[HN Gopher] Hunyuan3D 2.0 - High-Resolution 3D Assets Generation
___________________________________________________________________
Hunyuan3D 2.0 - High-Resolution 3D Assets Generation
Author : TheGuyWhoCodes
Score : 305 points
Date : 2025-01-21 22:42 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| pella wrote:
| Ouch; License: EUROPEAN UNION, UNITED KINGDOM AND SOUTH KOREA
| TENCENT HUNYUAN 3D 2.0 COMMUNITY LICENSE AGREEMENT Tencent
| Hunyuan 3D 2.0 Release Date: January 21, 2025 THIS LICENSE
| AGREEMENT DOES NOT APPLY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION, UNITED KINGDOM
| AND SOUTH KOREA AND IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO THE TERRITORY, AS
| DEFINED BELOW.
|
| https://github.com/Tencent/Hunyuan3D-2?tab=License-1-ov-file
| gruez wrote:
| Is this tied to EU regulations around AI models?
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| I assume it's safe to ignore as model weights aren't
| copyrightable, probably.
| slt2021 wrote:
| you dont know what kind of backdoors are hidden in the model
| weights
| EMIRELADERO wrote:
| I mean... you can just firewall it?
| slt2021 wrote:
| you dont know which prompt activates the backdoor, how
| can you firewall it if you run the model in production?
| foolfoolz wrote:
| 3d asset generation is a use case that for most doesn't
| need to run in production
| regularfry wrote:
| "In production" in this case is a stand-in for "in any
| environment with access to sensitive stuff" which might
| just include GPUs, if what the attacker wanted was crypto
| processing grunt. Besides, if you're providing 3D asset
| generation as a service (which I can imagine most
| deployments of this sort of thing will be, at least for
| now) then it absolutely is running in production. The
| purpose of that production environment is entirely to run
| asset generation.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Simply sanatieze the model outputs, which is the only
| thing that would escape running it in complete isolation.
| LiamPowell wrote:
| Can you elaborate on how any sort of backdoor could be
| hidden in the model weights?
|
| It's a technical possibility to hide something in the code,
| but that would be a bit silly since there's not that much
| of it here. It's not technically possible to hide a
| backdoor in a set of numbers that are solely used as the
| operands to trivial mathematical operations, so I'm very
| curious about what sort of hidden backdoor you think is
| here.
| swframe2 wrote:
| When you run their demo locally, there are two places
| that trigger a warning that the code loads the weights
| unsafely. To learn more about this issue, search "pytorch
| model load safety issues" on Google.
| LiamPowell wrote:
| I'm sure there's warnings about possibly loading code
| alongside the weights since they distribute the weights
| as pickled data, but:
|
| 1. It's trivial to go look at what's being loaded.
|
| 2. Any code that's in the distributed pickled data is not
| weights. The GP suggests that there are backdoors hidden
| in the weights which is nonsensical unless the code runs
| eval on the weights or something similar, which would
| make anyone looking at the code immediately realise it
| was doing something dodgy.
|
| As an example of (1), here's all the GLOBALs in the
| pickled code: GLOBAL 'collections
| OrderedDict' GLOBAL 'torch HalfStorage'
| GLOBAL 'torch._utils _rebuild_tensor_v2'
|
| None of these could be used for anything malicious as far
| as I know.
| suraci wrote:
| Your concern is reasonable.
|
| According to DOD, Tencent - which published this model - is
| a Chinese military company
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9q78wn9g8zo
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| I'm trying to think of what kind of adversarial 3D model
| the weights could produce. Perhaps a 3D goatse?
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Interesting. One of the diagrams suggests that the mesh is
| generated from the marching cubes algorithm but the geometry of
| the meshes shown above are clearly not generated in this way.
| GrantMoyer wrote:
| To me, the bird mesh actually does look like marching cubes
| output. Note the abundance of almost square triangle pairs on
| the front and sides. Also note that marching cubes doesn't
| nescessarily create stairstep-like artifacts; it can generate a
| smooth looking mesh given signed distance field input by
| slightly adjusting the locations of vertices based on the
| relative magnitude of the field at the surrounding lattice
| points.
| wumeow wrote:
| The meshes generated by the huggingface demo definitely look
| like the product of marching cubes.
| TinkersW wrote:
| If they are using MC, does that mean they are actually
| generating SDFs? If so it would be nice if you could output the
| SDF rather than the triangle mesh.
| MikeTheRocker wrote:
| Generative AI is going to drive the marginal cost of building 3D
| interactive content to zero. Unironically this will unlock the
| metaverse, cringe as that may sound. I'm more bullish than ever
| on AR/VR.
| jsheard wrote:
| I can only speak for myself, but a Metaverse consisting of
| infinite procedural slop sounds about as appealing as reading
| infinite LLM generated books, that is, not at all. "Cost to
| zero" implies drinking directly from the AI firehose with no
| human in the loop (those cost money) and entertainment produced
| in that manner is still _dire,_ even in the relatively mature
| field of pure text generation.
| echelon wrote:
| You're too old and jaded [1]. It's for kids inventing
| infinite worlds to role play and adventure. They're going to
| have a blast.
|
| [1] Not meant as an insult. Working professionals don't have
| time for this stuff.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Object permanence and a communications channel is enough
| for this. Give children (who get along with each other) a
| pile of sticks and leave them alone for half an hour, and
| there's half a chance their game will ignore the sticks.
| Most children wouldn't _want_ to have their play mediated
| by the computer in the way you describe, because the
| ergonomics are so poor.
| jsheard wrote:
| I'm reminded of that guy who bought an AI enabled toy for
| his daughter and got increasingly exasperated as she kept
| turning it off and treating it as a normal toy.
|
| https://xcancel.com/altryne/status/1872090523420229780
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| That thread has a lot of good observations in it. I was
| probably wrong in framing the problem as "ergonomics".
|
| > Dr. Michelle (@MichelleSaidel): I think because it
| takes away control from the child. Play is how children
| work through emotions, impulses and conflicts and well as
| try out new behaviors. I would think if would be super
| irritating to have the toy shape and control your play-
| like a totally dominating playmate!
|
| > Alex Volkov (Thursd/AI) (@altryne): It did feel
| dominating! she wanted to make it clothes, and it was
| like, "meanwhile, here's another thing we can do" lacking
| context of what she's already doing
|
| > The Short Straw (@short_straw): The real question you
| should ask yourself is why you felt compelled to turn it
| back on each time she turned it off.
|
| > Angelo Angelli JD (@AngelliAngelo): Kids are pretty
| decent bullshit detectors and a lot of AI is bullshit.
|
| > Foxhercules (@Foxena): [...] I would like to point out
| again that the only things I sent this child were
| articulated 3d prints. beyond being able to move their
| arms, legs and tails, these things were made out of
| extruded plastic and are not exactly marvels of
| engineering. [...] My takeaway from this is that, this is
| what children need. they don't need fancy with tons of
| bells and whistles with play on any sort of rails. And
| there's not a thing that AI can do to replace a Child's
| imagination NOR SHOULD IT.
