[HN Gopher] Show HN: This Food Does Not Exist
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: This Food Does Not Exist
Author : MasterScrat
Score : 164 points
Date : 2022-07-20 16:02 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nyx-ai.github.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (nyx-ai.github.io)
| rkagerer wrote:
| My partner is very impressionable when she see's food in a TV
| show. Immediately has a craving for it. This thing is like,
| limitless porn for her gluttony.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| I'm honestly surprised that they trained a StyleGAN. Recently,
| the Imagen architecture has been show to be both easier in
| structure, easier to train, and even faster to produce good
| results. Combined with the "Elucidating" paper by NVIDIA's Tero
| Karras you can train a 256px Imagen* to tolerable quality within
| an hour on a RTX 3090.
|
| Here's a PyTorch implementation by the LAION people:
|
| https://github.com/lucidrains/imagen-pytorch
|
| And here's 2 images I sampled after training it for some hours,
| like 2 hours base model + 4 hours upscaler:
|
| https://imgur.com/a/46EZsJo
|
| * = Only the unconditional Imagen variant, meaning what they show
| off here. The variant with a T5 text embedding takes longer to
| train.
| gwern wrote:
| Or, since they are comparing to Craiyon, why not just finetune
| Craiyon itself? Craiyon already exists, just take it off the
| shelf, you don't need to retrain it from scratch, so the cost
| to train it from scratch on everything (which is indeed quite
| large) is not relevant to someone who just wants to generate
| great food photos.
| Animats wrote:
| Coming soon to the restaurant site generator of some large
| delivery service.
|
| ("Picture is only for illustration purposes")
| derbOac wrote:
| The Cake is a Lie meme was never so relevant.
| mike_hock wrote:
| And the Science gets done and you make a neat gun.
| beej71 wrote:
| We're looking at the complete collapse of the stock photography
| market.
| kerblang wrote:
| To what extent are we ripping off the photographers? Weren't
| the models trained on their hard work?
|
| Have we reached a point where we've bounded art within the data
| models are trained on?
|
| Have we imposed a limit on ideas as a realm of "what came
| before" and implicitly decided that any "after" is a pointless
| exercise without knowing whether that's even true?
| nathanaldensr wrote:
| Excellent questions, and I was thinking the same thing. In my
| opinion, AI-generated art or images are not as impressive as
| they might seem at first purely because _there is no real
| imagination involved_. It 's an _art simulacrum_.
|
| A more accurate title would be "This picture of food does not
| exist."
| gnicholas wrote:
| This will also democratize the market for comics. It used to be
| you needed to be able to draw to be a comic. Now you can just
| have ideas, and use This Comic Does Not Exist (which does not
| yet exist) to generate the imagery.
| echelon wrote:
| It's way more than that.
|
| Anyone can be an artist, musician, photographer, writer.
|
| It's going to result in more content being created, which will
| change the economies of content. Rate, scale, and volume of
| production will increase by orders of magnitude.
|
| Disney thinks IP is a war chest. That's an old way of thinking.
|
| Star Wars won't be special to the new kids growing up that can
| generate "Space Samurai" and "Galaxy Brouhaha" in an afternoon.
|
| We're going to hit a Cambrian explosion of content.
| smaudet wrote:
| "It's going to result in more content being created"
|
| Is it, though? This model took over a month, on extremely fit
| hardware, to even create.
|
| Lets say for a second, in some hypothetical future, that
| anyone can access/use/update these models (by anyone, I mean
| someone with both low amount of resources as well as little
| to no programming skill), why are they creating content?
|
| "Rate, scale, and volume of production will increase by
| orders of magnitude."
|
| If by production you mean "paid creation", I'm not so sure
| about that. In this world where everyone creates content from
| thin air 1) there is little to no monetary value to the
| content anymore (as monetary value inversely correlates with
| scarcity) 2) So there is less incentive to create anything,
| because there is no monetary value to doing so.
|
| In fact, by definition we can pretty much prove that not much
| of anything will happen in this regard, because content is
| already limited by budget - the budget has not gone up, and
| the return has only gotten worse (in this hypothetical
| scenario).
