[HN Gopher] My deepfake DALL-E 2 vacation photos passed the Turi...
___________________________________________________________________
My deepfake DALL-E 2 vacation photos passed the Turing Test
Author : rdl
Score : 181 points
Date : 2022-05-18 15:59 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.mattbell.us)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.mattbell.us)
| 101008 wrote:
| The images look great but I think the experiment was helped by
| the fact that most of us can see any image, being told that the
| image is underwater and we'll believe it. Most of the people
| don't know about deep waters, and the plans and animal that live
| there. I suspect the experiment would have been different if the
| vacations were in a city or a beach or something like that.
| hnthrowaway0328 wrote:
| I think the Turing Test is more than that?
| dekhn wrote:
| The turing test isn't very useful. At its core, it merely tests
| whether a computational agent can imitate a humnan agent well
| enough to fool an typical individual.
|
| Which tells us nothing at all.
| lupire wrote:
| We are so blase about the amazing progress in computation.
| dekhn wrote:
| There's nothing in the turing test or systems that solve it
| that are really amazing progress. To me they are just an
| expected and obvious outcome of the general improvement of
| scientific modelling of reality.
|
| Here's something that I'm not blase about: AlphaFold. That
| is one of the crowning achievments of humanity. It solved a
| problem that people have been working hard on for 40 years
| using an algorithm that is less than 5 years old on a
| computational framework that's a couple years old, on
| hardware with ML training powers orders of magnitude higher
| than anything that existed 5 years ago, and conclusively
| demonstrated that evolutionary sequence information, rather
| than physical modelling, is sufficient to predict nearly
| all protein structures. And, once the best competitor had a
| hint how it was done, they were able to reproduce (much of)
| the work in less than a year.
|
| Now that's amazing. World-class. Nobel-prize worthy.
| Totally unexpected for at least another 10 years, if ever.
| Completely resets the landscape of expectations for anybody
| doing biological modelling. However, it also won't
| transform drug discovery any time soon.
| killerstorm wrote:
| Turing did not mention a "typical individual". The question
| is whether it's possible to make AI which is
| indistinguishable from a human. Obviously, it makes sense if
| an interrogator comes prepared if we want to test this.
| gopher_space wrote:
| We had AI indistinguishable from a bored teen who isn't
| really into the conversation decades ago. It's also really
| easy to pass a turing test if your model is a pissed off
| friend who won't respond to your texts.
|
| Who are we trying to talk to, I wonder?
| killerstorm wrote:
| Well, Turing explicitly formulated it as a _game_, and
| for a game to be meaningful, players have to understand
| rules and have a desire to win. And given that the
| question was "Can machines think?", a human playing the
| game should have a good thinking ability.
|
| Game with bored, disinterested players would be entirely
| meaningless.
| gopher_space wrote:
| It's looking more like "how can I tell if I'm talking to
| a machine unless the potential person on the other end is
| strapped into a torture chair and forced to respond
| rationally to my inane philosophical ramblings."
|
| And I'd like it more as a Gedankenexperiment if people
| weren't talking about it as a tool or metric. That kind
| of thinking gains momentum.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31426512
| taylorius wrote:
| Your holiday photos are memories. If you create fake images, and
| mix them with genuine ones, don't be surprised if in the future,
| you yourself forget what is real and what is not.
| munk-a wrote:
| If taken to extremes - only a Voight-Kampff test would be able
| to tell whether your holiday was entirely made out of whole
| cloth or not.
| ars wrote:
| You don't need DALL-E 2 to make those photos, you can just
| download generic underwater photos from other people.
|
| In fact how do you know DALL-E actually created them, and did
| just regurgitate some it was trained with?
| LeanderK wrote:
| > In fact how do you know DALL-E actually created them, and did
| just regurgitate some it was trained with?
|
| I think DALL-E is not released so researchers are unable to
| take it apart yet, but this question was already researched a
| lot in the context of other generative models and so far they
| really did generalise (assuming a well trained model, the can
| overfit).
| tedunangst wrote:
| Where did dall-e find a photo of a scuba diver with incorrect
| hoses?
| jhfds wrote:
| Just ask? "photo of a scuba diver with incorrect hoses" :-)
| gus_massa wrote:
| @GP: This looks like a very interesting comment. What is
| wrong with the hoses of the scuba diver? Can you post an
| edited version in imgur or something with a big arrow
| pointing to the error?