| jdietrich wrote:
| The majority of American children have an active Roblox
| account. Those who don't are likely to play Minecraft or
| Fortnite. Play mediated by the computer in this way is
| already one of the most popular forms of play. Kids are
| going to go absolutely nuts for this and if you think
| otherwise, you really need to talk to some children.
| Mashimo wrote:
| > Working professionals don't have time for this stuff.
|
| Why don't working professionals have time for
| entertainment?
|
| And are working people not always professionals?
| MikeTheRocker wrote:
| IMO current generation models are capable of creating
| significantly better than "slop" quality content. You need
| only look at NotebookLM output. As models continue to
| improve, this will only get better. Look at the rate of
| improvement of video generation models in the last 12-24
| months. It's obvious to me we're rapidly approaching
| acceptable or even excellent quality on-demand generated
| content.
| jsheard wrote:
| I feel like you're conflating quality with fidelity. Video
| generation models have better fidelity than they did a year
| ago, but they are no closer to producing any kind of
| compelling content without a human directing them, and the
| latter is what you would actually need to make the
| "infinite entertainment machine" happen.
|
| The fidelity of a video generation model is comparable to
| an LLMs ability to nail spelling and grammar - it's a
| start, but there's more to being an author than that.
| MikeTheRocker wrote:
| I already feel like text models are already at
| sufficiently entertaining and useful quality as you
| define it. It's definitely possible we never get there
| for video or 3D modalities, but I think there are strong
| enough economic incentives such that big tech will dump
| tens of billions of dollars into achieving it.
| jchw wrote:
| I don't know why you think that's the case regarding text
| models. If that was the case, there would be articles on
| here that are just created by only generative AI and
| nobody would know the difference. It's pretty obvious
| that's not happening yet, not the least of which because
| I know what kinds of slop state-of-the-art generative
| models still produce when you give them open-ended
| prompts.
| cma wrote:
| Ironic how this comment exemplifies the issue - broad
| claims about "slop" output but no specific examples or
| engagement with current architectures. Real discussions
| here usually reference benchmarks or implementation
| details.
|
| (from Claude)
| nilamo wrote:
| You're sort of ignoring the issue? If the generated
| content was good and interesting enough on it's own, we
| would already have ai publishing houses pushing out
| entire trilogies, and each of those would be top sellers.
|
| Generative content right now is OK. OK isn't really the
| goal, or what anyone wants.
| jdietrich wrote:
| I feel like this is missing the point of GenAI. I read
| fewer books than I did a year ago, primarily because
| Claude will provide dynamic content that is exactly
| tailored for me. I don't read many instructional books
| any more, because I can tell Claude what I already know
| about a topic and what I'd like to know and it'll create
| a personalised learning plan. If I don't understand
| something, it can re-phrase things or find different
| metaphors until I do. I don't read self-help books
| written for a general audience, because I can get
| personalised advice based on my specific circumstances
| and preferences.
|
| The idea of a "book" is really just an artifact of a
| particular means of production and distribution. LLM-
| generated text is a categorically different thing from a
| book, in the same way as a bardic poem or hypertext.
| cma wrote:
| First it was AI articles, raising it to entire successful
| book trilogies seems like a much bigger leap. Even
| considering the largest context windows they wouldn't
| directly fit and there is much less data to train context
| of that size on fiction than the data out there for
| essays and articles.
|
| I don't think it is there yet for articles either.
|
| My point with the Claude generated comment was maybe it
| could get pretty close to something like an hn comment.
| jchw wrote:
| I'm sorry I didn't meet the LLMs expectations, but
| whether something is subjectively entertaining or not
| can't be exemplified by objective benchmarks.
| nkrisc wrote:
| Excellent example. This comment contains nothing novel,
| substantive, or interesting.
| deeznuttynutz wrote:
| This is exactly while I'm building my app now with the
| expectation that these assets will be exponentially better
| in the short term.
| modeless wrote:
| NotebookLM is still slop. I recommend feeding it your
| resume and any other online information about you. It's
| kind of fun to hear the hosts butter you up, but since you
| know the subject well you will quickly notice that it is
| not faithful to the source material. It's just plausibly
| misleading.
| hex4def6 wrote:
| I think it has its place. For 'background filler' I think it
| makes a lot of sense; stuff which you don't need to care
| about, but whose absence can make something feel less real.
|
| To me, this takes the place / augments procedural generation
| stuff. NPC crowds in which none of the participants are
| needed for the plot, but in which you can have unique
| clothing / appearance / lines is not "needed" for a game, but
| can flesh it out when done thoughtfully.
|
| Recall the lambasting Cyberpunk 2077 got for its NPCs that
| cycled through a seemingly very limited number of
| appearances, to the point that you'd see clones right next to
| each other. This would solve that sort of problem, for
| example.
| deadbabe wrote:
| I think you're being short sighted. Imagine feeding in your
| favorite TV shows to a generative AI and being able to walk
| around in the world and talk to characters or explore it with
| other people.
| bschwindHN wrote:
| That's still AI slop, in my opinion.
| deadbabe wrote:
| Everything will be AI slop to you.
|
| There will never be a point where AI creates something
| incredible and you are like wow I prefer this AI stuff
| over human made slop.
| bschwindHN wrote:
| Yes, because if someone has a tool that creates
| "something incredible", then everyone will be able to
| generate "something incredible" and then it all becomes
| not incredible.
|
| It's like having god-mode in a game, it all becomes
| boring very quickly when you can have whatever you want.
| chii wrote:
| > everyone will be able to generate "something
| incredible" and then it all becomes not incredible.
|
| no, that's just your standard moving up.
|
| There is an absolute scale for which you can measure, and
| ai is approaching a point where it is an acceptable
| level.
|
| Imagine if you applied your argument to quality of life -
| it used to be that nobody had access to easy, cheap clean
| drinking water. Now everybody has access to it. Is it not
| an incredible achievement, rather than it not being
| incredible just because it is common?
|
| That quote from the movie "the incredibles", where the
| villain claims that if everybody is super, then nobody
| is, was your gist of the argument. And it is a childish
| one imho.
| bschwindHN wrote:
| It is equally childish to compare the engineering of our
| modern water and plumbing systems with the automated
| generation of virtual textured polygons.
|
| People don't get tired of good clean water because we
| NEED it to survive.
|
| But oh, another virtual world entirely thought up by a
| machine? Throw it on the pile. We're going to get bored
| of it, and it will quickly become not incredible.
| chii wrote:
| > we NEED it to survive.
|
| plenty of people in the world still drink crappy water,
| and they survive.
|
| You don't _need_ it, you want it, because it's much more
| comfortable.
|
| But when something becomes a "need" as you described it,
| you think of it differently. Just like how you don't
| _need_ electricity to survive, but it's so ingrained that
| you now think of it as a need.
|
| > We're going to get bored of it, and it will quickly
| become not incredible.
|
| exactly, but i have already said this in my original post
| - your standards just moved up.
| smileson2 wrote:
| Are the ai worlds the dirt or the water here?
| nuancebydefault wrote:
| If you follow that reasoning, anything that improves or
| anything that makes creation easier, produces slop.