|
| What I think is more likely to happen - a few, "blessed"
| individuals will have out-sized content creation
| capabilities, without much need to innovate. The rest of us
| will have almost no incentive to create anything as a result.
|
| Disney will use these systems, and they will use them to
| churn out more garbage, faster, on average, most kids will
| not be generating any movies in an afternoon.
| nixpulvis wrote:
| Friggles and bop, produce nothing.
| Victerius wrote:
| I have some extremely detailed imaginary images and clips in
| my head that I just don't want to devote the thousands of
| hours it would require to become proficient enough in drawing
| and visual effects to create them.
| mysterydip wrote:
| Agreed. If I can even get close with some of these
| generators, and hand-modify from there, I'll be happy.
| jeffreygoesto wrote:
| It's just that they don't "create" anything and pressing some
| buttons to get more and more of the same, biased crap quickly
| gets boring.
| fxtentacle wrote:
| Partially, yes. I certainly predict that DALLE-like models will
| ruin the prices for some stock photos.
|
| But on the other hand, Adobe is pushing their CAI hard:
|
| https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/content-credentials....
|
| And the core benefit of "authentic" content is that it can't be
| generated by an AI. Only humans can own copyright.
| imachine1980_ wrote:
| dall-e is start giving full commercial license , i think in
| the end both will converge you will prom something the AI
| will make 100 prototypes and you will improve the one that
| you like whit help the AI. the line will blur, is not against
| the machine but whit the machine. the problem maybe is that
| will probably need less people to do the same works. is "fun"
| maybe is better be construction worker than artist, becouse
| the second will get obsolet for most case.
| gffrd wrote:
| "Smiling happy family holding cell phones above their heads
| standing in a field of grass wearing all white"
| dalmo3 wrote:
| That's actually a great example. Just think of the aggregated
| human-hours wasted to bring those people together, create
| that setting, photograph, edit, publish... All for a
| meaningless flyer or landing page.
| Cockbrand wrote:
| Yields subtly nightmarish results:
|
| [1] https://i.imgur.com/YqNkaGj.png
|
| [2] https://i.imgur.com/EQL7pqw.png
| gffrd wrote:
| "Boardroom full of attractive business people gathered around a
| laptop with one of them pointing at the screen, all wearing
| suits, whiteboard in the background"
| robotresearcher wrote:
| "Woman laughing alone with salad"
| gffrd wrote:
| "Elderly man sitting at laptop looking puzzled, holding
| credit card"
| mysterydip wrote:
| "teen in hooded sweatshirt wearing sunglasses and gloves
| typing on a laptop in a dark room"
| lelandfe wrote:
| similarly, "criminal emerging from computer monitor
| holding crowbar"
| DonHopkins wrote:
| "The feeling of drifting slowly through a field of moving
| vehicles."
|
| "Once there were parking lots, now it's a peaceful oasis.
| This was a Pizza Hut, now it's all covered with daisies."
|
| "Green grass grows around the backyard shit house. And
| that is where the sweetest flowers bloom."
|
| "This ain't no party, this ain't no disco, this ain't no
| fooling around."
| corrral wrote:
| Thinking bigger: I'm pretty sure the combo of a relatively free
| global Internet, liberal democracy on large (much bigger than
| city-state) scales, and cheap, customized, on-demand generation
| of totally fake text + photo + video propaganda based on simple
| prompts, cannot all co-exist. At least one of these isn't going
| to survive alongside the others. If we just let things keep
| going the way they are, I expect "liberal democracy on large
| scales" is the one we'll lose--and whatever follows probably
| won't let the fairly-free, global Internet keep existing,
| either, so we'll lose that too.
| whatshisface wrote:
| I have heard this before, but I have several reasons to think
| it is not going to be a problem above what already happens:
|
| 1. AI lets you generate an enormous number of lies, but what
| is really dangerous is one well-placed lie within a trusted
| stream of many truths. CNN will retain a power to mislead far
| in excess of Twitter bots.
|
| 2. Democracy averages over everyone's confusion, which means
| lies are only dangerous when large numbers of people believe
| them at the same time. Hordes of bots generating spurious
| lies won't move a democracy in any specific direction, but
| again, mass media will retain its power to mislead everyone
| at once in the same, effectual, direction.
