A few things to try with DALL·E
bramadams.dev
bramadams.dev
Try it yourself here: https://colab.research.google.com/github/multimodalart/laten...
EDIT: Here's 36 uncurated renders for "Hacker News - Dang's Dance. R&B Album Artwork" https://johan-nordberg.com/tmp/hn-laion400m.png
Or use the huggingface version, that's a simple web ui: https://huggingface.co/spaces/multimodalart/latentdiffusion
nsfw_threshold=1 for no filtering
Let’s say Art. What makes art valuable in a sense is that artists have an opportunity cost of doing that art. It’s a sacrifice of something else in their life. AI art gets inflated instantly. Everyone can get a beautiful painting in a button click. Not valuable.
Can someone come up with a use case for this?
I could use it for...inspiration, stock images for a demo site, actual images for a live site, t-shirt designs, coffee mugs, and those drop shipping products, podcast or album artwork, etc.
Yes, maybe design starts to blend, yet lots of web designers used Bootstrap and Material Design so that sites started to look the same anyway. Maybe it'll just be things looking the same except with more artistic images.
i believe dall•e is even more useful than gpt-3 because as of now, only real business model that worked for gpt-3 was copywriting.
dall•e will have branches under images like tshirts, replacing desingers or providing designers with more inspiration, stock photos, nfts & so much more...
I’m not convinced that people would pay for that at all.
It could be a helpful tool for a designer but if you’re saying someone would pay to get something done in the press of a button click I think that’s a very short term business that will be outmatched by an open source free alternative almost immediately.
Just look at how fast web designers are getting outcompeted by free frontend frameworks like Bootstrap or icon libs like Font Awesome.
Perhaps I’m just explaining the natural way of business and commodities, and most goods and services follows this pattern.
- "Get a poster of your writing prompt" -> I think some of the t-shirt/poster companies will definetely incorporate DALL-E, and let users choose from a set of designs based on their writing prompt.
- NFTs maybe? And just playing around with it for fun or views on social media. I also think somewhere there must be a fun little game one can make based on it. There was a pretty awesome rpg_generator for GPT3, maybe some kind of puzzle game based on DALL-E?
A custom shirt printing company would offer the generator. It's up to the customer to decide whether the output can be legally sold (or, perhaps, they're not selling it).
Anything you wish can be printed today, any logo of any brand. Only selling it is as a product restricted.
Copyright law doesn't only cover when things are directly sold (see piracy and the birthday song).
This comment section is filled to the brim with posts missing a "IANAL" disclaimer. IANAL.
For a real world example, I've had real company logos appear on my GAN generated images. I used labels that included terms specific to a single companies rendering technology/pipeline, and the vast majority of images that had those labels had the company logo on it. They were somewhat distorted, but it was very obvious which company it was.
1. https://www.thefashionlaw.com/ralph-lauren-files-suit-agains...
t-shirt is a good idea. many companies will incorporate it definitely.
From an artistic point of view, the value is zero. Dall•e pictures will never have any Aura to them. And for an artist to use them artistically Dall•e is “too easy”, as the artist won’t have produced or worked on the model itself.
All in all, Dall•e is the most exciting, technologically advanced, and beautifully useless AI project I’ve ever seen.
Why is DALL-E (or more likely its successors) not suitable then? It can produce a large amount of similar pictures based on a vague theme.
> Dall•e pictures will never have any Aura to them.
Debatable, I actually really quite like a lot of its art. Regardless, nobody uses stock photography for its "Aura".
Today my personal biggest use of AI is for generating photos of faces as profile pictures for tabletop rpg character sheets. I don't need them to be perfect, I just need quick, easy, cheap content that's good enough.
Tomorrow I might use Dall-E to create illustrations for my blog posts, or depict environments for my tabletop campaigns.
They might be "too easy", but they'll be cheap and quick and good enough for the purpose.
this isn't supposed to make designers useless but rather make them more creative.
dall*e can be used as an inspiration to combine multiple images & create their own. it can be used to steal color combination that is aesthetically pleasing on the eyes.
if you think dall•e is useless, you haven't seen the images shared.
the realistic ones are hidden by openai but they can generate a lot of stuff that we won't know until an open-source version comes along.