| gus_massa wrote:
| I tried to search in Google the images (during 10 minutes), but
| I didn't find any of them.
|
| The image of the fish is strange. I found a few photos of
| similar fishes with vertical stripes but the fish in the image
| has squares.
| [deleted]
| twiceaday wrote:
| This is off topic but horny people are by far the most interested
| in conjuring up custom images. DALL-E trained on porn would be
| huge.
| shakna wrote:
| It probably would be. Unfortunately, the DALL-E people have
| foreseen that use, and balked at it for some reason:
|
| > We've limited the ability for DALL*E 2 to generate violent,
| hate, or adult images.
| throwaway0x7E6 wrote:
| >for some reason
|
| "Our investors include Microsoft, Reid Hoffman's charitable
| foundation, and Khosla Ventures."
| harpersealtako wrote:
| This is absolutely true. Look at text prediction models as an
| example (e.g. GPT-3). One of the biggest (if not the biggest)
| applications was story-generation tools like AI Dungeon. Guess
| what most people _actually_ used AI Dungeon for? Erotica. Guess
| what happened when OpenAI cracked down on it? A huge portion of
| the userbase jumped ship and built a replacement (NovelAI)
| using open-source EleutherAI models that explicitly did support
| erotica, which ended up being even better than the original
| ever was. I can tell you that there is _very strong_ interest
| in nsfw image generation in those communities, as well as
| multiple hobby projects /experiments attempting to train models
| on NSFW content (e.g. content-tagged boorus), or
| bootstrap/finetune existing models to get this sort of thing to
| work.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Porn seems to quietly power the Internet, in so many ways. I
| imagine people are already getting creative with fake porn, and
| it's only going to intensify over time. Especially on the types
| of imagery that are illegal to possess.
| mrkramer wrote:
| This is one of the experiments with Progressive Growing GAN
| (ProGAN) technology from Nvidia:
|
| NSFW: https://medium.com/@davidmack/what-i-learned-from-
| building-a...
| colinmhayes wrote:
| This might be horrible to say, but could this be a solution to
| csam? From what I've seen most people who enjoy csam do
| genuinely feel bad for the children, but they're sick, and
| can't control themselves. Might they be willing to indulge in
| fake csam instead?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I don't think it's horrible, it just seems like a practical
| solution. It is such a taboo subject that nobody seems to
| really talk about the possibilities, but it's worth asking
| the question -- if someone so inclined can gratify their
| desires in private with fake imagery, will it prevent them
| from leaving their home and seeking out someone to hurt?
|
| Or will it strengthen their need for 'the real thing' as
| someone else suggested in a sibling comment?
|
| In any case, we still don't have a great answer for the legal
| question. Possession of realistic fake imagery is illegal, on
| the grounds that its very existence is a risk to children.
| There isn't any actual science behind that, it's just what
| the politicians have said to justify regulating what would
| otherwise be a constitutionally protected right. I imagine it
| will become a topic of discussion again (my quick research
| says the last major revision to US law in this regard was
| about 20 years ago).
| teddyh wrote:
| IIUC, fake CSAM is also illegal.
| intrasight wrote:
| Correct. Differs from, for example, rules protecting
| cruelty to animals. You can fake such cruelty without
| consequence - as is done in movies regularly.
|
| More interesting question is this. Is it a crime if you
| generate CSAM just for ones own consumption?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Is it a crime if you generate CSAM just for ones own
| consumption?
|
| Yep. If it isn't obviously fake (i.e. a cartoon) the
| possession is illegal whether you produce it yourself or
| not. Though it's probably safe to say that you're
| unlikely to get caught if you're not sharing those images
| with other people.
| intrasight wrote:
| What if it's in the "uncanny valley"?
|
| My point is that the courts are going to have a hard time
| with this.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Well, the US law says "[when it] appears virtually
| indistinguishable [from the real deal]" (insert
| appropriate legal terminology on either end, but the
| three quoted words are the relevant bit.
|
| I think we're in agreement that the advancement of the
| technology is going to make this topic come back up for
| legal debate. When the gulf between CGI and real
| photography was large, it was pretty straightforward. Not
| so much now.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| I'm aware that Japanese lolicon in anime, manga, video
| games, and other contexts, is at least ... problematic ...
