5 ms·

I never understood the hype around diffusion models. Same thing for deep fakes. If you look closely, these models make horrendous mistakes such as hair growing

I never understood the hype around diffusion models. Same thing for deep fakes. If you look closely, these models make horrendous mistakes such as hair growing out of ear, uneven eyes, etc., which shows that there is no sense of understanding the underlying concepts in these models. I find GPT-3 a great achievement, but when it comes to visual arts, you can't just call whatever SD/DE2 create "art". At best, these models just reflect the patterns and visual cues they've seen in the training data, but they have no idea as to "what" they are painting. It's actually funny that one of the first applications of these models is in arts where there's no real-world hard-rule to quantify just how terrible/great the results are, because at the end of the day, people will claim that art is all subjective.

boredemployee 4y ago
I think only two types of ppl care about all that hype right now: 1) nerds 2) professionals that feel they will be negatively impacted by it general public dont give a fuck
- bambax 4y ago
  Unless one can give a precise definition of "nerds" that proves they are not, and can never be, part of the "general public", this is simply a circular argument (people who care are nerds, nerds aren't part of the general public, ergo the general public don't care).
  - boredemployee 4y ago
    there are tons of definitions out there that apply
nl 4y ago
> If you look closely, these models make horrendous mistakes such as hair growing out of ear, uneven eyes, etc., 12 months ago I'd have agreed. But these are from raw StableDiffusion, no face enhancement (unless noted). Just created these right now: https://imgur.com/a/pGPokDq https://imgur.com/a/pGPokDq https://imgur.com/a/yQ10JzB https://imgur.com/a/yQ10JzB https://imgur.com/a/dBtVtg3 https://imgur.com/a/dBtVtg3 (Note this has face enhancement on and I censored this so it is SFW) https://imgur.com/a/TP24KRY https://imgur.com/a/TP24KRY (Still not great at hands yet!) The rest of your comment is just your misinterpretation of what the models are doing. Modern diffusion models do have large scale knowledge across the whole scene.
- XorNot 4y ago
  I mean what I now is that I've got a brand new benchmark for video card upgrades: next time I'm shopping "VRAM to get 1024x1024 resolution of Stable Diffusion" is a dominating factor. All the current work is a shot across the bow that technology, libraries and research are orbiting some pretty serious utilities. What does remain to be seen is whether we're in the exponential part of the S-curve or at the top for this particular set of models. But I suspect we'll see the space pretty thoroughly explored in the next 12 months - no large tech company will be taken seriously if it doesn't have a competent image generation model in the wild.
  - nl 4y ago
    Stable Diffusion has been trained at 512x512 and doesn't work very well above this. But upscalers are ok and can even run on CPUs.
  - trention 4y ago
    >no large tech company will be taken seriously if it doesn't have a competent image generation model in the wild Wow, what a lot of bull. Defining a large tech company as 10k+ employees, I can assure you 90% of those won't ever touch image generation. Why would a company like SAP even consider this crap?
    - bambax 4y ago
      If a competitor does it, so will SAP. For instance, if Salesforce can generate meaningful thumbnails for leads or campaigns, etc., then SAP would have to match that.
      - trention 4y ago
        Assuming this is even a feature users want (they probably don't; why would you have your ERP generate those instead of specialized software?), it makes 0 sense for SAP to build their own model instead of using an open-source one.
- 4y ago
bambax 4y ago
> but when it comes to visual arts, you can't just call whatever SD/DE2 create "art" How do you know? I would bet most people can't tell what's been AI-generated from what hasn't. That's how the AI debacle of The Atlantic got started. For example, here's what John Naughton had to say about it in The Guardian: > what really caught my eye was the striking illustration that headed the piece. It showed a cartoonish image of a dishevelled Jones in some kind of cavern surrounded by papers, banknotes, prescriptions and other kinds of documents. Rather good, I thought, and then inspected the caption to see who the artist was. The answer: “AI art by Midjourney” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/20/ai-art-artificial-intelligence-midjourney-dall-e-replacing-artists https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/20/ai-art... John Naughton's bio says he's "professor of the public understanding of technology at the Open University". And he at first couldn't tell the image of Alex Jones illustrating the article was from MidJourney.
- trention 4y ago
  >I would bet most people can't tell what's been AI-generated from what hasn't. This has literally never been the criteria for what art is.
  - bambax 4y ago
    This was the topic of the parent comment. Also, there has never been AI art before now.
    - trention 4y ago
      No, it wasn't the topic for the parent comment which tilts the definition in this direction: >they have no idea as to "what" they are painting. You just shifted to "you can't distinguish" - a common tactic for wanna-be AI hypists.
    - mejutoco 4y ago
      > there has never been AI art before now. This is a bold claim. I disagree with it. Here is a book from 2006 that already touches on genetic AI creatures evolving and similar topics as art. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262731768/metacreation/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262731768/metacreation/

