[HN Gopher] AI-Generated Bible Art
___________________________________________________________________
AI-Generated Bible Art
Author : possiblelion
Score : 154 points
Date : 2022-09-01 09:58 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.openbible.info)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.openbible.info)
| api wrote:
| They all look like psychedelic album covers. I would listen to
| every one of them.
| guestbest wrote:
| Has anyone created psychedelic AI generated music?
| smoldesu wrote:
| Yes, the results have been really mixed.
|
| On the one hand, you have people trying to generate MIDI
| compositions with AI. This works alright, but a machine-
| learning model doesn't understand which musical cues are
| significant and which are not. We have no good
| 'classification' metrics for music, which means that most
| procgen MIDI tunes are listenable, but about as boring as
| Chinese bootleg NES soundtracks circa late-80s.
|
| On the other hand, you have people _actually trying_ to
| recreate _actual music_ a-la DALL-E or Stable Diffusion. This
| has slightly better results (since AI has an easier time
| parsing a finished product), but still pretty far away from
| being interesting to the ear. There 's plenty of examples on
| YouTube, you'll probably get the gist after just 1 or 2 of
| them.
|
| All of this really goes to show what a serendipitous project
| AI image generation has been. On it's face, we're frankly
| solving a really simple problem; how do we make a black box
| that can identify visual parameters and then synthesize their
| consequences in a photo? The nuance involved with making
| interesting music is a much different arena though, and I
| reckon that we simply don't have advanced enough
| classification to make it work.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| Vaguely related:
|
| I have been contemplating that if-when I get to participate in
| another D&D campaign,
|
| it would be both easy and _amazing_ to use MidJourney (or
| whatever), to prepare art for sessions and /or even make it _on
| the fly_ as needed.
|
| The lag between notion, and serviceable rendering with the right
| set of details...
|
| ...but not so much that night-before preparation of a half-dozen
| choice/likely images would be a burden.
|
| And "realtime" is just going to get closer.
| gylterud wrote:
| Indeed - the first thing I did in Midjourney was to create this
| for my upcomming D&D campaign, set in a dessert world:
| https://hakon.gylterud.net/img/dessert_mindflayer-scaled.jpg
| narrator wrote:
| Death of Jezebel doesn't really go with the rest:
| https://a.openbible.info/labs/ai-bible-art/1024/death-jezebe...
| mikotodomo wrote:
| Wouldn't you stop believing in god after seeing this if you were
| a Christian? It just proves that we are just machines. Our
| feelings are just chemical reactions. All someone had to do was a
| bunch of math to make a program emulate a human.
| schoen wrote:
| I think this is technically an invalid syllogism.
|
| People can create art.
|
| Machines can create art.
|
| Therefore, people are machines.
|
| But it's true that lots of things have happened in science and
| engineering over time that have reduced humanity's sense of
| uniqueness and specialness. And some of those things have also
| been challenging for traditional religious belief. However,
| they don't necessarily disprove the religious belief, they just
| undermine certain intuitions that are highly compatible with it
| (like that a certain kind of human uniqueness must be a direct
| consequence of the divine plan).
| wsgeorge wrote:
| I'm not sure how this necessarily leads to a disbelief in the
| Christian God, because...
|
| > All someone had to do was a bunch of math to make a program
| emulate a human.
|
| Christian theology says that, that "someone" who did it first
| was God. And,
|
| > It just proves that we are just machines.
|
| fits quite nicely with the idea that creation is subordinate to
| the Deity that made it.
| mikotodomo wrote:
| But there is no soul if we are all machines. There is no
| heaven. You just die and there will be a black screen.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| To extend the metaphor, how do you know? What if your
| instance is taken to another server depending on how you
| behaved in this one, given a prompt? Were you kind to the
| other machines and sufficiently obeyed instructions despite
| it not fitting your logical model? If so, enjoy the
| "heaven" server where you live in peace and harmony. Did
| you grief the "universe" server by harming others and going
| against the default programming? You get put in the
| "purgatory" or "hell" servers where you await indefinite
| torment.
