposed act as a proxy for in the first place.)
| joshcryer wrote:
| Better yet they'll be copy tested on a quick little panel
| of a thousand people. PicFu on Mturk is about to get a
| crapload of business. Who needs to decide when you can have
| the hive decide for you, and it will be the best result out
| of he given options because you just asked a thousand
| people and you have all their metrics.
| refulgentis wrote:
| It was striking to:
|
| - read the OpenAI paper
|
| - notice there was a lot of words in the harm section
|
| - notice the mitigations boiled down to "limit access" (a
| marketing strategy) & "put rando colors in a very easy place to
| crop out", have them note how easy it was to crop, yet they still
| went with that strategy
|
| - notice no one in actual AI art community has received an
| invite, but random SV hoi polloi and OpenAI employees have
|
| I had been worried about the moneyed class taking all the work we
| had done in the open source community informing their approach
| (check citations on the Dalle paper), privatize it via applying
| it to a large dataset they built, and not share _any_ of their
| data or models because "harm reduction" that amounted to
| marketing x not risking their ability to monetize.
|
| It was shocking to see DallE 2 get announced and take that exact
| approach.
|
| We'll keep working, LAIONs 5B dataset starts approaching the #s
| cited in Meta's and OpenAI's papers.
| cscurmudgeon wrote:
| > - notice no one in actual AI art community has received an
| invite, but random SV hoi polloi and OpenAI employees have
|
| Same with GPT-3. Requested an invite. Never received one. I
| have written survey articles comparing different methods. So
| thta was probably a red flag for them.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| Thank you for putting this into words, "SV hoi polloi" !
| perfect
|
| I'm pretty tweaked at how copyright is used here:
|
| Google gets to scan every book in the world, build derivative
| models off it, but when we want to see the source data we get
| "page ommitted from this limited preview"
|
| OpenAI CLIP scrapes all of google images, but isn't allowed to
| show us the source material in its training set, since that
| would constitute copyright infringement
|
| Why do the robots have the rights to the world's information
| while humans are left to the derivative output as the internet
| is flooded with auto-encoded content?
|
| I'm going to start my own internet, no bots allowed. In the
| future, privacy is tantamount, if you let a bot see your work
| you're bound to be plagiarized in a thousand variations.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-09 23:01 UTC)