|
| 3. People have never respected the veracity of random tweets.
| In the same way that trust in mainstream media outlets is
| reaching record lows due to their consistently biased
| reporting (they might not all have the same bias, but I can't
| think of any I'd consider free of bias), everyone will learn
| to adjust their incredulity to match the true quality of
| random tweets.
|
| 4. Companies like Twitter and Google are known to be shaping
| their results and algorithms according to their own
| "political views" (broadly construed) so at worst this would
| represent a partial shift of power from the old masters to
| new masters quite like them (social media companies). In many
| ways trimming the front page to reflect editorial opinion is
| echoed in the way Twitter trims its feeds to reflect their
| own editorial opinions.
|
| All taken together, it seems like the media is afraid that
| equally large companies with similar business models
| (content, attention, advertising) might end up eclipsing
| them. The same old model where the TV station is afraid to
| upset its advertisers, thereby giving a voice to business
| interests, is well-recorded in the recent history of YouTube.
| Not so much will change, although seeing it in its old and
| newer forms might shed light on how it works.
| blueflow wrote:
| Whats your reasoning on this? Because i dont see why liberal
| democracy would cease to exist... life would go on if we all
| know that all pictures can be fabricated. I think this is
| already the case without AI.
| smaudet wrote:
| Apparently you missed the problem Deep Fakes posed...
|
| If you cannot distinguish reality (well), and in fact it
| becomes possible that most things you see do not exist,
| then there is nothing to stop a bad actor from producing a
| fake version of events in which they are elected, control
| everything, etc.
|
| So, democracy would cease to exist, because democracy
| relies ultimately on a choice - if you have no choice then
| you do not have democracy, only a dictatorship.
| vehementi wrote:
| Right but today we have that problem already. We know
| that a bad actor journalist can write a fake story. We
| therefore require sources. If deepfakes come along we
| will know videos can be fake and so we will be skeptical,
| as we are today, and look to proper sources. We will
| easily come up with some way to validate sources via
| cryptography or org reputation (e.g. we might trust the
| NY Times to not just fabricate things)
| corrral wrote:
| This is already barely holding together with mostly human
| actors doing the astroturfing and creating bullshit "news
| organizations" expressly to spread propaganda. Automation
| is going to overwhelm a system that's already teetering.
| vehementi wrote:
| Yeah but we will get the word out that none of that is
| trustworthy, then. There will be countermeasures and
| reactions to this just like previous things. It will
| certainly be effective to some degree - propaganda is
| effective for sure - but it won't just be, oh, there are
| deepfakes, everyone will now just unthinkingly accept
| them.
| corrral wrote:
| 1) This effective backlash/education-campaign has _not_
| already happened despite there already being significant
| problems with this kind of thing, and most of it not
| being _that_ hard to spot, even, and 2) I think the more
| likely effect is the destruction of shared trust in _any_
| set of news sources--we 're already pretty damn close to
| this being the case, in fact. "It's all lies anyway" is a
| sentiment that favors dictators more than it does
| democracy.
| phpnode wrote:
| This is already possible today and we don't need AI
| generated stock photos to do it. A bad actor can already
| spin events to fit their narrative, suppress dissent and
| control their population. Dictators have been doing it
| for centuries and we're seeing it in real time in the
| form of Putin's Russia right now.
| mythrwy wrote:
| If it were only Putin's Russia making stuff up we'd be in
| good shape.
|
| Otherwise, I fully agree with your point.
| phpnode wrote:
| indeed, it's just the most prominent example at the
| moment
| corrral wrote:
| Sure, but being able to do the same thing at 100,000x the
| scale for the same price seems like a pretty big
| difference. Throw in the ability to target narrow
| constituencies with custom messages via modern ad
| networks, automation-assisted astroturfing, et c., and
| the whole thing looks like a powderkeg to me.
| mythrwy wrote:
| People already produce all kinds of fake news and
| doctored photos and false flags and all kinds of things.
| This has been going on since we developed language and
| photography I suspect.
|
| People already have trouble telling propaganda from fact.
| That has been going on since forever.
|
| At the end of the day I don't see this being a game
| changer. If anything, now video and photos are less
| evidence for/against something as the potential falseness
| becomes well known. Congressman X: "no, that wasn't me
| you saw leaving the hotel with the prostitute, my slimy
| opponent obviously is deep faking stuff".