| krapp wrote:
| If we're just machines, it isn't possible for us to go
| against the default programming, because code only does
| exactly what it does, nothing more and nothing less.
| That's what "machines" implies in this context.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| The onset of AI shows that "programming" is more than a
| set of imperatives.
|
| Or, more snarkily, watch the Matrix.
| krapp wrote:
| > The onset of AI shows that "programming" is more than a
| set of imperatives.
|
| How so? What is current AI doing that goes beyond the
| scope or intent of its programming? Are you arguing that
| DallE, Stable Diffusion and the like have developed
| souls?
|
| >Or, more snarkily, watch the Matrix.
|
| The Matrix is fiction, they didn't actually develop an
| AGI for the movies so invoking it in an argument about AI
| is as pointless as invoking Star Trek in an argument
| about post-scarcity economics.
| aliasxneo wrote:
| Well, I suppose I fit into this category, and the answer is no,
| it does not.
| no-dr-onboard wrote:
| At first glance I was relatively amazed at how beautiful and
| imaginitive some of these works are. After returning to the HN
| comments and reading the quip about how the prompts are oddly
| specific (and verifying myself) my amazement quickly diffused :/.
| ghostfacekeller wrote:
| The blog post linked from the page mentions the prompts came
| from GPT-3
| k__ wrote:
| Stably, I hope.
| tmountain wrote:
| I love this, and I have been enjoying DALL-E quite a bit, but
| does anyone else feel like AI art has a distinct look to it? I
| can't really put my finger on it, but it invokes an almost
| unsettling feeling that I don't get from traditional artwork.
| ars wrote:
| It's because it's easy to see how it takes an existing artwork
| and modifies it.
|
| For example when asked to paint Noah it used a stereotypical
| image of last century Jews. How would it know that Noah is
| linked with Jews, if not by finding another painting labeled
| Noah and working off of that?
| dougmwne wrote:
| This is where it gets interesting. The model is just 4.5gb.
| That's too small to contain the actual trillion images it was
| trained on. So in all likelihood, it doesn't have an actual
| specific image of Noah to work from, but a web of concepts,
| connections, correlations. It's probably analogous to if you
| were asked to draw a picture in the style of Da Vinci. Most
| peoples' brains can't reproduce the exact image, but a low
| fidelity representation of it that they can fill in with
| imagination.
|
| If you run the same prompt multiple times you can start to
| see evidence of this. The images are similar but also clearly
| different, not at all a quick transformation of an existing
| image.
| ars wrote:
| It was trained with 400 million images, not a trillion.
|
| That's 11 bytes per image, and since most images are quite
| duplicative that actually is enough to more or less store
| every image permutation.
| ryankrage77 wrote:
| So it can store a little over 400 million images that are
| 3 pixels by 3 pixels in black and white. Or 2 by 2 pixels
| with three colours.
| visarga wrote:
| It's not even pixels the model is storing ... it's
| gradients from the loss function. Gradients that have the
| shape of the network, not of the image it is training on.
| ars wrote:
| It doesn't have to store every image - most are
| essentially duplicates of each other and only serve to
| reinforce which is the most representative image when
| multiple choices are linked with some reference text.
|
| It only needs to store a fraction of the images to have a
| never ending supply of source material (I guess that's
| kind of obvious since this program works :)
| dougmwne wrote:
| But again, I think the idea that the model weights store
| the source images as if it were a library is fallacious.
| There. Is no known way to get it to spit back out a copy
| of a training image.
| synu wrote:
| There is some flexible encoding of terms to images there,
| too, that would take up some space.
|
| Though I'm not really sure you could decompress the
| weights in some way to regenerate the 400 million images
| and metadata.
| dougmwne wrote:
| Sorry it was not a trillion. It was first trained on 2
| billion, then fine tuned on smaller sets of highly
| aesthetic images.
|
| https://github.com/CompVis/stable-
| diffusion/blob/69ae4b35e0a...
| aaroninsf wrote:
| Not to your point,
|
| I advocate for being more precise in the language we use when
| talking about how these systems function.