| in numerous areas. Several online sites have banned it, and
| on Mastodon and the Fediverse, there are often peer-level
| blocks against sites in which lolicon is permitted.
|
| Then name itself is a portmanteau of _Lolita complex_ ,
| after the Nabokov novel.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Legality_and_censorsh
| i...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I believe that as of 2003 it has to be a realistic fake,
| however. Obvious cartoons are no longer illegal.
|
| I imagine it'll get challenged again at some point on
| constitutional grounds. It is illegal right now on a moral
| basis, which is probably the weakest argument over the long
| term.
| jwalton wrote:
| > Obvious cartoons are no longer illegal.
|
| AFAIK they are still illegal in Canada.
| hallway_monitor wrote:
| It seems more misguided than horrible. I'm not a
| psychologist, but indulging in pathological behaviors would
| seem to strengthen them. Heroin addicts need to quit, not use
| methadone forever.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| stickfigure wrote:
| Is that true? Someone on HN once described it like
| "eventually you get tired of the addiction and want to
| quit" (if you live long enough, that is). No personal
| experience, but I have known a couple former addicts and
| this seems to reflect their reality.
|
| Maybe an effective approach would be to maximize harm
| reduction until the addiction has run its course? That
| seems to be the Portugal solution, and it seems to be
| successful.
| [deleted]
| stavros wrote:
| Is DALL-E still invite-only?
| _just7_ wrote:
| Yep, though from what I heard they are planning to role it out
| quicker than gpt-3, with a full launch this summer
| phdelightful wrote:
| I want to see a fully-synthetic multimodal social media
| influencer that is nearly indistinguishable from reality. She
| does the same thing as the real ones except everything is
| completely artificially generated (housing, clothes, vacations,
| social circle). All text/image/video posts are completely
| synthetic but internally-consistent with this fabricated
| persistent universe. The only real things would probably be
| product placement. If you're a brand, you'd just make a new
| online influencer instead of finding an organic one.
| killerstorm wrote:
| It's not a Turing test if a judge is not actively trying to
| discern.
| VikingCoder wrote:
| Right, and Moore's Law doesn't say X, Y, or Z.
|
| We get it.
|
| But it's a pretty close analogue.
| jascii wrote:
| The article claims (in a screenshot without quoting sources, so
| take it for what it's worth) that "A recent blog post pointed
| out that GPT-3-generated text already passes the Turing test if
| you're skimming and not paying close attention".
|
| This is certainly debatable, and I agree that it is pushing the
| limit a bit.
|
| I think in the end, the "Turing test" was devised as a thought
| experiment, not as a final definition of AI. So I guess some
| freedom of interpretation is reasonable.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >if you're skimming and not paying close attention
|
| Also, if I'm drunk and reading nonsense I might not realize
| it.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| It's a bend of the scenario if the judge is skimming and not
| paying close attention. This "pushes the limit".
|
| It's a break of the scenario if they didn't go in with the
| goal of detecting fakery. This makes it useless as a "Turing
| test".
| jascii wrote:
| I agree with you that it brings things outside the original
| scope of the Turing test. I do find it interesting to
| observe that a metric based on casual observation can have
| value in a society where elections can be swayed by online
| fakery.
| killerstorm wrote:
| Well, as a thought experiment, it suggests a concrete scheme:
| it's a game where everybody is trying to do their best.
|
| If it's a game where nobody cares, it's a stupid game, and
| results are meaningless.
| woojoo666 wrote:
| Results are not meaningless if in the real world, everybody
| is skimming anyways.
| nullc wrote:
| > It still struggles with faces
|
| I believe they intentionally hobbled it in this respect for
| "safety" (iow to keep themselves out of a scandal when someone
| asks it to create "President Biden accepting Bribes" or
| whatnot...)
|
| Certainly far simple diffusion models trained including faces do
| just fine at creating photorealistic faces.
| guerrilla wrote:
| Why do you believe that?
| nullc wrote:
| Because they said so: Preventing Harmful
| Generations We've limited the ability for DALL*E 2
| to generate violent, hate, or adult images. By
| removing the most explicit content from the training
| data, we minimized DALL*E 2's exposure to these
| concepts. We also used advanced techniques to prevent
| photorealistic generations of real individuals' faces,
| including those of public figures.
