5 ms·

it just got faster. what's the drama about?

oefnak 4y ago
I think it will be interesting to see how this comment has aged in five years.
dougmwne 4y ago
I am talentless and untrained. Now with a combo of prompts and img2img, I can create awesome results on any topic and in any style that I have the rights to use. That’s a 0 to 1 moment. It didn’t get faster for me, it went from impossible to possible.
- a_shovel 4y ago
  "Any style" seems like an enormous stretch. There definitely seems to be some styles that AI favors, ones which I've seen described as "clutter the frame so you don't notice the flaws". It struggles with simpler styles. I have yet to see a flat black & white image generated by an AI that looked even passable.
  - simonw 4y ago
    How about this one? https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2022/dall-e-pencil-squirrel.jpg https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2022/dall-e-pencil-s... From https://simonwillison.net/2022/Jun/23/dall-e/ https://simonwillison.net/2022/Jun/23/dall-e/ Have you tried DALL-E or Stable Diffusion yet? I bet you could generate a black and white image that met your standards for being impressive, if you spent a few minutes on it. You can try Stable Diffusion free here: https://beta.dreamstudio.ai/ https://beta.dreamstudio.ai/
    - dougmwne 4y ago
      I considered qualifying “any” but decided it required no qualification. I don’t know how many examples are needed in the training data for a given artist to be able to reproduce that artist, but given how many obscure artists I have seen Dall-e and Stable Diffusion able to recognize, it must not require that many examples. And it’s still possible to fine tune a model with additional training if a new artist comes along or you want a bit more capability with a rare style. So yeah ANY style, I’m pretty sure of it.
    - a_shovel 4y ago
      Nah, that's not it. I mean flat #000000/#ffffff. Google "stencil image" and you'll see what I mean. AI really doesn't handle styles with restrictions like that well. I tried the stable diffusion website with variations on "black and white silhouette stencil image of a cat". It kept wanting to give the cat colored eyes, or it used shading, or the cat didn't have a coherent anatomy, along with the typical AI art "duds" that aren't really anything at all. To be fair, I did get a couple of passable results when I replaced 'cat' with 'dog'. They were simple, but didn't have any obvious errors. To be fair in the other direction, replacing 'cat' with 'abacus' gave me an (admittedly pretty) grid of numbers and some chainmail, and 'helicopter' suggested a novel design where two helicopter bodies would be stacked vertically, connected by a vertical shaft through the rotor, and which turned into a palm tree trunk above the top unit. Once you get out of the sample data, it starts to fall apart. I feel like other people here are willing to forgive more errors than I am. They see an incoherent splotch in an image and assume more development can iron out all the problems, and I see a unavoidable artifact of the fact that these systems don't have a real understanding of what they're making.
      - dougmwne 4y ago
        Is this not an acceptable result to you? Did this on my first try and to my eyes it’s the same thing as I see when I googled “stencil image.” I’m thinking you have just not tried these prompts enough. https://ibb.co/k5hMWZr https://ibb.co/k5hMWZr Edit: I gave this another shot to see if I could get a more complex stencil. This was my very first try again, so truly not cherry picked. Prompt was: “Stencil image of a tiger face. Clip art. Vector art.” This looks like an infinite stencil making machine to me https://ibb.co/mNdsms8 https://ibb.co/mNdsms8
        a_shovel 4y ago
        That first one just sucks. I don't have anything else to say about it. The second one is representative of the upper end of what I was getting. It's almost passable, but doesn't hold past about five seconds. The left and right half don't look like they belong to the same animal. The blank space in the middle of the face is huge and detracts from any sense of structure, and the whole mouth area is just odd. It's seriously impressive for AI, but it's not end-of-artists type stuff. I can google "tiger black and white stencil" and get a bunch of tiger faces, and every one of them is noticeably better. People imagine there are plenty of art jobs where discrepancies like this don't matter, but there really aren't.
flyinglizard 4y ago
There’s nothing a modern computer does compared to 30 years ago other than being “faster”. It opens up everything.
- pram 4y ago
  Technically true, but I think this is VASTLY understating what has become possible with your average PC over the past 30 years. Today I can get quick, effortless renders from Blender with a zillion available assets on the internet on my laptop. I can drop that directly into something like Clip Studio and paint right over it. In the 80s you needed an extraordinarily expensive workstation like the Quantel Paintbox to even do primitive Photoshop type stuff. If you wanted a 3D render you needed a whole farm of servers.
- dougabug 4y ago
  That seems like an overreach. Thirty years ago, object recognition basically didn’t work, except in extremely simple cases. Something like semantic segmentation would have been way out of reach. Computers couldn’t play Go effectively against even modestly skilled human amateurs.
  - flyinglizard 4y ago
    I meant the very technical sense where you could take an object recognition algorithm and compile it to run on a 80386 and it would run fine although slow to the point of not being practical. Computers brought us more speed (and memory) to enable new classes of uses, but there’s not a single intrinsic operation a modern computer does which an old one can’t replicate. So quantity is indeed a quality.