|
| These systems do not in any literal way "encode" or index or
| otherwise store specific images; they have incomprehensibly
| (to us) distributed representations representing aggregations
| over their training set.
|
| The thrust of the observation is correct; but the specifics
| are very different, it's probably a more accurate "lay
| person" description to say something like, "the system was
| trained with only a few references for what Noah looked like,
| and doesn't have much initiative by default to improvise or
| make inferences, so if it tries in good faith to render Noah
| it is limited by what it's seen."
|
| The point just being, it's less about making a collage or
| modifying a source, more about say 'doing its best to
| recapitulate a set of learned higher-level properties which
| are specific to the "Noah" concept.'
| visarga wrote:
| > it's less about making a collage or modifying a source,
| more about say 'doing its best to recapitulate a set of
| learned higher-level properties
|
| That sounds almost ... humane. I bet it will trigger some
| people who only see copyright violation in it. They don't
| understand the image is being created "from first
| principles".
| synu wrote:
| There are definitely some characteristic deformations that only
| AI does. Sort of cubist repeating of elements at transition
| points.
| amelius wrote:
| Yes it's art that you get if you let a child make a broad
| sketch and let an experienced artist render all the details
| without looking at the whole result.
| bkandel wrote:
| For me a lot of it is in the eyes and face. There's almost
| always some weird deformation or artifact that doesn't look
| quite right. It also happens in most other pictures if you look
| hard enough but with eyes and faces it's really unnerving.
| [deleted]
| throw7 wrote:
| Don't the orthodox have approved way/rules of creating biblical
| art? It would be interesting to restrict the ai-generation to
| those set of rules.
| scop wrote:
| I would love to see AI's attempt at Ezekiel's vision in chapter
| 1.
| joemazerino wrote:
| Very cool.
| tsol wrote:
| This is neat. Honestly though.. they're not very good. They're
| rather all rather generic and many of them aren't illustrating
| the verse very clearly. It makes sense-- DALLE prompts tend to be
| very specific and it looks like for the most part they just used
| bible verses while attaching phrases like Classical Art,
| Painting, 2022, etc. With more work by the author to create a
| more specific prompt you can probably make some really great
| stuff
| lethologica wrote:
| I get a very Clipart vibe from a lot of these.
| kakwa_ wrote:
| I'm really wondering how many out of these are almost copy
| pastes of existing pictures. I just saw down the list an
| almost verbatim copy of the well known photo of the heart in
| the Amazon, so I'm really skeptical.
| jjuliano wrote:
| LORD is a title, not a name. FYI.
|
| For example, Psa 83:18, the name of God was replaced by generic
| title 'the LORD' like a wildcard, so it reads "Let them know that
| you, WHOSE NAME is the Lord--". so it can also written as "Let
| them know that you, WHOSE NAME is the SOFTWARE ENGINEER".
|
| Who is the immortal living and true God in the Bible behind that
| LORD you are addressing/devoting to? There are millions of
| false/dead God nowadays who can't help you, but only one true
| living God exists that will. It is important to know. Being
| specific is more helpful, genuine and sincere, than vaguely
| calling a generic wildcard title (in which, God has every right
| to not respond, since your devoted addressee is questionable.).
|
| Research: See the correlation between the Isa 42:8, Exo 3:15,
| Matthew 6:9, John 12:28, John 17:26, Pro 18:10, Joel 2:32, Micah
| 4:5, Acts 15:4, and Psa 83:18. See that the generic wildcard name
| does not fit the picture, and understand how important it is for
| us to use God's personal name.
| mike_hock wrote:
| > "You will not fear the terror of night"
|
| KEK. It drew a manga.
|
| Also KEK:
|
| > Birth of Christ
|
| As an old RPG
|
| > The parable of the lost sheep
|
| That steampunk sheep
|
| > The Last Supper
|
| In a sci-fi conference room in Manhattan
| [deleted]
| dqpb wrote:
| I wonder where OpenAI's moral decree on AI-Generated Quran Art
| would land.