|
| Personally I'm not in favor of calling AI output slop,
| just because it is AI generated. You might then as well
| say that any electronic music is slop and any food
| prepared with help of machinery is crap. It might be crap
| or not, the automatedness is irrelevant.
|
| The outputs of AI that I see today in the form of text,
| images or video don't look like slop to me.
| LarsDu88 wrote:
| About 4 years ago the best example of generative AI for
| non-moving images was a fuzzy cartoon of an Avocado Man
| walking a pet Hedgehog.
|
| If AI videos feel like slop right now, just wait another
| 4 years and see what happens
| slt2021 wrote:
| do you find it interesting talking to NPCs in games?
| deadbabe wrote:
| Talking to NPCs in games is really just reading dialog
| written by humans.
|
| If you could actually talk to NPCs as in get their
| thoughts about the world and ask open ended questions,
| that'd be very interesting.
| Lanolderen wrote:
| If I could talk to something at the level of Neuro-sama
| (https://www.twitch.tv/vedal987) I'd be very entertained
| and it's essentially a matter of time. Hell, I'd love to
| have something like this as an assistant application as
| well and I'm not a Cortana/Google Assistant/etc user.
| xgkickt wrote:
| The trademark/copyright issues of making that both a
| reality and an income stream are as yet unsolved.
| noch wrote:
| > a Metaverse consisting of infinite procedural slop sounds
| about as appealing as reading infinite LLM generated books
|
| Take a look at the ImgnAI gallery (https://app.imgnai.com/)
| and tell me: can you paint better and more imaginatively than
| that? Do you know anyone in your immediate vicinity who can?
|
| Read this satirical speech by Claude, in French
| https://x.com/pmarca/status/1881869448275177764) and in
| English (https://x.com/pmarca/status/1881869651329913047) and
| tell me: can you write fiction more entertaining or
| imaginative than that? Is there someone in your vicinity who
| can?
|
| Perhaps that's mundane, so is there someone in your vicinity
| who can reason about a topic in mathematics/physics as well
| as this: https://x.com/hsu_steve/status/1881696226669916408 ?
|
| Probably your answer is "yes, _obviously!_ " to all the
| above.
|
| My point: deep learning works and the era of slop ended ages
| ago except that some people are still living in the past or
| with some cartoon image of the state of the art.
|
| > "Cost to zero" implies drinking directly from the AI
| firehose with no human in the loop
|
| No. It means the marginal cost of production tends towards 0.
| If you can think it, then you can make it instantly and
| iterate a billion times to refine your idea with as much
| effort as it took to generate a single concept.
|
| Your fixation on "content without a human directing them" is
| bizarre and counterproductive. Why is "no human in the loop"
| a prerequisite for productivity? Your fixation on that is
| confounding your reasoning.
| Philpax wrote:
| > Take a look at the ImgnAI gallery
| (https://app.imgnai.com/) and tell me: can you paint better
| and more imaginatively than that?
|
| So while I generally agree with you, I think this was a bad
| example to use: a lot of these _are_ slop, with the kind of
| AI sheen we 've come to glaze over. I'd say less than 20%
| are actually artistically impressive / engaging / thought-
| provoking.
| esperent wrote:
| This is a better AI gallery (I sorted all images on the
| site by top from this year).
|
| https://civitai.com/images
|
| There's still plenty of slop in there, and it would be a
| better gallery of if there was a way to filter out anime
| girls. But it's definitely higher than 20% interesting to
| me.
|
| The closest similar community of human made art is this:
|
| https://www.deviantart.com/
|
| Although unfortunately they've decided to allow AI art
| there too so it makes comparison harder. Also, I couldn't
| figure out how to get the equivalent list (top/year). But
| I'd say I find around the same amount interesting. Most
| human made art is slop too.
| dtn wrote:
| I think you fundamentally misunderstand what people use
| "slop" to describe.
|
| > Most human made art is slop too.
|
| I'm assuming you're using the term "slop" to describe
| low-quality, unpolished works, or works where the artist
| has been too ambitious with their skill level.
|
| Let me put it this way:
|
| Every piece of art that is made, is a series of
| decisions. The artist uses their lived experience, their
| tastes and their values to create something that's
| meaningful to them. Art doesn't need to have a high-level
| of technical expertise to be meaningful to others. It's
| fundamentally about communication from artists to their
| audience. To this point, I don't believe there's such a
| thing as "bad art" (all works have something to say about
| the artist!).
|
| In contrast, when you prompt an image generator, you're
| handing over the majority of the decisions to the
| algorithm. You can put in your subject matter, poses,
| even add styles, but how much is really being
| communicated here? Undoubtedly it would require a high
| level of technical skill to render similarly by hand, but
| that's missing the forest for the trees- what is the
| image saying? There's a reason why most "good" AI-
| generated images generally have a lot of human curation
| and editing.
|
| Here's an example of some "slop" from the AI Art Turing
| Test (https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-did-you-do-on-
| the-ai-ar...) from a while back:
| https://i.imgur.com/RAMFKP1.jpeg There's definitely a
| high level of technical expertise that a human would
| require to paint something like this. But it's very
| clearly AI-generated. Can you figure out why?
|
| ---
|
| As a side note, here's a human-made piece that I
| appreciate a lot. https://i.imgur.com/AZiiZj1.jpeg The
| longer you explore it, the more the story unfolds, it's
| quite lovely. On the other hand, when I focus on the
| details in AI-generated works, there's not much else to
| see.
| noch wrote:
| > here's a human-made piece that I appreciate a lot
|
| I like your art. I'm glad you made it. What I like most
| is that it's fun to look at and think about which is what
| you say you intended. I hope I get to see more of your
| art.
|
| > To this point, I don't believe there's such a thing as
| "bad art" (all works have something to say about the
| artist!).
|
| As a classically trained oil painter, I know for sure
| there is bad art especially because I've made more than
| enough bad art for one lifetime.
|
| Bad art begins with a lack of craftsmanship and is
| exemplified by a poor use of materials/media and forms,
| or a lack of knowledge of those forms (e.g. poor
| anatomical knowledge, misunderstanding the laws of
| perspective), or an overly literal representation of
| forms (a photograph is better at being literal, for
| example).
|
| > Here's an example of some "slop" from the AI Art Turing
| Test [...] But it's very clearly AI-generated. Can you
| figure out why?
|
| It's only "clearly AI-generated" because we know that AI
| is capable of generating art. If you saw this without
| that context you wouldn't immediately say "AI!" Instead,
| you'd give it a normal critique that you'd give a student
| or colleague: I'd say:
|
| - there's too much repetition of large forms.
|
| - there's an unpleasant hierarchy of values and not
| enough separation of values.
|
| - The portrait of the human is the focus of the image yet
| it has been lost in the other forms.
|
| - The composition can improve with more breathing room in
| the foreground or background which are too busy.
|
| - _Here look at this Frazetta!_
|
| However, my rudimentary list could just as easily be
| turned into prompts to be used to refine the image and
| experiment with variations. And, perhaps you'd consider
| that to be a human making decisions?
| dtn wrote:
| > I like your art. I'm glad you made it. What I like most
| is that it's fun to look at and think about which is what
| you say you intended. I hope I get to see more of your
| art.