| vmception wrote:
| Is there a fork that unhandicaps it?
| not2b wrote:
| To do such a fork, wouldn't you have to build a
| completely new model with the same training data and
| everything else the same except leaving out the
| restrictions?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| No, you can use transfer learning.
| somebodythere wrote:
| You should be able to finetune on a dataset that has
| captions of human faces.
| nullc wrote:
| Like a lot of other Open AI work, DALL-E 2 isn't open.
| There are people working at re-implementing it, but
| training has considerable computational costs.
| melissalobos wrote:
| It was mentioned in the DALL-E github repo.
| egeozcan wrote:
| Coming up with ok-looking generated faces is not ground-
| breaking in the ML world and when the state-of-the-art model
| botches it completely, you start looking for the reason.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| How compose-able are ML solutions? I'm wondering if coming
| up with ok-looking generated headshots (face at a specific,
| known, predetermined angle, in a neutral and standardized
| context, independent of background features) is not ground-
| breaking, but embedding that capability in a dynamic image
| generator with myriad other objects, headgear, lights and
| shadows, etc. may be.
| lupire wrote:
| And coming up with very good looking modifications/poses of
| known _actual_ faces is very well achieved.
| [deleted]
| groos wrote:
| Just nitpicking but the 'Turing test' can only be failed, not
| passed, which is quite apt given another problem associated with
| Turing: the halting problem.
| cowpig wrote:
| > My deepfake DALL-E 2 vacation photos passed the Turing Test
|
| Most people didn't notice that some of my vacation photos were
| fake, therefore it passed the Turing Test... why is this
| clickbait nonsense getting so much attention?
|
| Can someone who upvoted this article explain why you upvoted it?
| Did the fact that the title is flatly false not bother you? If
| someone wrote an article about cracking some encryption algorithm
| and titled it "I proved P=NP" would you upvote it?
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| It is easy to pass Turing tests when the subject material is
| unfamiliar to people. As other posters have mentioned, most
| people have only a vague idea of specific underwater plants and
| animals and vague ideas of how the water distorts light.
|
| I bet I can come up with a simple generator that generates
| galaxies/nebula pictures and if I interspersed those in with NASA
| Hubble generated images, most people could not pick out the real
| Hubble images from my generated images.
| raldi wrote:
| Wouldn't a proper Turing test be one where people knew some of
| the photos were artificial and were asked to figure out which
| ones they were?
| dredmorbius wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31426512
| nautilus12 wrote:
| Every marketing company making money off influencers and organic
| content like this just silently screamed.
| WoodenChair wrote:
| Shocking--photos made out of a data set of existing photos look
| like photos!
| trinovantes wrote:
| How will our legal systems cope if one day you can conjure up any
| "evidence" you want? We're still safe today but the future will
| be scary.
| aftbit wrote:
| >Could I use DALL-E 2 to create a fake vacation? Or, more
| ethically, could I use DALL-E 2 to recreate events from my
| vacation that actually happened, but I was unable to get a good
| photo of them?
|
| What would be unethical about creating a fake vacation? As long
| as you're not defrauding anyone, I don't see who would be hurt by
| this.
| yes_i_can wrote:
| I'm wondering if we'll ever get to a point where we can invoke
| fake vacation / travel experiences, like _We Can Remember It for
| You Wholesale_ (more popularly, _Total Recall_ ), by creating ML-
| generated images of the trip rather than inducing a dream. It
| seems plausible.
| marmada wrote:
| Hacker News has this surprising tendency to cling to the past.
|
| People here are nitpicking over the definition of the Turing
| test. What actually matters here is that, if not already now, but
| certainly in 1-5 years neural nets will most certainly be good as
| the 99th percentile artist.
|
| Does that mean AGI is here? Probably not. But we are missing the
| forest for the trees.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Nothing more "missing the forest for the trees" than implying
| that 99th percentile artistry is about producing photorealistic
| representations of unreal things.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| It would be in concept art.
|
| Also note that DALL-E isn't limited to photorealistic styles.
| IshKebab wrote:
| > Hacker News has this surprising tendency to cling to the
| past.
|
| Definitely, but this isn't an example of that, it's an example
| of people on Hacker News not wanting things to be wrong. The
| title is clearly wrong.