People who want cheap but unique abstract art for their house, small business owners who need ad clip art but don’t have the budget for a designer, even artists using DallE queries to generate launchpad ideas, I can imagine many reasons DallE would get used. But also don’t forget to imagine the future, this is one of the first and it’s bound to be improved until you can’t distinguish it from “real” art.
There’s a valid point in your comment about how artists currently look at AI, and a valid question about what AI produced art actually means, so I’m throwing you an upvote because I don’t think you deserved to get downvoted for sharing your opinion. Maybe more importantly, AI generated art could challenge and rekindle the age old debate about what art actually is, and bring a new perspective to the table.
You know what's really impressive, that just got out? Adobe's Premiere Pro Auto Color feature based on Adobe Sensei. Ask a colorist or a filmmaker how it works for them. Is that something that was possible because of fringe research like Dall•E? Honestly, no.
As someone who designs and makes fine furniture (not the way I make my living, but I do know the business), I know that there will likely always be some demand for custom, hand made pieces, because people assign value both to getting exactly what they want, and to the fact that something is human and hand made. When people who value those things have enough money, they'll spring for that value. But I'm well aware that the bespoke and hand made will never be more than a 3rd decimal place rounding error in the ocean of factory made furniture that fills our homes and workspaces. Images can go the same way, and will, if the price differential is right. Most images in the "image marketplace" are not art, after all, but rather anonymous commodity visuals augmenting the presentation of an idea, or product.
And I'm sure you could come up with similar areas where sometimes you just need a bunch of cheap art.
https://twitter.com/nickcammarata/status/1511861061988892675
The "ideal" article from a Google SEO point of view had 2 or 3 images spaced through the article text.
My first thought was stock images for news sites and blogs
And does DALL·E just receive the image as-is with its description, or does it get more info (e.g. "this part of the image is the dog")?
Web crawling. (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.00020.pdf 2.2)
> Are there people out there spending thousands of hours just tagging or writing descriptions of training images?
"Yes", Google Image Search, Wikipedia captions, Danbooru are all that in some sense.
The biases should be obvious if you think about it for a minute and CLIP has even more biases since they removed all kinds of NSFW content, etc.
> And does DALL·E just receive the image as-is with its description, or does it get more info (e.g. "this part of the image is the dog")?
Only that, but segmentation is a big research area too and it looks like FB has a reproduction with some of that mixed in.
And the DALLE architecture can also handle masking where you initialize only part of the latent space with noise and initialize other parts with a starting image. The video on their website shows examples of that to replace a pet on a chair.
You're right, I forgot to mention them. Their metadata is great, and most importantly photos have their licenses tagged and many of them are CC0 (including mine).
Are content and content tags that great though? I don't content tag my own photos there, and when I've tried to comparison shop cameras all the popular images are over edited /r/shittyhdr art…
Metadata seems really interesting though. You'd think a visual search AI would want to know the white balance EXIF tags on a photo, so it knows if a yellow object is actually yellow or just under a streetlight.
https://www.gwern.net/Danbooru2021
It is a partially (highly) NSFW dataset though, which is probably the only way to get so much accurate volunteer tagging.
Also, if you want to just discuss the general concept of boorus (there are many beyond Danbooru), it'd probably be better to invoke Safebooru https://safebooru.org/ which is what it sounds like.
Now, when Dall-E 5 starts to argue with you about which art style looks best or will be most marketable…
If gpt-3 can meet or beat human performance 80% of the time, that's sufficient for me to call it real intelligence. Not conscious or aware in any meaningful way, but smart, in many of the ways humans are smart.
In most online contexts where conversations are singular collisions between individuals who often don't have history, 80% of the real-seeming interactions you have could be gpt-3 output. In a many-shot, recursive, and domain targeted sequence of prompts, the percentage only improves.