|
| Just to be clear, it's not my art.
| esperent wrote:
| > I think you fundamentally misunderstand what people use
| "slop" to describe.
|
| I don't think I do, actually. It's not a term with a
| technical definition, but in simple terms it means art
| that is obviously AI, because it has the sheen, weird
| hands, inconsistencies, weird framing or thematic
| elements that are hard to describe without an art degree
| but which we instinctively know is wrong, or is just
| plain bad.
|
| I used the term slop to describe bad humans art too, but
| I meant something subtly different. It's a term that has
| been used to describe bad work of all kinds from humans
| since long before there was AI.
|
| In this case, it's art from humans who are learning what
| makes good art. You say there's no bad art, and it's a
| valid viewpoint, but I'd say bad art is when the artist
| has a clear goal in their mind, but they lack the skills
| to realize it. Nonetheless, they share it for feedback
| and approval anyway, and by doing that on a site like
| DeviantArt they learn and grow as artists. But meanwhile,
| to me or anyone else who is visiting that site to find
| "good", meaningful art made by skilled artists, this is
| slop. Human slop, not AI slop.
| noch wrote:
| > There's still plenty of slop in there, and it would be
| a better gallery [...]
|
| Thanks for sharing your better AI gallery. It's awesome
| to see.
|
| Your reply clarifies my point even better: I shared a
| gallery, you evaluated it and shared an even better
| gallery! Undoubtedly someone else will look at yours
| today or next year, and say, as you said, "You missed a
| slop! Here's a better gallery".
|
| My point fundamentally is about basic capability of the
| average and even above average person. As a classically
| trained amateur painter, I frequently ask myself: "Can I
| paint a nude figure better than what you've called slop?"
| As I mathematician I ask: "Can I reason better than this
| model?"
| nice_byte wrote:
| > can you paint better and more imaginatively than that?
|
| the fact that you are seriously asking this question says a
| lot about your taste.
| noch wrote:
| > the fact that you are seriously asking this question
| says a lot about your taste.
|
| Non sequitur. My sense taste or lack of it, is
| irrelevant.
|
| Questions about _" taste"_ don't matter when the average
| person doesn't have the _craft_ to produce what they
| claim they are competent to judge especially when we 're
| talking about such low hanging fruit as: "write a short
| story", "write an essay", "analyse this math problem",
| "draw an anatomically accurate portrait or nude figure",
| "paint this still life", "sketch this landscape".
|
| Are you able to make the distinction between taste and
| craftsmanship?
|
| Then after you are done signalling whatever it is you
| think you're signalling by vaguely gesturing at your
| undoubtedly superior sense of taste, perhaps we can talk
| like adults about what I asked?
| longtimelistnr wrote:
| Frankly i think you cannot get past your own delusion
| about AI and no argument will change your mind. No one
| can make you appreciate art properly and I can only hope
| one day you will.
| noch wrote:
| > No one can make you appreciate art properly and I can
| only hope one day you will.
|
| Lmao.
|
| Refer to my other comment for more context, for whatever
| that is worth (talking with strangers who are eager to
| judge everyone but themselves is always weird but
| unavoidable online):
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42790853
| chii wrote:
| > fixation on that is confounding your reasoning.
|
| it is a fixation based on the desire that they themselves
| shouldn't be rendered economically useless in the future.
| Then the reasoning come about post-facto from that desire,
| rather than from any base principle of logic.
|
| Most, if not all, that are somewhat against the advent of
| AI are like the above in some way or another.
| torginus wrote:
| Wow, AI can write an argument that's bad on purpose! That
| totally proves the AI is a master writer.
|
| Now show me the AI write something that's actually good on
| purpose.
| noch wrote:
| > Now show me the AI write something that's actually good
| on purpose
|
| The average human can't even write a 3000 word short
| story that is good "on purpose" even if they tried.
|
| I know because I've participated in many writing
| workshops.
|
| The real question is: can you?
|
| > AI can write an argument that's bad on purpose
|
| Are you able to recognise good writing? How do I know?
| For all I know you're the most incompetent reader and
| writer on the planet. But your skills are irrelevant.
|
| What's relevant is that deep learning is more skilled
| than the average person. If you're not aware of this
| you're either a luddite or confused about the state of
| the art.
| torginus wrote:
| The 'strawmanning your opponent' technique is a non-
| argument, and is effortless to pull off. Surrounding your
| argument with tons of purple prose (which Claude is good
| at) does not change that.
|
| Writing a good argument requires 3 things: be logical, be
| compelling and likeable, and have a solid reputation. It
| does not require purple prose.
|
| As for good writing, I'm pretty sure Brandon Sanderson's
| Mistborn trilogy qualifies, which was written with a
| rather small vocabulary and pedestrian prose, yet is
| universally praised.
|
| Tbf, I do think Claude Sonnet and SD are impressive, and
| I think they can aid humans in producing compelling
| content, but they are not on the level of amateur fiction
| writers.
|
| Besides, surpassing most humans in an area where most
| humans are unskilled is not a feat, not even AI companies
| flex on that.
| noch wrote:
| > Writing a good argument requires 3 things: be logical,
| be compelling and likeable, and have a solid reputation.
| It does not require purple prose.
|
| That's a common misconception that young writers have.
| Their prose is first purple and overwrought, then they
| overcorrect and try to be Hemmingway, then they master
| the craft and discover that form follows function.
|
| As such, the "purpleness" of prose is not an indictment
| of any sort except if the style doesn't serve the
| substance. So yes, purple prose is sometimes required and
| can be used correctly, just ask James Joyce or Hitchens
| or remember that first sentence in _Lolita_ , for
| example.
|
| Furthermore, almost every piece of writing you've
| probably enjoyed went through an editor or several
| professional editors. You'd be shocked to read early or
| even late drafts.
|
| (Also, a having "solid reputation" has f' all to do with
| whether you can construct a good argument. Wanting that
| as a prerequisite is what the cool kids used to call
| "appeal to authority". Anyway ...)
|
| But wtf are we even talking about now?
|
| > Besides, surpassing most humans in an area where most
| humans are unskilled is not a feat, not even AI companies
| flex on that.
|
| I don't care what "AI companies flex". What I care about,
| as a programmer, and as an artist, and as a writer who
| won a tiny prize in my even tinier and insignificant
| niche on the planet, is what tools we can build for the
| average person and what tools I have access to.
|
| If I have a robot that is 50% stronger than me or 10x
| better read than the average human or 20% better than the
| average mathematician, that's a huge victory. So yes,
| surpassing the average human is a feat.
|
| But it's not merely the average human who has been
| surpassed: the average mathematician (skilled in
| mathematics) and the average artists (skilled in art) and
| the average writer, have all been surpassed. That is my
| testable claim. Play with the tools, and see for
| yourself.
| jdietrich wrote:
| I can only speak for myself, but a large and growing
| proportion of the text I read every day is LLM output. If
| Claude and Deepseek produce slop, then it's a far higher
| calibre of slop than most human writers could aspire to.
| leoedin wrote:
| What kind of text are you reading? Do you work in LLM
| development? Or are you just noticing that many news sites
| are using LLMs more and more?