|
| And people will continue to believe what they want to
| believe, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, just
| like they do right now.
| corrral wrote:
| There seems to me a huge difference between a few
| organizations being able to produce & distribute a total
| of X amount of self-serving bullshit with some limited
| reach, and anyone with a bit of money being able to
| produce 100,000 * X amount of self-serving bullshit and
| deliver it to exactly the people most likely to respond
| to it the way they want, anywhere in the world (save,
| notably, China and North Korea and such) while making it
| very hard to tell who it's coming from.
|
| An environment in which 90% of the information is
| adversarial is really bad. It's a severe problem and very
| challenging to navigate. An environment where 99.9999% of
| it's adversarial and it's even harder than before to sort
| truth from fiction, functionally _no longer has any flow
| of real information whatsoever_.
| mythrwy wrote:
| Another thought:
|
| Maybe liberal democracy is not the final outcome of human
| civilization. You like it and I like it (presumably we
| were both raised to believe this way) but perhaps it's
| not really true.
|
| Just to question a base assumption here.
|
| It seems to me, if all the things that are claimed to
| threaten liberal democracy actually do, liberal democracy
| might be much less robust and long lived then previously
| believed.
| corrral wrote:
| Oh, absolutely. I've even come around to thinking that's
| _likely_. But one can hope.
|
| [EDIT] One thing I no longer think has any realistic
| future is the open, semi-anonymous Internet. We're either
| losing it because despots take over and definitely won't
| permit that threat to remain unfettered, or we're losing
| it (in perhaps a gentler-touch way) because we _have to_
| to prevent authoritarian take-over and vast civil strife.
| I don 't think we're getting to keep that no matter what
| happens.
| mythrwy wrote:
| Yep I think you might be right. It's ultimately too much
| of a risk to all sorts of powers to have open unfettered
| real time communication and mass dissemination.
|
| Even the "good guys" will call emergency that will never
| end.
|
| Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. An intellectual
| Cambrian explosion. And all that porn!
| yellowapple wrote:
| > And all that porn!
|
| On that note: I can't wait for the resulting
| proliferation of photorealistic tentacle hentai. Imagine
| the possibilities!
| mysterydip wrote:
| Take it a step further: Can you be arrested for having
| porn that would be illegal in your country if it was
| real, but instead it's a thousand generated
| images/videos? How blurred will those lines get?
| unfunco wrote:
| Photoshop has existed for years and humans have been
| manipulating photos for longer, what's the difference,
| really?
|
| If I see a photo in the Guardian newspaper (or any other
| reputable news outfit) I'm going to presume it's real,
| and I expect journalists to verify that for me. If I see
| a random photo that doesn't look quite right on a 4chan,
| I'm not going to immediately assume it's news.
| gadtfly wrote:
| > For a Linux user, you can already build such a system
| yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account,
| mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or
| CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this
| FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
| corrral wrote:
| > Photoshop has existed for years and humans have been
| manipulating photos for longer, what's the difference,
| really?
|
| Scale, cost, and reach.
| unfunco wrote:
| Reach is no different, bots and humans are able to post
| to social media, and cost is probably no different at the
| moment either since AI isn't perfect, some human
| interaction is probably needed to make it believable, and
| because of that, scale is the same too. I think we're
| approaching all of those things but it's probably still
| quite some time away until a machine can be trusted to
| manipulate the public on its own.
| konschubert wrote:
| You can put letters in any order you want and make them say
| any damn lie.
|
| This was not an impediment to liberal democracy.
|
| I am as concerned as the next guy but throwing the towel
| already seems a bit premature?
| corrral wrote:
| > You can put letters in any order you want and make them
| say any damn lie.
|
| You can run a web server by responding to every request by
| hand-typing the response, too. But you couldn't
| realistically run one-one-millionth the modern Web that
| way. You can't have global-scale e-commerce that way, et c.
| Some things that _technically could_ work that way, can 't
| actually--it's too slow, too expensive. This is very much
| one of those "quantity has a quality all its own" things.