| folbec wrote:
| Appropriately soppy and generic.
| folbec wrote:
| for those who can read french :
|
| https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_sulpicien
| speedgoose wrote:
| And for those who can't: https://www.deepl.com/
| i_like_apis wrote:
| Soon we will create our own god.
| krapp wrote:
| We created all of our gods.
| i_like_apis wrote:
| True. The new ones won't just be fantasies, though.
| kerblang wrote:
| I hadn't noticed this before with AI art, but the faces are all
| deformed. The animals are practically headless.
| [deleted]
| what-imright wrote:
| I'm pretty concerned about a AI generating infectious memes and
| memeplexes/religions. It doesn't take much to start a religious
| genocide. Look at Hong Xiuquan, the brother of jesus from China.
| 30 million dead. Synthetic religion could be so convincing it
| sucks us all into some delusion
| j0hnyl wrote:
| sigzero wrote:
| olddustytrail wrote:
| And an estimated 12-20 million killed in Stalin's religious
| purges. It seems atheism is an equally dangerous delusion.
| EFreethought wrote:
| And what did your precious little god do for those 12-20
| million people?
| olddustytrail wrote:
| It constantly astonishes me how purported atheists keep
| blaming God for stuff. It was done by atheist humans kid.
| EFreethought wrote:
| "kid"? Learn how the world works before you start calling
| people names.
| yboris wrote:
| This may be the best book to read on the topic: _Breaking the
| Spell_ by the philosopher Daniel C. Dennett. In short:
| _religion is a meme_ (that has evolved over centuries). Crudely
| put, one can draw some parallels between religion "infecting"
| a human and a virus that makes an ant crawl to the top of a
| blade of grass (as the virus needs a sheep's stomach to
| reproduce).
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Pheno...
| trasz wrote:
| Unfortunately in the West harmful consequences of religions
| are still a taboo.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| Presumably by "the west" you mean some parts of the
| Americas?
| mberg0 wrote:
| vitiral wrote:
| It's a-theist, not a-positive. It can be confusing.
|
| One positive might be protection against meme religions?
| Hopefully?
| greenhearth wrote:
| olddustytrail wrote:
| And you know what another dangerous meme is? Humour. You can
| make offensive and degrading remarks about pretty much
| anything.
|
| But no one wants to admit they are not infected with the humour
| meme.
| krapp wrote:
| >But no one wants to admit they are not infected with the
| humour meme.
|
| Hacker News being the exception. If humor is a virus, HN is a
| bathtub filled with horse dewormer and bleach.
| ipnon wrote:
| Do androids pray to electronic gods?
| possiblelion wrote:
| Dalle generated images from specific Bible quote prompts. This
| website (openbible) is really fascinating overall, I recommend
| checking out their different sections.
| ars wrote:
| Unfortunately that's not what it is.
|
| If you hover the mouse over the image you will see the actual
| prompt - which is a human, Christian, interpretation of the
| verse, not the actual verse.
|
| I am disappointed.
|
| (I say Christian because no Jew would ever give that prompt for
| "Expulsion from Eden".)
| bustadjustme wrote:
| Note that the prompt is AI-generated as well, though. From
| the linked blog post:
|
| > OpenAI has another AI, GPT-3, that I used to generate many
| of the ideas for DALL*E prompts. I wanted to explore DALL*E
| using a wide variety of styles and artists, and I have
| limitations and biases when it comes to my knowledge of art
| history. GPT-3 cast a wider net of styles and artists than I
| would've come up with on my own.... The GPT-3 prompts I used
| evolved over time, but this one is emblematic:
|
| > Suggest 5 unique concept ideas for a work of visual art
| inspired by Luke 14:7-11 (do not pick the place of honor) in
| the Bible. Include art direction and a specific medium and
| artist to emulate. Include artists from a variety of eras,
| styles, and media. Try for an unusual perspective. Title,
| year, medium. Description.