|
| I've noticed obvious LLM output on low quality news sites,
| but I don't tend to read them anyway. Maybe all the
| comments I read are from LLMs and I just don't realise?
| jdietrich wrote:
| Perplexity is now my default search engine. If I'm doing
| research, I use LLMs to summarise documents or scan
| through them to find relevant excerpts. If I'm doing
| general background reading on something, I'll ask an LLM
| for an explainer; likewise if I've read about one
| particular thing and want to understand the broader
| context around it. If I'm thinking through a problem,
| I'll bat the idea around with Claude or Deepseek, asking
| them to provide alternative perspectives.
|
| It's quite difficult to analogise because LLMs are so
| profoundly novel, but the best I can do is that it's like
| having an infinitely patient and extremely knowledgeable
| assistant. That assistant isn't omniscient or infallible,
| but it's extremely useful because it tends to provide the
| information that I want, presented in a way that's
| particularly relevant to me. That requires a certain
| amount of rapport-building - understanding the
| characteristics of various models, learning to ask good
| questions, guiding the model towards my preferences with
| customised system prompts - but the effort pays off
| handsomely.
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Minecraft is procedurally generated slop, yet it's insanely
| popular.
| chii wrote:
| Not all procedurally generated things are slop, and not all
| slop are made via procedural generation.
|
| And popularity has nothing to do with private, subjective
| quality evaluations of the individual (aka, what someone
| calls slop might be picasso to another), but with
| objective, public evaluations of the product via purchases.
| delian66 wrote:
| What is your definition of slop?
| torginus wrote:
| I was thinking about this, and the definition I came up
| with for slop is 'aspirational and highly detailed
| content that resolves its details in an uninteresting or
| nonsensical way'.
|
| For example, an AI picture of a bush is not slop, because
| we don't expect much from a picture of a bush (not
| aspirational).
|
| A hand-drawn picture of a knight in armor by an
| enthusiastic, but not very skilled artist is not slop
| either - it has tons of details that resolve in an
| interesting way, and what it lacks in details, it allows
| the viewers to fill in for themselves.
|
| A 'realistic' knight generated by AI is slop - it
| contains no imaginative detail, and allows very little
| room for personal interpretation, and it's not rewarding
| to view.
|
| Slop doesn't need to be AI - creatively bankrupt
| overproduced garbage counts as slop in my mind as well.
| teamonkey wrote:
| Put simply, AI generation automates "design by
| committee."
| leoedin wrote:
| 'aspirational and highly detailed content that resolves
| its details in an uninteresting or nonsensical way'.
|
| This is a great definition. All the AI text I read is
| somehow missing the "meat" you find in good writing. All
| the right parts are there, but the core idea that makes
| me interested is just missing.
|
| It's pretty much the same thing Linkedin has been full of
| for years. No one can bear to say anything controversial,
| so it's all just empty platitudes and junk.
| alphan0n wrote:
| Old men looking at a child with training wheels and
| sneering that they'll never ever be able to ride a bike.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Procgen has nothing to do with AI in terms of slop, for a
| good reason: procedural generation algorithms are heavily
| tuned by authors, exactly to avoid the "dull, unoriginal
| and repetitive" aspect that AI produces.
| NBJack wrote:
| It worked for Minecraft.
|
| It was rough at first, and needed plenty of tuning, but the
| terrain and environments it's capable of certainly have a
| wide audience.
|
| But as far as pure, unbridled generation goes, yeah; I'm sure
| there will be plenty of slop made in the coming decade.
| blargey wrote:
| The terrain generation is not the appeal of Minecraft, it's
| the game system that lets people level that terrain into a
| canvas and then build their own stuff on top.
| torginus wrote:
| I think the biggest issue with stable diffusion based
| approaches has always been poor compositional ability
| (putting stuff where you want), and compounding
| anatomical/spatial errors that gave the images an offputting
| vibe.
|
| All these problems are trivially solvable (solved) using
| traditonal 3d meshes and techniques.
| steinhafen wrote:
| I have tried the model, and I agree with you on the point.
| A product was uploaded for a test, the output catches the
| product quite well, but the text on the generated 3D model
| is unreadable.
| grumbel wrote:
| The issue with composition is only a problem when you rely
| on a pure text prompt, but has been solved for quite a
| while by ControlNets or img2img. What was lacking was the
| integration with existing art tools, but even that is
| getting solved, e.g. Krita[1] has a pretty nice AI plugin.
|
| 3D can be a useful intermediate when editing the 2D image,
| e.g. Krea has support for that[2]. But I don't think the
| rest of the traditional 3D pipeline is of much use here, AI
| image generation already produces images at a quality that
| traditional rendering just can't keep up with, neither in
| terms of speed, quality or flexibility.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPxOE9YH57E
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ER5qfoJXd0
| torginus wrote:
| Wow, those look impressive. But I think we are saying the
| same thing - stable diffusion can make pretty pics, but
| needs a lot of handholding context. I too have played
| around with ComfyUI, and while there are a LOT of
| techniques that allow you to manipulate the image, I have
| always felt like you were fighting SD.
|
| In the videos you've attached, both tools (esp) the
| first, look impressive, but in the first example, you can
| clearly see that the model regenerates the street around
| the chameleon, when the artist changes it for no good
| reason.
|
| In the second example you can see there's a bunch of AI
| tools under the hood, and they don't work together
| particularly well, with the car constantly changing as
| the image changes.
|
| I think while a lot of mileage can be extracted from SD
| as it stands (I could think of a bunch of improvements to
| what was demonstrated here, by applying existing
| techniques ) - but the fundamental issue remains, in that
| Stable Diffusion was made to generate whole images at
| once - unlike transformers, which output a single token.
|
| Not sure what's the image equivalent of a token is, but
| I'm sure it'd be feasible to train a model to fill holes
| - which'd be created by Segment Anything or something
| similar, and it would react better to local edits.
| jkolio wrote:
| But not consistent state. The pipeline still needs to
| exist because most games require objects and environments
| to stay consistent across play sessions. That means
| generating from a 3D skeleton, at the very least, if not
| relegating genAI to production, not runtime.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Screw Metaverse. Let's make a VR holodeck.
|
| Star Trek's Holodeck is actually a good case study here
| (especially with the recent series, _Lower Decks_ , going as
| far as making two episodes that are _interactive movies_ on a
| holodeck, going quite deep into how that could work in
| practice both in terms of producing and experiencing them).
|
| One observation derived here is that infinite procedural
| content at your fingertip doesn't necessarily kill all
| meaning, if you _bring the meaning with you_. The two major
| use cases[0] for the holodeck are:
|
| - Multiplayer scenarios in which you and your friends enjoy
| some experience in a program. The meaning is sourced from
| your friendship and roleplay; the program may be arbitrary
| output of an RNG in the global sense, but it's the same for
| you and your friends, so shared experience (and its
| importance as a social object) in your group is retained.