| Increase the productivity of every astroturf-poster or
| propaganda-front-news-site manager a few hundred times and
| that's a _big_ difference.
|
| > I am as concerned as the next guy but throwing the towel
| already seems a bit premature?
|
| Where'd you get throwing in the towel? I do think we're
| (especially the US) really unlikely to do what we need to
| in time, in part because measures that are _probably_
| necessary to defend against this are themselves risky and
| rather unappealing. But we might.
| Kye wrote:
| Shrinking microstock rates already killed it.
| notamy wrote:
| I was really hoping that this would be never-before-seen, AI-
| generated recipes or something similar ):
| sovok wrote:
| That would be the OpenAI Recipe creator (eat at your own risk)
| https://beta.openai.com/examples/default-recipe-generator
| croes wrote:
| You are killing Instagram influencers
| scifibestfi wrote:
| Seriously, won't this combined with GPT-3 flood the influencer
| market?
| bergenty wrote:
| Yes. Images will lose all authenticity.
| xbar wrote:
| I think they have, some time ago. It seems like motion
| video is now on the chopping block.
| minimaxir wrote:
| If this doesn't, DALL-E 2 will:
| https://twitter.com/minimaxir/status/1549761827969544192
| raphar wrote:
| One twit there, made me happy: This is going to break
| pinterest
| Kye wrote:
| Pinterest is great and useful and rad. Whoever's pushing
| them to chase KPIs and ruin search is not.
| Spivak wrote:
| You mean supplying. Imagine running a food IG that didn't even
| need to make the food.
| croes wrote:
| Imagine being one of millions, your food IG will look fake
| even if the photos are real
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Hold my "beer".
| ge96 wrote:
| Now we just need to connect this to ffmpeg, add some fake
| recipe scripts, upload a video on YT, multiply by 100
| videos, 100 channels make about $2.00 nice.
| hammycheesy wrote:
| I tried to use the linked Colab notebook to generate my own, and
| it appears to have been successful, but I don't see any way to
| view the generated images via the notebook interface. I'm not
| familiar with the notebook tool - have I missed something?
| sireat wrote:
| If the result is standard numpy 3d matrix then something like
| Pillow should be able to display the images.
|
| Something like from matplotlib import pyplot as
| plt plt.imshow(matrix) plt.show()
| gus_massa wrote:
| Are you using the same model for cookies and cheesecakes? Do you
| get sometimes a cookiecake?
| MasterScrat wrote:
| We currently train each model independently, ie we first gather
| a cookie dataset, train a cookie model then restart from
| scratch for the next one.
|
| That's actually something we're investigating: can we train a
| single class-conditional model for multiple types of food? Or,
| can we finetune cheesecakes from cookies?
| TuringNYC wrote:
| >> ie we first gather a cookie dataset,
|
| Is there a chance your dataset provider makes a claim that
| they have derived data rights over your model generated
| images? Would you have sufficient confidence, say, to sell
| your images on a stock image site?
| zorgmonkey wrote:
| It is still somewhat unclear, but it seems that images
| generated by a machine learning model are not copyrightable
| (to quote the US Copyright Office, generated images "lack
| the human authorship necessary to support a copyright
| claim"). Whether the model itself is copyrightable is less
| clear to me, but [0] seems to suggest that it be. All of
| this depends on the country, but much of the world tends to
| eventually mimic US copyright law.
|
| [0] https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/19981/who-can-
| claim-...
| dylan604 wrote:
| Well, now _I_ want a cookiecake.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| The dream of the 90s is alive in StyleGAN!
| dylan604 wrote:
| I think the 90s version would be icecreamcookiecake
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I think both. I strongly remember those giant pizza sized
| cookies at the mall in the early 90s.
| MasterScrat wrote:
| We have trained four StyleGAN2 image generation models and are
| releasing checkpoints and training code. We are exploring how to
| improve/scale up StyleGAN training, particularly when leveraging
| TPUs.
|
| While everyone is excited about DALL*E/diffusion models, training
| those is currently out of reach for most practitioners. Craiyon
| (formerly DALL*E mega) has been training for months on a huge TPU
| 256 machine. In comparison our models were each trained in less
| than 10h on a machine 32x smaller. StyleGAN models also still
| offer unrivaled photorealism when trained on narrow domains (eg
| thispersondoesnotexist.com), even though diffusion models are
| catching up due to massive cash investments in that direction.
| goldemerald wrote:
| I don't suppose you have a way of converting these models into
| a pytorch usable version, do you?
