[HN Gopher] StyleDrop: Text-to-Image Generation in Any Style
___________________________________________________________________
StyleDrop: Text-to-Image Generation in Any Style
Author : og_kalu
Score : 76 points
Date : 2023-06-03 12:56 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (styledrop.github.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (styledrop.github.io)
| 037 wrote:
| In the last century, machines replaced craftsmen by doing
| machine-like work (a handmade nightstand vs an industrial
| nightstand). Now they will also replace the remaining craftsmen,
| or the last jobs that only a craftsman could do (just look at the
| example of icons in the suggested style).
|
| But it doesn't matter, soon they will stop doing what we prefer,
| I guess...
| andybak wrote:
| Can we maybe keep comments about general "AI and society" to
| posts about that are actually about that?
|
| There's about 10 posts on the front page a day about AI and
| filling each one up with comments about the broader topic just
| diffuses the debate - both about the post topic in question and
| about the important issues you're trying to raise.
| 037 wrote:
| You're right. For me it was relevant because, for some
| reason, this is the first time I've experienced this feeling
| while looking at one of the latest 1000 studies on the
| subject. However, I must admit that I too am feeling a bit of
| fatigue when it comes to AI, and I understand the need for
| specificity.
| waffletower wrote:
| Is this another squandered Google AI showcase? To what purpose
| does another demonstration serve Google when it is not
| immediately paired with a product announcement, beta access
| invitation or source code release? Does it merely make it easier
| for Google researchers to be poached by other AI companies that
| are actually releasing AI products? Adobe is actually integrating
| image generation tools directly in its products. What are you
| waiting for?
| ipsum2 wrote:
| It's a research paper, not a product. I don't know why you're
| against this, but I appreciate researchers that publish papers
| so knowledge isn't siloed in organizations and contribute to
| the public good and advancement of technology. Please do more
| of this!
| js4ever wrote:
| I was thinking the same, recent announcements from Google are
| research papers leading nowhere. At this point as soon as I see
| something from Google I know it's either a vaporware or a
| product that will be killed in next 6-18 months.
| practice9 wrote:
| > announcements from Google are research papers leading
| nowhere
|
| And without code or model files, who knows if research is
| actually reproducible and not cherry-picked to look good?
| jumpCastle wrote:
| Attention is all you need had no code or model and still
| led somewhere.
| A6gYPfxNas wrote:
| Super cool, thanks for sharing!
| waffletower wrote:
| It appears to be fantastic work... work that people can't use.
| allenu wrote:
| It's confusing that the page's presentation makes it feel
| like an actual product. The branding of "Style Drop" and the
| copy makes it feel like something "you" the reader can use
| right now... and then you can't find a download or sign-up
| link.
| jerrygenser wrote:
| It seems to be published as research not as a product
| announcement.
| JonathanBeuys wrote:
| The big question is if Google will be able to capitalize on their
| research. Or if publishing all those papers just plays into the
| hands of the competition.
|
| When I want to try Bard, I still get "Bard isn't currently
| supported in your country. Stay tuned!". While me and everyone
| around me already uses ChatGPT, FastGPT, Phind and Perplexity.
| theaiquestion wrote:
| I feel like people don't understand what this is, and what google
| has historically done.
|
| This is research for some math to improve the ability to do a
| style transfer, and they show it on their own text-to-image
| generator muse, which they have also published the structure of.
|
| This is what they have typically done, and this is what they
| didn't do with Bard.
|
| No, they did not release waits for it, you cannot run this on
| your own computer. But they typically didn't release weights for
| things like Lambda or Imagen either AFAIK.
|
| This is not a product. This is not a tool for you to use. This is
| for researchers.
|
| The point of this paper is not to let you run it on your
| computer. It's to allow other researchers to implement and build
| on the methods described in the paper.
| LewisVerstappen wrote:
| Well, it's clearly not a good strategy since it's what allowed
| OpenAI & StabilityAI to get all the credit.
| saiojd wrote:
| The researchers want credit for their work. Google wants to
| stay ahed of their competitors. Google has three moves:
|
| 1) Allow publishing everything including source code => this
| helps the competitor directly. Bad move.
|
| 2) Disallow publishing => the researchers will be tempted to
| switch jobs for their competitor, since staying at Google
| will hurt their career. Bad move.
|
| 3) Allow publishing, but disallow everything else => this
| helps the competitors a little, but not too much. The
| researchers get credit for their work, which removes any
| incentive they have at switching jobs. Seems like the best
| compromise.
|
| At least, that's my speculative take on this. Sure, OpenAI &
| StabilityAI get the credit in the public's eye, but there are
| also other incentives at play.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| You're aware that the peer review process is basically
| impossible without the release of weights?
| kqr wrote:
| Interesting how often "a banana" turned into multiple bananas,
| and how the coffee machine flip-flops between infusion and
| grinding, and the towel not only changes number, but also
| sometimes disappears entirely!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-03 23:01 UTC)