|
| - Single-player simulations that are highly specific. The
| meaning here comes from whatever is the reason you're
| simulating _that particular_ experience, and it 's connection
| to the real world. Like idk., a flight simulator of a random
| space fighter flying over random world shooting at random
| shit would quickly get boring, but if I can get the simulator
| to give me a highly accurate cockpit of an F/A-18 Hornet,
| flying over real terrain and shooting at realistic enemies in
| realistic (even if fictional) storyline - now that would be
| deeply meaningful to me, because 1) F/A-18 Hornet is a real
| plane that I would otherwise never experience flying, and 2)
| I have a crush on this particular fighter because F/A-18
| Hornet 3.0 is one of the first videogames I ever played in my
| life as a kid.
|
| Now, to make Metaverse less like bullshit and more like Star
| Trek, we'd need to make sure the world generation is actually
| available to the users. No asset stores, no app marketplace
| bullshit. We live in a multimodal LLM era - we _already have_
| all the components to do it like Star Trek did it:
| "Computer, create a medieval fantasy village, in style of
| England around year 1400, set next to a forest, with tall
| mountains visible in the distance", then walk around that
| world and tweak the defaults from there.
|
| --
|
| [0] - Ignoring the third use case that's occasionally implied
| on the show, and that's really obvious given it's the same
| one the Internet is for - and I'm not talking about cat
| pictures.
| ben_w wrote:
| > I'm not talking about cat pictures
|
| _Caitian_ pictures, on the other hand...
|
| I think they were more than implying what T'Ana got up to
| with Shaxs.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| You're right. _Lower Decks_ was _much_ less subtle about
| this than prior shows. Should 've remembered since I was
| the one to bring it up.
| taejavu wrote:
| Jeez I'd love to know what Apple's R&D debt on Vision Pro is,
| based on current sales to date. I really really hope they
| continue to push for a headset that's within reach of average
| people but the hole must be so deep at this point I wouldn't be
| surprised if they cut their losses.
| EncomLab wrote:
| As Carmack pointed out the problem with AR/VR right now -
| it's not the hardware, it's the software. Until the
| "visicalc" must have killer app shows up to move the
| hardware, there is little incentive for general users to make
| the investment.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| > As Carmack pointed out the problem with AR/VR right now -
| it's not the hardware, it's the software.
|
| The third option is peoples' expectation for AR/VR itself:
| it could be a highly niche and expensive industry and
| unlikely to grow to the general population.
| PittleyDunkin wrote:
| Maybe eventually. Based on this quality I don't see this
| happening any time in the near future.
| Deutschland314 wrote:
| AR/VR doesn't has a 3D model issue.
|
| It has a 'why would I strap on a headset for stuff I can do
| without'
|
| I will not starting meeting friends just because of the meta
| verse. I have everything I need already.
|
| And even video calls with Whatsapp is alweird as f.
| InDubioProRubio wrote:
| AR needs a bragging app.. something like the dharma/content you
| create in virt growing out of your footsteps in real - and why
| visible on cellphone, feeling more native in with AR-googles
| denkmoon wrote:
| For the AI un-initiated; is this something you could feasibly run
| at home? eg on a 4090? (How can I tell how "big" the model is
| from the github or huggingface page?)
| sorenjan wrote:
| The hunyuan3d-dit-v2-0 model is 4.93 GB. ComfyUI is on their
| roadmap, might be best to wait for that, although it doesn't
| look complicated to use in their example code.
|
| https://huggingface.co/tencent/Hunyuan3D-2/tree/main/hunyuan...
| swframe2 wrote:
| I tried using Hunyuan3D-2 on a 4090 GPU. The Windows install
| encountered build errors, but it worked better on WSL Ubuntu. I
| first tried it with CUDA 11.3 but got a build error. Switching
| to CUDA 12.4 worked better. I ran it with their demo image but
| it reported that the mesh was too big. I removed the mesh size
| check and it ran fine on the 4090. It is a bit slow on my i9
| 14k with 128G of memory.
|
| (I previously tried the stability 3d models:
| https://stability.ai/stable-3d and this seems similar in
| quality and speed)
| denkmoon wrote:
| Cool, thanks. I'm kinda interested so hearing it at least
| runs on a 4090 means I might give it a go one weekend.
| godelski wrote:
| As with any generative model, trust but verify. Try it yourself.
| Frankly, as a generative researcher myself, there's a lot of
| reason to not trust what you see in papers and pages.
|
| They link a Huggingface page (great sign!):
| https://huggingface.co/spaces/tencent/Hunyuan3D-2
|
| I tried to replicate the objects they show on their project page
| (https://3d-models.hunyuan.tencent.com/). The full prompts exist
| but are truncated so you can just inspect the element and grab
| the text. Here's what I got Leaf
| PNG: https://0x0.st/8HDL.png GLB:
| https://0x0.st/8HD9.glb Guitar PNG:
| https://0x0.st/8HDf.png other view: https://0x0.st/8HDO.png
| GLB: https://0x0.st/8HDV.glb Google Translate of Guitar:
| Prompt: A brown guitar is centered against a white background,
| creating a realistic photography style. This photo captures the
| culture of the instrument and conveys a tranquil atmosphere.
| PNG: https://0x0.st/8HDt.png and https://0x0.st/8HDv.png
| Note: Weird thing on top of guitar. But at least this time the
| strings aren't fusing into sound hole.
|
| I haven't tested my own prompts or the google translation of the
| Chinese prompts because I'm getting an over usage error (I'll
| edit comment if I get them). That said, these look pretty good.
| The paper and page images definitely look better, but these
| aren't like Stable Diffusion 1 paper vs Stable Diffusion 1
| reality.
|
| But these are long and detailed prompts. Lots of prompt
| engineering. That should raise some suspicion. Real world has
| higher variance and let's get an idea how hard it is to use. So
| let's try some simpler things :) Prompt: A guitar
| PNG: https://0x0.st/8HDg.png Note: Not bad! Definitely
| overfit but does that matter here? A bit too thick for a electric
| guitar but too thin for acoustic. Prompt: A Monstera leaf
| PNG: https://0x0.st/8HD6.png
| https://0x0.st/8HDl.png https://0x0.st/8HDU.png
| Note: A bit wonkier. I picked this because it looked like the
| leaf in the example but this one is doing some odd things.
| It's definitely a leaf and monstera like but a bit of a mutant.
| Prompt: Mario from Super Mario Bros PNG:
| https://0x0.st/8Hkq.png Note: Now I'm VERY suspicious....
| Prompt: Luigi from Super Mario Bros PNG:
| https://0x0.st/8Hkc.png https://0x0.st/8HkT.png
| https://0x0.st/8HkA.png Note: Highly overfit[0]. This is
| what I suspected. Luigi isn't just tall Mario.
| Where is the tie coming from? The suspender buttons are all
| messed up. Really went uncanny valley here. So
| this suggests we're really brittle. Prompt: Peach from
| Super Mario Bros PNG: https://0x0.st/8Hku.png
| https://0x0.st/8HkM.png Note: I'm fucking dying over here
| this is so funny. It's just a peach with a cute face hahahahaha
| Prompt: Toad from Super Mario Bros PNG:
| https://0x0.st/8Hke.png https://0x0.st/8Hk_.png
| https://0x0.st/8HkL.png Note: Lord have mercy on this
| toad, I think it is a mutated Squirtle.
