4 ms·
Have you tried Dall-E 2? I've used a bunch of (less capable) systems and I don't think the cherry picking is that significant. There's always a few duds and so
by andybak 4y ago
Have you tried Dall-E 2? I've used a bunch of (less capable) systems and I don't think the cherry picking is that significant.
There's always a few duds and some definite limits (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uKp6tBFStnsvrot5t/what-dall-e-2-can-and-cannot-do https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uKp6tBFStnsvrot5t/what-dall-... )
but on the whole most of the output is very good - the images on this website aren't particularly taxing for it and I don't think cherry picking would be needed to replicate this level of quality.
- amelius 4y agoMy comment was not about cherry-picking for quality. It's about cherry-picking for not being able to tell the difference with human output.
- andybak 4y agoI still largely stand by my point. But there are definitely subjects that Dall-E is worse at and would give the game away. I guess it depends what you mean by cherry-picking - it's certainly not the case that most Dall-E output would be easy to spot - more that it has some specific failure cases.
- amelius 4y agoThere was a post a few days/weeks ago on HN showing Dall-E and human images, and it was quite obvious which was which. I think the current post really gives the wrong impression.
- andybak 4y ago> There was a post a few days/weeks ago on HN showing Dall-E and human images, and it was quite obvious which was which. Maybe it was cherry picked?
- amelius 4y agoNot likely because there was quite a lot of work involved by humans. They demonstrated the output of AI and humans for the same prompt. The setup seemed more scientific than the current post (which seems more like a website trying to make a point).