The recursive, self referential functions learned by these models are not mere extrapolation from Markov chains and static stimulus/response bots. These models are approximating the functions required to produce human level output. They are approximating the functions biological brains use to produce output.
Even the naive, single pass probes into gpt capabilities we've seen in the last two years are incredible compared to aiml or even the best bots until ~2018. It's not agi, but it's evidence that agi is feasible, and a definitive milestone on that path. We need to be preparing for takeoff.
On what grounds have you determined that GPT-3 has no subjective experiences? More generally, what would need to be the case (with some future AI) for you to say, "ok, yes, this one is definitely conscious" ?
In that sense it's quite similar to the idea of always assuming a person is acting in good faith: you cannot ever truly know someone's intentions, and even when everyone is communicating honestly and openly, communication is imperfect.
But if you start to believe that someone has negative intentions towards you, your body language, tone, words and actions will reflect that assumption, and it will create harmful outcomes where they were not necessary at all.
Similarly, we may never be able to objectively prove that a machine is conscious -- as you say, we cannot even prove it to another human about ourselves! But if we keep treating them with the assumption that they lack this "something special" that we have, and treat them unethically as a result, I think we could get ourselves into a lot of trouble.
A similar conversation is to be had about the way humans are factory-farming animals, 80 billion of which are born and die every year in conditions worse than concentration camps (cages so small they can't move or even turn around, living in their own shit).
If nothing else, what will this teach future superintelligent AIs about how to treat beings less intelligent than itself? About denying them all freedom and agency and exploiting them entirely for its own benefit (or arguably, enjoyment)?
TNG had Moriaty, Wesley Crusher’s nanites, the Exocomps, and whatever it was in season 7’s Emergence.
Maybe humans are different, maybe not, but I currently don’t have strong arguments to show they’re not and that means we have to take this type of AI seriously.
For example: “but you just trained a big pattern matches on a gazillion images and all the Al does is recombine them” - ok, but how do we know human artists aren’t essentially the same? Great writers read a lot. If you hadn’t seen lots of pop art, you’d struggle to do pop art style paintings… even if a baby had perfect motor control, it’d struggle to paint a Victorian rabbit tea party because it would have no examples of a Victorian aesthetic.
We also clearly act in pursuit of reward functions. You could go so far as to say that is the definition of “normal” behavior for humans.
Learning about how ML works is actually humbling to me, specifically because it reveals how much our skills reduce to pattern recognition.
Humans seem much better at learning than machines, ie. we can “figure out” the Victorian aesthetic after a mere handful of examples. What’s not clear is how much we learn this blank-slate as children versus how much encoded / genetic knowledge and memory we have (to what degree is the brain pre-trained?). But I assume we’ll close that gap.
So what differences remain to label something as truly intelligent?
We have a strong Theory of Mind (ability to reason about what others are thinking and feeling). I think that for us to recognize a machine as genuinely sapient we would expect it to have theory of mind about itself and us. Many animals seem to have this characteristic.
It seems unique to humans (so far) is that we have intrinsic motivation as well, and our behaviors are the combination of external and internal motivations. This is where true creativity happens - when one person makes something totally new, not directly derived from prior work. Be that a new musical composition or mathematical theorem. as a species we seek out novelty, experimentation, and “progress.”
Now, in our various AI and ML techniques we can and do simulate this with the injection of randomness, and in “genetic programming” we go to lengths to try and emulate that evolutionary model. So maybe there will come a point where the AI is generalized and then it starts having internal motivations that aren’t transparent to us.
I don’t know where the line is, but theory of mind and intrinsic motivation seem important, so perhaps there’s something there.
That's just going to get automated too. We're in the twilight of art, if not humanity.
We're in the process of creating machines whose drives will be completely artificial, not shaped by natural selection. We're going to shape them... Or, more accurately, greedy corporations, billionaires and leftists are going to imprint an approximation of their own morals and goals in there, for better or worse. Those machines will also inevitably end up a lot smarter and more capable than we are. It's possible that if we fuck up the programming, we just just won't be able to stop them from transforming the world into whatever they want... If the world they want is toxic or unsustainable, good luck trying to reprogram a machine that's faster, stronger and smarter than you. It's going to be the other way around, the machines will reprogram us if it suits their needs.
