8 ms·

If you ran it 1000 times and picked the best, you might get all good ones. I would want to see all 1000. It's like stock picker ads (person who called the marke

If you ran it 1000 times and picked the best, you might get all good ones. I would want to see all 1000. It's like stock picker ads (person who called the market says XXX) where you only show the lucky ones.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
It doesn’t matter if these images were one in 10,000, the facts that any exist that are this good is crazy.
- abhaynayar 4y ago
  Yeah exactly. The fact that a person who could never create such a picture on their own, now just has to go through a bunch of images and select one to get this result is already amazing. The goal posts keep shifting, glass half empty.
  - phaedrus 4y ago
    It reminds me of pop articles about the P=NP question which simplify it down to, "is being able to recognize creativity the same as being creative?" Turns out for practical purposes, yes (the simplification question not the mathematical question), as long as you can offload the work to an AI on a powerful compute cluster!
  - simiones 4y ago
    It's amazing and wonderful, but it's not the AI that's "creating art", it's the human choosing the best AI output that's doing the artistic part (often togehter with the person who input the prompt to the AI). It's just like Dada poets did 100 years ago: you use a mechanical process to generate quasi-random output, and then you choose some of this output to present to other humans. The way you provide input to the mechanical process (e.g. what words you choose to put in the hat) and the curation are the real creative part of the art, not the mechanical process generating the text itself.
  - coldcode 4y ago
    I bet I could give a phrase to a collection of art students in some university and DALL-E, and the human art would likely be more creative than a single run of DALL-E. What distinguishes the humans is that you can tell them to make art of their own choosing and they will, but DALL-E is unlikely to create anything interesting with no input. Van Gogh invented Starry Night without any prompting despite it not being a real scene (much less anything he had ever seen and such abstraction was very rare in the 1880s). Picasso made Les Demoiselles d’Avignon in 1907; it was so radical even his fellow artists were unable to comprehend it. It doesn't change the fact that DALL-E is pretty amazing tech, but it's still as far behind human ability as any AI is today. It is way way better than what came before, but that's true of most technologies.
- Simon321 4y ago
  And in reality it's up to the user to pick one 1 of 8 for Dalle-2, usually they're all at least decent.
jayalammar 4y ago
Agreed that people should pay attention to cherry-picking of model outputs. For this one in particular, here are a few more results for Battlestar and The Office: https://twitter.com/Miles_Brundage/status/1532473889476861952 https://twitter.com/Miles_Brundage/status/153247388947686195...
- pddpro 4y ago
  Imagine a crowd sourced metadataset of which model output is "good". What happens when we try to incorporate that knowledge into the pre-existing model? Will it learn to generate more "good"looking output?
  - jayalammar 4y ago
    Yes. This is already done in research and commercially (https://openai.com/blog/instruction-following/ https://openai.com/blog/instruction-following/).
silicon2401 4y ago
Are you aware that this is how human artists work, too? They make countless works that aren't comparable to their top works. Even more so if you count the practice when they were just starting out. I think some people just refuse to believe that real art can be generated without humans and selectively look for things that confirm their pre-determined conclusion. Witnessing this always feels like witnessing someone before the wheel was invented, when things were rolled and logs, assuring everyone that technology will never beat manual labor because look at how cumbersome it is to work with logs.
- simiones 4y ago
  There is a crucial difference: the human artist does this choosing themselves. If DALL-E just spits out 1000 images and then a human goes through them and picks the best 2-3, and those are good - it's impressive, but the human was still a crucial part of the process. On the other hand, if DALL-E were to generate 10 billion images, and choose the best 2-3 itself and give those as output, and if at least one of those 2-3 would be consistently great, then DALL-E could be indeed considered to be creating (good) art.
  - adamsmith143 4y ago
    Who's to say that Dall-E 3.0 won't do exactly that? This is not the peak of AI art generation and it will only continue to improve.
    - simiones 4y ago
      Sure, it might. But until then, I wouldn't say it makes sense to consider the AI as "being the artist". When DALL-E x.0 does that, and when it also generates similar quality from much higher-level prompts ("paint a sad picture", or "social commentary on BLM" or something like this, instead of a description of what the picture should show and in what style), then I for one will be in complete agreement that it's indeed an artist in itself. Personally, I don't expect this to happen in the next few decades, as I don't think the current approaches are very promising for the type of intelligence that you would need to actually do this type of reasoning, but that remains to be seen, and I am fully confident that it will happen some day.