| ducktective wrote:
| One cool application of DALL-E could be generating a painting or
| sketch for each paragraph or sentence of novels. Imagine
| listening to an audio book of famous novels with visuals/cartoons
| made by AI.
|
| Hope someone with invite access could do this for Moby Dick or
| Sherlock Holmes stories or 1984.
| freemint wrote:
| DALL-E so far has no way to create consistent characters across
| multiple pictures. However good news if this discriminator
| approach https://blog.salesforceairesearch.com/gedi/ caries
| over to images such constraints could be imposed. This is just
| a handful of follow up publications away.
| ducktective wrote:
| Thanks!
| freemint wrote:
| Actually i need to correct myself. Something along these
| lines. The mechanism of DALL-E is a bit different but a
| discriminator approach should work anyway although maybe some
| magic might be needed to ensure the spatial invariance of the
| discriminator.
| cookingrobot wrote:
| The images look great because only the last 4 pictures on this
| blog are the fake ones.
|
| All the first impressive looking shots at the top of this article
| are real.
| karpierz wrote:
| Passing the Turing test requires, for any human judge:
|
| 1. This judge is aware that they have to discern whether the
| 'bot' is real or a machine.
|
| 2. The judge cannot discern whether the 'bot' is real or a
| machine better than random chance.
|
| This failed 1. And even given that advantage, might have failed 2
| as well?
|
| Often I see headlines along the lines of "X fools people and
| beats the Turing test!". But the point of the Turing test isn't
| to trick a person, it's to make it functionally impossible for a
| person to distinguish between the real and simulated thing, no
| matter how hard they try. For something to pass a Turing test, it
| would need to be able to pass the following:
|
| "Anyone can play as judge any number of times. You can take as
| long as you want, and if you're successful in breaking it under
| controlled conditions (IE, you don't cheat and use an out-of-band
| communication protocol with the 'bot'/human), we'll give you a
| 10,000,000$."
|
| The "One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge"
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_...)
| is a solid example of a Turing test for magic.
| VikingCoder wrote:
| How often have we run a Turing Test, where we asked the judge
| how confident they were in their final answer, except both
| participants were humans?
| IshKebab wrote:
| It doesn't really matter for the purposes of the test how
| confident they _say_ they are.
|
| If you're asking "do people often imagine they can
| confidently distinguish things when they actually can't" then
| the answer is a solid yes - things like audiophile and wine
| testing have proven that again and again.
| a-dub wrote:
| if a human participates in interactive gamified social media,
| and this participation begins to change, shape, reinforce or
| otherwise mutate their beliefs, for the purposes of the test
| are they still actually a human? could the entire social media
| mechanism (from the builders to the participants) be considered
| a form of a sort of singleton autonomous intelligence in and of
| itself?
| jameshart wrote:
| I mean, you can read Turing's own definiton if his test - 'the
| Imitation Game' - on the first page of his 1950 paper
| _Computing Machinery and Intelligence_ [1]. There's nothing in
| there about repetition, duration, or $10,000,000 prizes. It's a
| party game. And he just frames his question (which will
| "replace our original, 'Can machines think?'") as "Will the
| interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played
| like this [with a human and a computer] as he does when the
| game is played between a man and a woman?"
|
| So, to perform the experiment, one must have some people play
| the game with humans a few times and then play with a human and
| a machine a few times, and look to see if the results are
| statistically significant. When they aren't, Turing posits, the
| question 'can machines think?' will have been answered in the
| affirmative.
|
| That is not to say that this DALL-E vacation photo social media
| post constitutes a rigorous 'passes the Turing test'. But I
| don't think it's fair to criticize someone for using 'the
| Turing Test' colloquially as a catchall for saying 'you
| probably didn't notice this output was machine generated,
| therefore you might want to adjust your priors on the answer to
| the question, "can machines think?"'. Because that's exactly
| the spirit that Turing was working in when he proposed using a
| party game as a test of intelligence.
|
| [1] https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf
| karpierz wrote:
| There's the literal definition of the Turing test, as
| described above, which doesn't actually work for proving any
| sort of intelligence.
|
| Then there's the conceptual argument of the Turing test,
| which we can turn into a test of intelligence. It relies on
| the idea that we can abstract the mind into a "thinking"
| black box which takes inputs and outputs. And then posits
| that any black box which can't be distinguished from an
| actual "thinking" black box may as well be "thinking".