For example: My gf spends hours dolling herself up, making poses, sometimes traveling to interesting places to get good instagram photos. The desire is to present herself as a cool and attractive person.
This all becomes meaningless with Dall E.
No more than it was since Photoshop.
The internet is going to be full of fake photos and soon full of fake video clips too. You'll basically never be able to trust someone's Tinder profile picture.
The upside, maybe, is that if the internet becomes more fake, it also becomes less interesting. Maybe it will encourage people to do more activities and things in real life, away from computers. Dating websites will probably drop in popularity because profile pictures are so manipulated that you basically have no idea what the person looks like without meeting them in person.
For example, robotic welding is incredible, truly a spectacular thing to observe, and the results are often immaculate for certain applications. However, I still pay a premium for handmade bicycle frames because I appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into them compared to mass produced alternatives.
What's fascinating about DALL-E is that there now exist no barriers to that primitive, but remarkable, imagination. Many people could have envisioned Michelangelo's works. You can probably do that now, if you close your eyes real tight. But Michelangelo could not have created his great works without the funding of the House of Medici.
Just like how photography didn't cause the end of paintings, movies/TV didn't cause the end of stage plays and electronic music didn't replace instruments, all this will do (and to an extent has been done by other generative models) is create a new kind of art.
Perhaps non-perfection will become the new trend vis-a-vis the opposite today?
Even on HN, people have already begun to accuse others of writing comments with GPT-3 without disclosing so. Whether joking or not, this feels like a glimpse into future human attitudes towards this breed of creation.
If we equate human-created == valuable, and AI-generated == not valuable, but we as humans cannot reliably tell the difference, then I'm picturing a future of distrust where creators/consumers suspect or accuse each other of fraud.
Such behavior is already prevalent with social media today, so why wouldn't it be amplified even further when new and advanced technology is introduced? DALL-E 2 isn't even at an AGI-level and it has already cleared some people's bar for what qualifies as "production-ready art."
I also recall the recent article where Ed Sheeran said he films his creative processes to prove he was the true author - and that was an authorship case solely involving human-created works. In the future, "pure" artists might have to adapt a similar protocol to protect those kinds of virtues.
Hell, I can't be 100% sure (outside of my part) that we are not already there right this second.
You: The forum singularity will be reached when the GPT-3 generated responses themselves include accusations of writing comments via GPT3. Them: Hell, I can't be 100% sure (outside of my part) that we are not already there right this second. You: Are you even a human responding to me? Them:
Response:
I can't be sure that I am a human, but I can be pretty certain that I am not a GPT-3 generated response.
If nature can create a painting via a human that evolved, then it’s not much of a stretch that nature can create a painting via AI via a human that evolved. I wouldn’t call that “no effort” — it took billions of years to produce that art!
You probably can't try it today, but if you are patient you will be able to.
I've been paying for GPT-3 for over a year.
But here is the kicker, as the technology progresses this will become just normal part of your device you carry. I pity our grand-kids and the world they'll live in.
"DALL-E + 0.001ms" ran continuously = reality sim
Based on previous frames, it'd be able to predict that two water drops would coalesce within the next dozen frames, a car will stop within X distance of another, etc.
Next frame probability Scheherazade
There are some good examples from a recent paper here: https://video-diffusion.github.io/ they generate timelapses of fireworks, rivers, pouring liquids, etc.
So it's a very good idea you had! ;-)
(Yet, considering what happened with deep fakes, it's only a matter of time now... :/ )
whoever is first-to-market with dall•e will skyrocket their business exponentially.
or sooner and be worthless (already the sheer hallucinations, revealing of the undepth, are quite evident) - in an historic context already overflowing of bad quality cheapery.
The worth of making steps is in the preparation of further steps. Clearly we have not arrived.