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| Darn! I was hoping for other-worldly foods that don't actually
| exist being generated from real food attributes. I suppose I
| should have known better.
| JadoJodo wrote:
| OP: Forgive me if this is out of place. Also, please know that my
| question is genuine, not at all a reflection on the author/their
| project, and most certainly born out of my own ignorance:
|
| Why are these kinds of things impressive?
|
| I think part of my issue is that I don't really "get" these ML
| projects ("This X does not exist" or perhaps ML in general).
|
| My understanding is that, in layman's terms, workers are shown
| many, many examples of X and then are asked to "draw"/create X,
| which they then do. The corollary I can think of is if I were to
| draw over and over for a billion, billion years and each time a
| drawing "failed" to capture the essence of a prompt (as deemed by
| some outside entity), both my drawing, and my memory of it was
| erased. At the end of that time, my skill in drawing X would be
| amazing.
|
| _If_ that understanding is correct, it would seem unimpressive?
| It's not as though I can pass a prompt of "cookie" to an
| untrained generator and, it pops out a drawing of one. And
| likewise, any cookie "drawing" generated by a trained model is
| simply an amalgam of every example cookie.
|
| What am I missing?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| bee_rider wrote:
| For the longest time it was assumed that creativity was an
| almost magically human trait. The fact that somebody can, with
| a straight face, say "I don't get why it is impressive, I could
| draw these images too" is actually indicative of the wild
| change that has occurred over these last couple years.
|
| I guess it is true that more than a couple demos like this have
| been shown, so some of the awe might have worn off, but it is
| still pretty shocking to lots of us that you can describe the
| general idea of something to a computer and it can figure out
| and produce "what you mean," fuzzy as that is.
| mikkergp wrote:
| I will say that the images included have not show to be
| particularly creative, unless I missed a wider galaxy of non-
| existent food items. It's not entirely convincing that the
| generated images aren't just glued together pieces of other
| images with some fading between them.
| JadoJodo wrote:
| > The fact that somebody can, with a straight face, say ...
|
| To be clear, I'm not trying to devalue this at all; In fact,
| as I noted above, I am certain I'm missing something and that
| was what my comment was aimed at. In any case, thank you for
| taking the time to reply (seriously).
| bee_rider wrote:
| Probably expression "with a straight face" has been used
| sarcastically too often, so maybe it looks sarcastic in my
| comment too. In this case I should have picked a phrase
| more unambiguous phrase. I wasn't using it sarcastically or
| anything, "with a straight face" = in good faith/honest in
| this case.
| herpderperator wrote:
| Is there a way to trigger a fresh image on demand? That's kind of
| what I expect when I see a does-not-exist site.
| CSMastermind wrote:
| There's a link on the page:
|
| https://colab.research.google.com/github/nyx-ai/stylegan2-fl...
| georgeburdell wrote:
| This is the most disturbing "does not exist" yet. A food blog
| could write itself
| hbn wrote:
| They already pretty much are. Top recipe hits on Google seem to
| always be from like "Southern Mama Cooking Tips" or something
| generic like that, and you have to scroll past 8 paragraphs of
| context for why this person is writing a recipe and why they
| like it so much, totally not to hit all the SEO sweet spots,
| and the full life story of this "Southern Mama" that's totally
| not a guy in India or a robot scraping together blurbs of text
| from other website.
| ComputerCat wrote:
| Everything looks delish!
| wyldfire wrote:
| Are there any analysis techniques that can easily distinguish
| between these and real photographs? Do simple things like edge
| detections or histograms reveal any anomalies?
| daveguy wrote:
| Neural networks can be trained to identify the difference, but
| I don't know how specific that is to the generating model. In
| fact, the GAN technique, at a high level is two networks -- one
| trying to distinguish the difference and one trying to create
| images that cannot be distinguished. That is the "adversarial"
| aspect.
|
| It is an interesting question that there may be some simple
| pre-processing techniques (edge detection, Fourier transform,
| etc) that more easily distinguish the image as a fake.