|
| Passing the literal Turing test is a sign that some humans
| can be tricked for some small domain over some small period
| of time. Passing the conceptual argument that the Turing test
| relies on shows that there are non-human entities which
| cannot be separated from humans on the basis of how they
| interact with a human (through some limited medium).
|
| The repetition, duration and prizes are just practicality;
| prizes incentivize people to try, repetition ensures that the
| results are robust, and duration ensures that the domain the
| AI can be tested over is equivalent to a humans.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| Meanwhile, if you ran an 'rigorous image-generation Turing
| test' between dalle2 and randomly selected humans, the
| machine would be obvious because it's much higher quality
| than a randomly selected human would be able to produce,
| thereby failing the Turing test.
|
| Aside from some corners (probably to be filled over the
| course of the next year or three), dalle2 is obviously
| outperforming almost all humans at its task. The cross-
| style ability is probably exceeding almost all human
| /artists/, who tend to specialize in a single style.
|
| And some of the creativity criticisms (can only styles it's
| seen before) are basically true of all but the tiniest
| sliver of humanity, whose names we tend to remember.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| _" But I don't think it's fair to criticize someone for using
| 'the Turing Test' colloquially as a catchall for saying 'you
| probably didn't notice this output was machine generated,
| therefore you might want to adjust your priors on the answer
| to the question, "can machines think?"'"_
|
| The colloquial meaning of "pasted the Turing test" has come
| to be "has been able to demonstrate intelligence when put to
| some serious, systematic testing". That may be switching that
| "has been able to fool people when they didn't look hard".
| That might be changing but I don't think it's changed yet and
| until it's changed, I'll protest 'cause that's terrible
| change imo.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Furthermore, the judge is supposed to be an expert. That is,
| not only his task is explicitly to tell between human and
| computer but he has to have a good idea on how to do it. Random
| people from the internet are not enough.
|
| In the "paranormal challenge", the juges usually include stage
| magicians, because they know the tricks that would fool
| ordinary people. James Randi himself is a magician.
| karpierz wrote:
| Conceptually, to pass the Turing test you should be able to
| fool any human (including expert judges). It's just
| practically easier to choose an expert judge as opposed to
| test on every human on Earth, since you'd hope that if an
| expert can't do it, then neither can anyone else.
|
| Also, it shouldn't matter if the human is someone who worked
| on the AI, or has read the code, or has seen every previous
| Turing test that the AI underwent. There shouldn't be any
| information a person could know that would allow them to tell
| that it's an AI.
| RogerL wrote:
| I have acquaintances that that couldn't pass this based on
| their common texting skills. There's probably no point to
| argue about what the Turing test "is", but the definition
| in this comment chain is pretty uncompromising - I can't
| imagine fooling any (meaning all, I assume) humans; there
| is too much ambiguity in the signal.
|
| "Are you going to be at the blah blah because I need blah".
| response: "I really wqnt it". Nonresponsive, typos, what
| does 'want' refer to? Who knows. Is this a bad bot, someone
| spun out on meth, someone with cognitive processing issues,
| a busy mom texting while distracted, or ?
| karpierz wrote:
| > I can't imagine fooling any (meaning all, I assume)
| humans; there is too much ambiguity in the signal.
|
| I think you've inverted the expectation here. What I was
| saying is a machine passes if you can't find anyone in
| the world who can distinguish between it and an actual
| human. Meaning that if the "world's smartest person" can
| distinguish between it and an actual human, it fails,
| even if it can fool everyone else.
|
| A machine can pass the test by deliberately feigning to
| be a human with limited communication capabilities (ex: I
| think we can simulate 2 month old baby talking via text).
| But then all you've shown is that your machine is as
| capable of thought as a 2 month old baby, which probably
| isn't the bar that you're trying to reach.
| sdenton4 wrote:
| It's a good thing we don't subject human intelligence to
| such tests...
| godelski wrote:
| I think another important factor here is that it is unclear if
| the OP cherry picked photos or used the first ones given.
| Dall-E 2 has a bias to be better at real world scenes since it
| can just pull (near) memorized images, but I also wouldn't be
| surprised if these images were downselected from a larger set.