I think it will be interesting to see how this comment has aged in five years.

I am talentless and untrained. Now with a combo of prompts and img2img, I can create awesome results on any topic and in any style that I have the rights to use. That’s a 0 to 1 moment. It didn’t get faster for me, it went from impossible to possible.

a_shovel 4y ago
"Any style" seems like an enormous stretch. There definitely seems to be some styles that AI favors, ones which I've seen described as "clutter the frame so you don't notice the flaws". It struggles with simpler styles. I have yet to see a flat black & white image generated by an AI that looked even passable.
- simonw 4y ago
  How about this one? https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2022/dall-e-pencil-squirrel.jpg https://static.simonwillison.net/static/2022/dall-e-pencil-s... From https://simonwillison.net/2022/Jun/23/dall-e/ https://simonwillison.net/2022/Jun/23/dall-e/ Have you tried DALL-E or Stable Diffusion yet? I bet you could generate a black and white image that met your standards for being impressive, if you spent a few minutes on it. You can try Stable Diffusion free here: https://beta.dreamstudio.ai/ https://beta.dreamstudio.ai/
  - dougmwne 4y ago
    I considered qualifying “any” but decided it required no qualification. I don’t know how many examples are needed in the training data for a given artist to be able to reproduce that artist, but given how many obscure artists I have seen Dall-e and Stable Diffusion able to recognize, it must not require that many examples. And it’s still possible to fine tune a model with additional training if a new artist comes along or you want a bit more capability with a rare style. So yeah ANY style, I’m pretty sure of it.
  - a_shovel 4y ago
    Nah, that's not it. I mean flat #000000/#ffffff. Google "stencil image" and you'll see what I mean. AI really doesn't handle styles with restrictions like that well. I tried the stable diffusion website with variations on "black and white silhouette stencil image of a cat". It kept wanting to give the cat colored eyes, or it used shading, or the cat didn't have a coherent anatomy, along with the typical AI art "duds" that aren't really anything at all. To be fair, I did get a couple of passable results when I replaced 'cat' with 'dog'. They were simple, but didn't have any obvious errors. To be fair in the other direction, replacing 'cat' with 'abacus' gave me an (admittedly pretty) grid of numbers and some chainmail, and 'helicopter' suggested a novel design where two helicopter bodies would be stacked vertically, connected by a vertical shaft through the rotor, and which turned into a palm tree trunk above the top unit. Once you get out of the sample data, it starts to fall apart. I feel like other people here are willing to forgive more errors than I am. They see an incoherent splotch in an image and assume more development can iron out all the problems, and I see a unavoidable artifact of the fact that these systems don't have a real understanding of what they're making.
    - dougmwne 4y ago
      Is this not an acceptable result to you? Did this on my first try and to my eyes it’s the same thing as I see when I googled “stencil image.” I’m thinking you have just not tried these prompts enough. https://ibb.co/k5hMWZr https://ibb.co/k5hMWZr Edit: I gave this another shot to see if I could get a more complex stencil. This was my very first try again, so truly not cherry picked. Prompt was: “Stencil image of a tiger face. Clip art. Vector art.” This looks like an infinite stencil making machine to me https://ibb.co/mNdsms8 https://ibb.co/mNdsms8
      - a_shovel 4y ago
        That first one just sucks. I don't have anything else to say about it. The second one is representative of the upper end of what I was getting. It's almost passable, but doesn't hold past about five seconds. The left and right half don't look like they belong to the same animal. The blank space in the middle of the face is huge and detracts from any sense of structure, and the whole mouth area is just odd. It's seriously impressive for AI, but it's not end-of-artists type stuff. I can google "tiger black and white stencil" and get a bunch of tiger faces, and every one of them is noticeably better. People imagine there are plenty of art jobs where discrepancies like this don't matter, but there really aren't.

flyinglizard 4y ago

There’s nothing a modern computer does compared to 30 years ago other than being “faster”. It opens up everything.

pram 4y ago
Technically true, but I think this is VASTLY understating what has become possible with your average PC over the past 30 years. Today I can get quick, effortless renders from Blender with a zillion available assets on the internet on my laptop. I can drop that directly into something like Clip Studio and paint right over it. In the 80s you needed an extraordinarily expensive workstation like the Quantel Paintbox to even do primitive Photoshop type stuff. If you wanted a 3D render you needed a whole farm of servers.
dougabug 4y ago
That seems like an overreach. Thirty years ago, object recognition basically didn’t work, except in extremely simple cases. Something like semantic segmentation would have been way out of reach. Computers couldn’t play Go effectively against even modestly skilled human amateurs.
- flyinglizard 4y ago
  I meant the very technical sense where you could take an object recognition algorithm and compile it to run on a 80386 and it would run fine although slow to the point of not being practical. Computers brought us more speed (and memory) to enable new classes of uses, but there’s not a single intrinsic operation a modern computer does which an old one can’t replicate. So quantity is indeed a quality.