| visarga wrote:
| Not just the Bible, I expect many fans to start generating
| illustrations for their favourite novels.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I wish the UI allowed easier reading, selection and copying of
| the full prompt. "Hover for img-alt" is not mobile friendly nor
| share-friendly, nor friendly for old eyes.
|
| The project itself is very interesting.
| nahuel0x wrote:
| What happens when instead of an static sacred book you have a
| sacred oracle who can generate any image and can answer all your
| questions? One whose way of work is even a mystery to his
| creators. Probably we will see new cults and religions welling up
| around AI.
| MatthewCampbell wrote:
| Cue TempleOS
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| TempleOS has a number of interesting Oracular things. The F7
| button gives you a random Bible word, and Shift+F7 gives you
| a random Bible passage. The author claimed that God provided
| guidance through this functionality.
|
| Lower down, TempleOS's "god" library was a 'random' number
| generator that was seeded/pre-populated with the entirety of
| the KJV. The "GodBits" function would get you "random"
| numbers from it.
| karaterobot wrote:
| This is cool, but why make illustrations of biblical scenes in a
| style that has already been done hundreds, if not thousands of
| times by human painters? Why not do like a full illustration of
| the bible in vaporwave, or in the style of a Wes Anderson movie?
| amelius wrote:
| And let GPT-3 apply a style change to the text while you're at
| it.
| ben_w wrote:
| Me:
|
| Rewrite the book of Genesis in the style of a limerick
|
| GPT-3: There was a man named Adam Who
| was the first of all men He lived in a garden
| With his wife, Eve And they ate an apple And
| then they had to leave
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| so AI doesn't understand rhyme schemes yet...
| ben_w wrote:
| Apparently it can be cajoled into it if you ask it to
| convert to IPA, but I didn't try that.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| OMG the Wes Anderson bible.
|
| Take my mon--er upvote.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I wonder if we will see AI generated art replace a lot of stock
| photo usage...
| marcodiego wrote:
| I wonder the impact DALL-E will have on abstract art. Maybe we'll
| see a severe devaluation of abstract artists since most people
| will be unable to differentiate human from computer generated
| art.
| andybak wrote:
| That has always been the case to some degree (I remember
| Douglas Hofstadter asking people to distinguish synthetic
| Mondrian vs real Mondrian several decades ago).
|
| I think what's changed is actually somewhat more radical. Most
| people will soon be unable to differentiate human from computer
| generated _representational_ art.
| [deleted]
| jp57 wrote:
| So interesting that Adam and Eve are clothed. Of course this is
| easily explained if most of the training data contains clothed
| people and if the prompts don't explicitly say they should be
| nude. But I wonder, can DALL-E produce nudes, or has it been
| prevented somehow?
| zikduruqe wrote:
| Ezekiel 23:20 would be interesting.
| dqpb wrote:
| It does beg the question, did God create the loom on the fifth
| day, so they could immediately clothe themselves, or on the
| seventh day, after their exact dimensions were known?
| ars wrote:
| They clothed themselves with fig leaves. (Genesis 3:7) This
| is also why some hold that the tree of knowledge was a fig
| tree.
|
| Other possibilities are grape (and the fruit was actually
| wine that they drank), or wheat because when it's when a baby
| first starts eating solids that they start really
| understanding the world around them.
| andsoitis wrote:
| Nudes are prevented, at least on my account.
|
| Art galleries and museums around the world are amused.
| cma wrote:
| OpenAI trained up DALL-E 2's morality policy on the biography
| of John Ashcroft.
| [deleted]
| vorpalhex wrote:
| StableDiffusion can, with tweaks, but not very well. You know
| the issue where it isn't quite sure how many legs people have?
| Yeah that applies to.. other.. body parts too.
| becquerel wrote:
| Sorry guys, I asked them not to include me in their training
| set, but...
| milsorgen wrote:
| I've seen some pretty good (and tasteful) stuff out of SD on
| some forums. Not sure how much time people are spending to
| get that output but I've been impressed with some of the
| human forms in general people are getting.
| rtev wrote:
| I think that's a feature!
| ducktective wrote:
| The writing on the wall ? :\
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-01 23:01 UTC)