| karpierz wrote:
| Great point. I should've added a third restriction: the 'bot'
| should not be able to communicate with, or use the judgement
| of, humans once it's started.
| mattkrause wrote:
| The original version of the test allows for interaction,
| and I think that's probably a good thing. Language models
| currently have a hard time staying consistent/on topic and
| that's a potentially valuable tell.
|
| Instead, I think you don't want any third parties "editing"
| or "curating" the exchange (beyond whatever blinding is
| needed to make it work).
| godelski wrote:
| Yeah I think the interaction is a key part. People are
| confusing AGI with useful AI. DALL-E is very clearly
| useful even if 90% of the images it produced were
| unusable. The time save is still large and cost reduced
| for simple tasks. Same with language models. They may
| have a hard time staying consistent over long sequences
| but adding human selective pressure to responses saves
| everyone time and money. But this is very clearly
| different from a machine that can think and form new
| ideas on its own. We're still a long way from that.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| The test is now live all the time.
|
| You must constantly be aware that images, or text, or voice, or
| other audio, or other signals or data, might be computer
| generated or altered.
|
| All the time.
|
| And you individually, or those about you, or societies at
| large, may be influenced in large or small ways by such
| signals, patterns, and records.
|
| Your elderly neighbour or relative might be scammed out of life
| savings. Investors of false product claims. Voters of some fake
| outrage --- particularly of the October Surprise variety.
| Soldiers and diplomats of mock attacks, or false depictions of
| a tranquil situation where in fact danger lurks.
|
| The test never ends.
|
| This is your final warning.
| _justinfunk wrote:
| da da dummmm....
| cyberlurker wrote:
| That The Fifth Element (1997) scene linked in the article
| actually holds up well.
| chris_va wrote:
| Amusingly I think most of that is not actually CGI (as we now
| define it).
|
| They had a giant warehouse with a toy NYC that they flew a
| camera through with little models... pretty nuts given how
| movies are made now.
|
| The making of Fifth Element is a pretty great watch.
| dekhn wrote:
| Take a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UENRVfdnGxs
| 3:48-4:02. 5 seconds of screen time tell more story than many
| science fiction movies do in 2 hours.
|
| Detail in https://www.reddit.com/r/sciencefiction/comments/53
| p7gw/orig...
| gwern wrote:
| I don't buy the argument we'll just automatically learn to see
| the CGI as fake. This is a selection effect: you see as fake
| only the CGI you see as fake; if it just looks real and fools
| you, how will you ever know you were fooled? Early CGI was bad,
| but it kept getting better every year. When I watch
| documentaries or CGI breakdowns, I'm routinely shocked at how
| things I would never in a million years have predicted were
| fake were fake. When someone shows a clip of a glowing floating
| space alien octopus, you can know it's fake because you know
| there are no space alien octopuses in real life; but when it's
| some box in a corner with some stuff on it which the director
| added in prod because he realized he needed a more homey and
| cluttered feeling for that scene...
| Terry_Roll wrote:
| So when are you vacating on the Moon or better still, can you
| beat Elon Musk to Mars?
| anotheryou wrote:
| It's kind of an alien world to us, no lighting like we know it,
| all organic shapes with a lot of unidentifiable stuff, blue tint
| etc. It all helps to make it an easier case.
|
| dalle-e is still impressive, but taking this to the extreme it
| would be like making it simulate pictures of TV noise and show we
| couldn't tell it from the real thing.
| non_sequitur wrote:
| More accurately, "DALLE2 made me realize no one cares about or
| looks closely at your vacation photos"
| alx__ wrote:
| The snarky side of me wants to say it's because people take
| boring photos
|
| But really it's just information overload, most things on
| social media I just scan the thumbnail and move on. Only my
| family would care to see my vacation photos :D
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| One, or three, carousels of vacation slides used to be an
| effective way of putting a party to sleep ...
| mproud wrote:
| This is a flawed experiment. If I see a bunch of photos, and many
| of them look real at first glance, I'm not instantly going to
| critique whether all of them were real, unless I was given
| specific instructions to do so.
|
| Also, underwater photos are not something many people have
| personal experience seeing. Most of us don't live underwater. We
| may not be equipped well enough to tell the difference, where
| above water, especially urban photos, we will likely notice
| better.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-18 23:00 UTC)