|
| Paper can be found here (the arxiv badge on the page leads to a
| pdf in the repo, which github is slow to render those):
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.02293
|
| (If you want to share images like I did all I'm doing is `curl
| -F'file=@foobar.png' https://0x0.st`)
|
| [0] Overfit is a weird thing now. Maybe it doesn't generalize
| well, but sometimes that's not a problem. I think this is one of
| the bigger lessons we've learned with recent ML models. My
| viewpoint is "Sometimes you want a database with a human language
| interface. Sometimes you want to generalize". So we have to be
| more context driven here. But certainly there are a lot of things
| we should be careful about when we're talking about generation.
| These things are trained on A LOT of data. If you're more
| "database-like" then certainly there's potential legal
| ramifications...
|
| Edit: For context, by "look pretty good" I mean in comparison to
| other works I've seen. I think it is likely a ways from being
| useful in production. I'm not sure how much human labor would be
| required to fix the issues.
| Kelvin506 wrote:
| The first guitar has one of the strings end at the sound hole,
| and six tuning knobs for five strings.
|
| The second has similar problems: it has tuning knobs with
| missing winding posts, then five strings becoming four at the
| bridge. It also has a pickup under the fretboard.
|
| Are these considered good capability examples?
| godelski wrote:
| I take back a fair amount of what I said.
|
| It is pretty good with some easier assets that I suspect
| there's lots of samples of (and we're comparing to other
| generative models, not to what humans make. Humans probably
| still win by a good margin). But when moving out of obvious
| assets that we could easily find, I'm not seeing good
| performance at all. Probably a lot can be done with heavy
| prompt engineering but that just makes things more
| complicated to evaluate.
| keyle wrote:
| Thanks for this. The results are quite impressive, after trying
| it myself.
| godelski wrote:
| Ops ran out of edit time when I was posting my last two
| Prompt: A hawk flying in the sky PNG:
| https://0x0.st/8Hkw.png https://0x0.st/8Hkx.png
| https://0x0.st/8Hk3.png Note: This looks like it would
| need more work. I tried a few birds and generic too. They all
| seem to have similar form. Prompt: A hawk with the head
| of a dragon flying in the sky and holding a snake PNG:
| https://0x0.st/8HkE.png https://0x0.st/8Hk6.png
| https://0x0.st/8HkI.png https://0x0.st/8Hkl.png
| Note: This one really isn't great. Just a normal hawk head. Not
| how a bird holds a snake either...
|
| This last one is really key for judging where the tech is at
| btw. Most of the generations are assets you could download
| freely from the internet and you could probably get better ones
| by some artist on fiver or something. But the last example is
| more our realistic use case. Something that is relatively
| reasonable, probably not in the set of easy to download assets,
| and might be something someone wants. It isn't too crazy of an
| ask given Chimera and how similar a dragon is to a bird in the
| first place, this should be on the "easier" end. I'm sure you
| could prompt engineer your way into it but then we have to have
| the discussion of what costs more a prompt engineer or an
| artist? And do you need a prompt engineer who can repair
| models? Because these look like they need repairs.
|
| This can make it hard to really tell if there's progress or
| not. It is really easy to make compelling images in a paper and
| beat benchmarks while not actually creating a something that is
| __or will become__ a usable product. All the little details
| matter. Little errors quickly compound... That said, I do much
| more on generative imagery than generative 3d objects so grain
| of salt here.
|
| Keep in mind: generative models (of any kind) are incredibly
| difficult to evaluate. Always keep that in mind. You really
| only have a good idea after you've generated hundreds or
| thousands of samples yourself and are able to look at a lot
| with high scrutiny.
| BigJono wrote:
| Yeah, this is absolutely light years off being useful in
| production.
|
| People just see fancy demos and start crapping on about the
| future, but just look at stable diffusion. It's been around
| for how long, and what serious professional game developers
| are using it as a core part of their workflow? Maybe some
| concept artists? But consistent style is such an important
| thing for any half decent game and these generative tools
| shit the bed on consistency in a way that's difficult to
| paper over.
|
| I've spent a lot of time thinking about game design and
| experimenting with SD/Flux, and the only thing I think I
| could even get close to production that I couldn't before is
| maybe an MTG style card game where gameplay is far more
| important than graphics, and flashy nice looking static
| artwork is far more important than consistency. That's a
| fucking small niche, and I don't see a lot of paths to
| generalisation.
| godelski wrote:
| Yeah the big problem I have with my field is that there
| seems to be stronger incentives to be chasing benchmarks
| and making things look good than there is to actually solve
| the hard problems. There is a strong preference for "lazy
| evaluation" which is too dependent on assuming high levels
| of ethical presentation and due diligence. I find it so
| problematic because this focus actually makes it hard for
| people to publish who are tackling these problems. Because
| it makes the space even noisier (already incredibly noisy
| by the very nature of the subject) and then it becomes hard
| to talk about details if they're presumed solved.
|
| I get that we gloss over details, but if there's anywhere
| you're allowed to be nuanced and be arguing over details
| should it not be in academia?
|
| (fwiw, I'm also very supportive of having low bars to
| publication. If it's void of serious error and plagiarism,
| it is publishable imo. No one can predict what is important
| or impactful, so we shouldn't even play that game. Trying
| to decide if it is "novel" or "good enough for <Venue>" is
| just idiotic and breeds collusion rings and bad actors)
| Lanolderen wrote:
| Stable Diffusion and AI in general seems to be big in
| marketing at least. A friend decided to abandon engineering
| and move to marketing and the entire social media part of
| his job is making a rough post, converting it to corporate
| marketing language via AI and then generating an eye
| catching piece of AI art to slap on top.
|
| When video generation gets easy he'll probably move to
| making short eye catching gifs.
|
| When 3D models and AI in general improve I can imagine him
| for example generating shitty little games to put in
| banners. I've been using an adblocker for so long I don't
| know what exists nowadays but I remember there being
| banners with "shoot 5 ducks" type games where the last duck
| kill opens the advertisers website. Sounds feasible for an
| AI to implement reliably. If you can generate different
| games like that based on the interests of the person seeing
| the ad you can probably milk some clicks.
| oefrha wrote:
| > been around for how long, and what serious professional
| game developers are using it as a core part of their
| workflow?
|
| Are you in the game industry? If you're not how would you
| even know they have not? As someone with some connections
| in the industry and may soon get more involved personally,
| I know at least one mobile gaming studio with quite a bit
| of funding and momentum that has started using a good deal
| of AI-generated assets that would have been handcrafted in
| the past.
| geuis wrote:
| Question related to 3D mesh models in general: has any
| significant work been done on models oriented towards
| photogrammetry?
|
| Case in point, I have a series of photos (48) that capture a
| small statue. The photos are high quality, the object was on a
| rotating platform. Lighting is consistent. The background is
| solid black.
|
| These normally are ideal variables for photogrammetry but none of
| the various common applications and websites do a very good job
| creating a mesh out of it that isn't super low poly and/or full
| of holes.
|
| I've been casually scanning huggingface for relevant models to
| try out but haven't really found anything.