| Something like a shortcut from training a network to make the
| distinction.
| golergka wrote:
| And here I was, hoping for new, never seen before dishes.
| gffrd wrote:
| I like the thought that, years from now, we're all drinking
| eating weirdly-presented food / drinking weird cocktails because
| AI synthesized the images of drinks around the web and decided
| `cocktails always include fruit` and `all food must be piled high
| on plate`
| twic wrote:
| This computer has pretty poor taste in cocktails.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| Somewhere in that data set is found an Eigencookie. I want the
| recipe.
| tmountain wrote:
| Aggregate "does not exist" website for anyone who's interested.
|
| https://thisxdoesnotexist.com/
| forgotusername6 wrote:
| I wonder how close the nearest match from the training data is.
| Was there a cheesecake that looked almost like these generated
| images?
| layer8 wrote:
| Maybe the ML model effectively implements a lossy image
| database with minor randomization. :)
| fxtentacle wrote:
| Since GANs are effectively one class of denoising auto-
| encoders, your summary is spot-on. This type of ML model
| learns to effectively compress and decompress natural images
| by representing it as a hierarchy of convolutional features =
| shape templates.
| waynesonfire wrote:
| exactly.. where is the chocolate chip cheesecake?
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| This feels like when I made a drawing in elementary school, and
| someone asks if I traced it. It just feels like looking for a
| way to downplay what was made by making an appeal to
| "creativity" or "originality".
|
| But the tide never goes out on AI and computing. The
| capabilities will only grow more and more impressive and
| unassailable.
|
| When the chatbot is completely convincing is someone going to
| ask, "I wonder close the responses are to training text" even
| though no one even blinks when fathers and sons act alike. No
| one demands children invent new languages to prove they aren't
| just "randomizing samplers"
| mikkergp wrote:
| Is this just a search engine to find relevant content and
| remix it a bit, or can you actually create new content. These
| two things don't solve the same problem, and you may run into
| lots of copyright problems.
| yellowapple wrote:
| > No one demands children invent new languages to prove they
| aren't just "randomizing samplers"
|
| I sure as hell do. No son of _mine_ will be comprehensible to
| other humans until he 's at _least_ two years old.
| WalterSear wrote:
| No hot dogs?
|
| Nice work.
| Sebbecking wrote:
| How big was your training dataset?
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| Looks impressive but I can't escape the notion that surely some
| of the generated images will be very close to the some of the
| training images?
|
| How am I to assess how original the generated results really are?
| danuker wrote:
| Image search, I guess. No results, it's original enough.
| dylan604 wrote:
| When will we see this as a contestant on Is It Cake?
| xg15 wrote:
| At least with DALL-E you can be sure the food has a name. For a
| moment I was worried this would produce vaguely food-like images
| where on closer look you realise you have no idea what you're
| looking at - like a lot of other "this X does not exist" projects
| seem to do.
|
| Also a bit of cultural bias in the training is shown I think. The
| "pile of cookies" prompt seems to mostly generate American
| cookies, while e.g. a German user might be disappointed they
| didn't get this:
| https://groceryeshop.us/image/cache/data/new_image_2019/ABSB...
| :)
| fxtentacle wrote:
| I thought DALL-E uses a sentence-piece encoder for the text
| that goes into CLIP, which would suggest that you can recombine
| the syllables from existing words and it'll "understand" that.
|
| So both "banana chocolate cookies" and "banacoochoconakieslade"
| should work.
| dalmo3 wrote:
| I don't think a German user writing "pile of cookies", in
| English, would be disappointed with "English" results. Is that
| any different than what you get on, say, Google?
|
| Try prompting craiyon for "Ein Stapel Kekse"* :)
|
| * Google-translated
| munificent wrote:
| I love cheesecake with strawraspcherries on top.
| waynesonfire wrote:
| and what was the licensing for the training data that you used?
| n4bz0r wrote:
| The food looks great! I suppose these models could use some extra
| training with dishes, though. The plates and glasses look wobbly,
| which is an instant giveaway. Otherwise, I can see this being
| used by food posters! Maybe not as a primary source, but as a
| "filler" -- for sure.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-20 23:00 UTC)