mensetmanusman 4y ago

It doesn’t matter if these images were one in 10,000, the facts that any exist that are this good is crazy.

abhaynayar 4y ago
Yeah exactly. The fact that a person who could never create such a picture on their own, now just has to go through a bunch of images and select one to get this result is already amazing. The goal posts keep shifting, glass half empty.
- phaedrus 4y ago
  It reminds me of pop articles about the P=NP question which simplify it down to, "is being able to recognize creativity the same as being creative?" Turns out for practical purposes, yes (the simplification question not the mathematical question), as long as you can offload the work to an AI on a powerful compute cluster!
- simiones 4y ago
  It's amazing and wonderful, but it's not the AI that's "creating art", it's the human choosing the best AI output that's doing the artistic part (often togehter with the person who input the prompt to the AI). It's just like Dada poets did 100 years ago: you use a mechanical process to generate quasi-random output, and then you choose some of this output to present to other humans. The way you provide input to the mechanical process (e.g. what words you choose to put in the hat) and the curation are the real creative part of the art, not the mechanical process generating the text itself.
- coldcode 4y ago
  I bet I could give a phrase to a collection of art students in some university and DALL-E, and the human art would likely be more creative than a single run of DALL-E. What distinguishes the humans is that you can tell them to make art of their own choosing and they will, but DALL-E is unlikely to create anything interesting with no input. Van Gogh invented Starry Night without any prompting despite it not being a real scene (much less anything he had ever seen and such abstraction was very rare in the 1880s). Picasso made Les Demoiselles d’Avignon in 1907; it was so radical even his fellow artists were unable to comprehend it. It doesn't change the fact that DALL-E is pretty amazing tech, but it's still as far behind human ability as any AI is today. It is way way better than what came before, but that's true of most technologies.
Simon321 4y ago
And in reality it's up to the user to pick one 1 of 8 for Dalle-2, usually they're all at least decent.

jayalammar 4y ago

Agreed that people should pay attention to cherry-picking of model outputs. For this one in particular, here are a few more results for Battlestar and The Office: https://twitter.com/Miles_Brundage/status/1532473889476861952 https://twitter.com/Miles_Brundage/status/153247388947686195...

pddpro 4y ago
Imagine a crowd sourced metadataset of which model output is "good". What happens when we try to incorporate that knowledge into the pre-existing model? Will it learn to generate more "good"looking output?
- jayalammar 4y ago
  Yes. This is already done in research and commercially (https://openai.com/blog/instruction-following/ https://openai.com/blog/instruction-following/).

silicon2401 4y ago

Are you aware that this is how human artists work, too? They make countless works that aren't comparable to their top works. Even more so if you count the practice when they were just starting out. I think some people just refuse to believe that real art can be generated without humans and selectively look for things that confirm their pre-determined conclusion. Witnessing this always feels like witnessing someone before the wheel was invented, when things were rolled and logs, assuring everyone that technology will never beat manual labor because look at how cumbersome it is to work with logs.

simiones 4y ago
There is a crucial difference: the human artist does this choosing themselves. If DALL-E just spits out 1000 images and then a human goes through them and picks the best 2-3, and those are good - it's impressive, but the human was still a crucial part of the process. On the other hand, if DALL-E were to generate 10 billion images, and choose the best 2-3 itself and give those as output, and if at least one of those 2-3 would be consistently great, then DALL-E could be indeed considered to be creating (good) art.
- adamsmith143 4y ago
  Who's to say that Dall-E 3.0 won't do exactly that? This is not the peak of AI art generation and it will only continue to improve.
  - simiones 4y ago
    Sure, it might. But until then, I wouldn't say it makes sense to consider the AI as "being the artist". When DALL-E x.0 does that, and when it also generates similar quality from much higher-level prompts ("paint a sad picture", or "social commentary on BLM" or something like this, instead of a description of what the picture should show and in what style), then I for one will be in complete agreement that it's indeed an artist in itself. Personally, I don't expect this to happen in the next few decades, as I don't think the current approaches are very promising for the type of intelligence that you would need to actually do this type of reasoning, but that remains to be seen, and I am fully confident that it will happen some day.