| tzumby wrote:
| I'm not an expert, only dabbled in photogrammetry, but it seems
| to me that the crux of that problem is identifying common
| pixels across images in order to sort of triangulate a point in
| the 3D space. It doesn't sound like something an LLM would be
| good at.
| jocaal wrote:
| Recently, a lot of development in this area has been in
| gaussian splatting and from what I have seen, the new methods
| are super effective.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_splatting
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dPBaV6M9u4
| geuis wrote:
| Yeah some very impressive stuff with splats going on. But I
| haven't seen much about going from splats to high quality 3D
| meshes. I've tried one or two with pretty poor results.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| There have been a few papers published on the topic, but
| it's "early days".
|
| Expect a lot of progress over the next couple of years.
| meindnoch wrote:
| The parent explicitly asked for a _mesh_.
| jocaal wrote:
| The second link I posted contains n flow from splats to
| meshes
| andybak wrote:
| You can never be sure what someone's real intent is. They
| might mean "something meshlike". Personally I usually reply
| by asking for more info (I always have the XY Problem in my
| mind) but that is time consuming and some people assume
| you're being pendantic (I am however correct more often
| than not - people have posed the wrong question or haven't
| given critical parts of the context)
| geuis wrote:
| Yeah, I am explicitly asking about meshes, which is why I
| said that and also referenced photogrammetry. Sometimes
| people know what they're asking for help with.
|
| Thanks for the links. Going to check them out this
| morning.
| andybak wrote:
| Just to be clear I wasn't singling you out. I don't know
| anything about you.
|
| And furthermore I also often post questions that lack
| sufficient context.
|
| My point was that it's _always_ okay to ask for
| clarification or to assume that there was maybe some
| broader contact context or to offer a suggestion that
| doesn 't follow the most literal interpretation of the
| question as asked.
| falloon wrote:
| Kiri engine is pretty easy to use and just released a good
| update for their 3DGS pipeline, and they have one of the better
| 3DGS to mesh options. https://kiri-
| innovation.github.io/3DGStoMesh2/
| troymc wrote:
| Check out RealityCapture [1]. I think it's what's used to
| create the Quixel Megascans [2]. (They're both under the Epic
| corporate umbrella now.)
|
| [1] https://www.capturingreality.com/realitycapture
|
| [2] https://quixel.com/megascans/
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| COLMAP + CloudCompare with a good CUDA GPU (more VRAM is
| better) card will give reasonable results for large textured
| objects like buildings. Glass/Water/Mirror/Gloss will need
| coated to scan, dry spray on Dr.scholls foot deodorant seems to
| work fine for our object scans.
|
| There are now more advanced options than Gaussian splatting,
| and these can achieve normal playback speeds rather than hours
| of filtering. I'll drop a citation if I recall the recent paper
| and example code. However, note this style of 3D scene recovery
| tends to be heavily 3D location dependent.
|
| Best of luck, =3
| Elucalidavah wrote:
| > the object was on a rotating platform
|
| Isn't a static-object-rotating-camera basically a requirement
| for photogrammetry?
| Mashimo wrote:
| Why would that make a difference?
| SequoiaHope wrote:
| Photogrammetry generally assumes a fully static scene. If
| there are static parts of the scene which the camera can
| see and also rotating parts, the algorithm may struggle to
| properly match features between images.
| Mashimo wrote:
| i think it's common to have dots on the rotating disk
| where the object is placed on.
| SequoiaHope wrote:
| Sure, but if the background has a lot of features it will
| still confuse the algorithm unless it has some special
| settings for ignoring the background.
| addandsubtract wrote:
| The OC mentioned "static lighting". If they meant static,
| while the platform was spinning, then the lighting would be
| inconsistent, because the object would change lighting with
| each photo. You would have to fix the lighting to the
| platform to spin _with_ the object, while taking the
| pictures to get consistent lighting.
| geuis wrote:
| I think you just nailed why I have been having a hard
| time with my photo set. It's the lighting. Well crap,
| because I don't have access to the statue or studio
| again. Thanks for the tip.
| ryandamm wrote:
| You could try generating per-view depth maps, going to a
| point cloud and meshing from there. (I suspect splats may
| reduce your accuracy as an intermediate.)
|
| I'm not aware of a fully-baked workflow for that --
| though it may exist. The first step has gotten really
| good: the recent single-shot AI models for depth are
| pretty visually impressive (I don't know about metric
| accuracy).
|
| The ones I'm aware of are DUST3R and the newer MAST3R:
|
| https://github.com/naver/dust3r
| https://github.com/naver/mast3r
|
| Good luck!
| jdietrich wrote:
| No. For small objects, it is typical to use a turntable to
| rotate the object; there are a number of commercial and DIY
| turntables with an automated motion system that can trigger
| the shutter after a specified degree of rotation.
| archerx wrote:
| >The background is solid black.
|
| >These normally are ideal variables for photogrammetry
|
| Actually no, my friend learned this the hard way during a
| photogrammetry project, he rented a photo studio, and made sure
| the background were perfectly black and took the photos but the
| photogrammetry program (Meshroom I think) was struggling to
| reconstruct the mesh. I did some research and I learned that it
| uses features in the background to help position itself to make
| the meshes. So he redid his tests outside with "messy"
| backgrounds and it worked much much better.
|
| This was a few years ago so I don't know if things are
| different now.
| Broussebar wrote:
| For this exact use case I used instant-ngp[0] recently and was
| really pleased with the results. There's an article[1]
| explaining how to prepare your data.
|
| [0] https://github.com/NVlabs/instant-ngp
|
| [1] https://github.com/NVlabs/instant-
| ngp/blob/master/docs/nerf_...
| GistNoesis wrote:
| >full of holes
|
| On the geometry side from the theoretical point of view you can
| repair meshes, [1], by inferring a signed or unsigned distance
| field from your existing mesh, then you contour this distance
| field.
|
| If you like the distance field approach, there are also
| research work [2], to estimate neural unsigned distance fields
| directly, (kind of a similar way as Gaussian splats).
|
| [1] https://github.com/nzfeng/signed-heat-3d [it works but it's
| research code, so buggy, not user friendly, and mostly on toy
| problems because complexity explode very quickly when using a
| grid the number of cells grows as a n^3, and then they solve a
| sparse linear system on top (so total complexity bounded by
| n^6), but tolerating approximations and writing things properly
| practical complexity should be on par with methods like finite
| element method in Computational Fluid Dynamics.
|
| [2] https://virtualhumans.mpi-inf.mpg.de/ndf/
| xgkickt wrote:
| Any user-generated content system suffers from what we call "the
| penis problem".
| otikik wrote:
| Wow they really need to work on that first splash image[1]. All
| the assets there look hideous.
|
| [1]
| https://github.com/Tencent/Hunyuan3D-2/blob/main/assets/imag...
| FrozenSynapse wrote:
| the assets look good as a starting point, they may even be used
| as background elements
| _s_a_m_ wrote:
| Has the word "advanced", gotta be good
| nunodonato wrote:
| imagine something like this but geared towards 3d printing
| functional objects.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-22 23:02 UTC)