Drag Your GAN: Interactive Point-Based Manipulation of Images
vcai.mpi-inf.mpg.de
vcai.mpi-inf.mpg.de
GitHub (no code yet, only demo GIF) https://github.com/XingangPan/DragGAN
(Many more)
It's really poor, comparatively.
"AI art tools Stable Diffusion and Midjourney targeted with copyright lawsuit" - https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/16/23557098/generative-ai-ar...
I'm always curious to know what kind of AI image editing people are interested in, can you share what kind of edits you'd like to do? There's the usual edits like background removal or object removal, but those are more general tools that are getting incorporated into lots of apps natively (say Google Photos).
More seriously, I think that digital photos, and especially low-res surveillance camera coverage, will soon be inadmissible in any reasonable court, because tools like this would allow to forge such evidence in very natural-looking ways.
https://daily.jstor.org/forensic-dna-evidence-can-lead-wrong...
We will still need a centralized party that holds the secret keys for validation through
Some of them possibly could be updated, but this will take time. Securing the keys within them is also going to be a problem; not all of them have a TPM.
Also, what about someone putting a screen just in front of the sensor?
A private key is generated on device and never leaves it. It sits inside a TPM or equivalent.
The public key is pushed to a well-known site, visible to all.
Every shot is signed by hashing the bits into a reasonably short string (say, using sha512) and then encrypted with the private key.
Anyone can now decrypt the hash, and compare it with the hash they computed from the bits.
The problem, of course, is that any transformation whatsoever breaks the signature. You can't adjust levels and contrast, you can't even crop. Maybe it's a good property.
You definitely don't want one single leakable entity.
Fakes will be relevant for Twitter, TikTok and Co., where random videos are posted and distributed without sources, heavily edited and compressed, such that it is impossible to tell if that video ever started out as a real video or a fake. But in court the whole thing starts to fall apart the moment they ask where that video came from.
And, of course, the easiest to falsify evidence (eyewitness testimony) is still admissible.
That's why you have to provide support for provenance, all of which is subject to examination and counterevidence.
Also, it's interesting that they're submitting to SIGGRAPH - kind of expected this to be in a more ML-ish conference.
Github may be more resilient: https://github.com/XingangPan/DragGAN
Your paper makes an existing body a puppet.
The other one adjusts features.
And societal care. Our society seems to really like to whine about "the danger of deepfake images", but our actions reveal that we don't really give a crap, as we could solve this problem today if we really wanted to.
I would use the same infrastructure as HTTPS, so an image could be signed by bbc.co.uk. That way if you trust that domain you could trust the document, wherever you come across it.
Making a movie as beloved as the Godfather would still be challenging of course.
Can you imitate a Bach prelude? Sure. And only people who aren't actually familiar with his music would be impressed.
Much of AI approaching "human performance", is it approaching the lowest bar. There's a Wittgenstein thing going on here. That an LLM can ace the LSAT or GMAT is mostly an indictment of those tests.
A little off topic.
These kind of comments are always the funniest. You can just tell the person who makes them has never looked at those tests nevermind attempted them.
"Says more about [insert test]" is not an intelligent argument. It doesn't even make sense. Can you tell me exactly what this mysterious thing is ?
If you have this secret test for "true" intelligence and understanding the entire world is missing on then please share it with us and get your acclaim.
I am not knocking the advancements, the capabilities are incredible. But machines have been doing what humans cannot since the dawn of time. I'm just pointing out what I think (thought?) was obvious: machines will soon be able to do just about everything that doesn't really matter.
PS. are you familiar with Wittgensteins ruler? Ask chatGPT about it.
Sure seem good enough at law that multiple of the biggest law firms have partnered with Open ai backed Harvey https://twitter.com/ai__pub/status/1644735555752853504 https://www.lawnext.com/2023/04/harvey-ai-raises-21m-in-a-se...
and then there's what microsoft are doing with 4 in medicine. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/04/gpt-4...
There is no "human element" lol. That's the point. That's how you know the argument has no ground. People resort to "human element" when they have nothing to actually say. and because "human element" has no meaning, the goal posts for it just keeps getting moved further and further. apparently now we're at "make the godfather".
"Please try to make an original movie that meets the standard of The Godfather, without AI" and lets see how well that goes.
Is the human that fails this task also missing the "human element" ?
For blockbusters? If the tech still isn't there, it may be soon, and we won't need actors.
For cinema where we care it was made by humans, for humans? Actors will always be needed. Also, theater still exists and people enjoy it.
I mean, sure. Reading is a niche, too. HN is a niche as well. Almost everything you care about is a niche.
But back to acting: Broadway and off Broadway exist. Maybe it's not doing so well, I wouldn't know: I don't live in the US... but theaters exist in my city. Both big and indie plays are conducted by young people, for young people. People watch them. People act in them.
It's mistaken to believe that tech will replace things that people value other human beings doing. Theater and cinema -- barring blockbusters -- are not "processes" to "optimize". They exist for their own sake. People love watching other people act.
Want to know what else people love doing: acting themselves! Acting classes are everywhere.
So excuse my extreme skepticism: human actors aren't going anywhere.
Maybe Tom Cruise in Top Gun 5 will be auto-generated by AI, who cares? Those blockbusters sure are within reach of AI, since it's all about the thrills and no-one really cares about the acting behind all those CGI scenes.
> Doesn't look like this form of art will survive very long.
Art is more resilient than you give it credit for. Art has been with us -- mankind -- since our beginnings, and it will never be gone. It's something humans crave doing.