boredemployee 4y ago

I think only two types of ppl care about all that hype right now: 1) nerds 2) professionals that feel they will be negatively impacted by it general public dont give a fuck

bambax 4y ago
Unless one can give a precise definition of "nerds" that proves they are not, and can never be, part of the "general public", this is simply a circular argument (people who care are nerds, nerds aren't part of the general public, ergo the general public don't care).
- boredemployee 4y ago
  there are tons of definitions out there that apply

nl 4y ago

> If you look closely, these models make horrendous mistakes such as hair growing out of ear, uneven eyes, etc., 12 months ago I'd have agreed. But these are from raw StableDiffusion, no face enhancement (unless noted). Just created these right now: https://imgur.com/a/pGPokDq https://imgur.com/a/pGPokDq https://imgur.com/a/yQ10JzB https://imgur.com/a/yQ10JzB https://imgur.com/a/dBtVtg3 https://imgur.com/a/dBtVtg3 (Note this has face enhancement on and I censored this so it is SFW) https://imgur.com/a/TP24KRY https://imgur.com/a/TP24KRY (Still not great at hands yet!) The rest of your comment is just your misinterpretation of what the models are doing. Modern diffusion models do have large scale knowledge across the whole scene.

XorNot 4y ago
I mean what I now is that I've got a brand new benchmark for video card upgrades: next time I'm shopping "VRAM to get 1024x1024 resolution of Stable Diffusion" is a dominating factor. All the current work is a shot across the bow that technology, libraries and research are orbiting some pretty serious utilities. What does remain to be seen is whether we're in the exponential part of the S-curve or at the top for this particular set of models. But I suspect we'll see the space pretty thoroughly explored in the next 12 months - no large tech company will be taken seriously if it doesn't have a competent image generation model in the wild.
- nl 4y ago
  Stable Diffusion has been trained at 512x512 and doesn't work very well above this. But upscalers are ok and can even run on CPUs.
- trention 4y ago
  >no large tech company will be taken seriously if it doesn't have a competent image generation model in the wild Wow, what a lot of bull. Defining a large tech company as 10k+ employees, I can assure you 90% of those won't ever touch image generation. Why would a company like SAP even consider this crap?
  - bambax 4y ago
    If a competitor does it, so will SAP. For instance, if Salesforce can generate meaningful thumbnails for leads or campaigns, etc., then SAP would have to match that.
    - trention 4y ago
      Assuming this is even a feature users want (they probably don't; why would you have your ERP generate those instead of specialized software?), it makes 0 sense for SAP to build their own model instead of using an open-source one.
4y ago

bambax 4y ago

> but when it comes to visual arts, you can't just call whatever SD/DE2 create "art" How do you know? I would bet most people can't tell what's been AI-generated from what hasn't. That's how the AI debacle of The Atlantic got started. For example, here's what John Naughton had to say about it in The Guardian: > what really caught my eye was the striking illustration that headed the piece. It showed a cartoonish image of a dishevelled Jones in some kind of cavern surrounded by papers, banknotes, prescriptions and other kinds of documents. Rather good, I thought, and then inspected the caption to see who the artist was. The answer: “AI art by Midjourney” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/20/ai-art-artificial-intelligence-midjourney-dall-e-replacing-artists https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/20/ai-art... John Naughton's bio says he's "professor of the public understanding of technology at the Open University". And he at first couldn't tell the image of Alex Jones illustrating the article was from MidJourney.

trention 4y ago
>I would bet most people can't tell what's been AI-generated from what hasn't. This has literally never been the criteria for what art is.
- bambax 4y ago
  This was the topic of the parent comment. Also, there has never been AI art before now.
  - trention 4y ago
    No, it wasn't the topic for the parent comment which tilts the definition in this direction: >they have no idea as to "what" they are painting. You just shifted to "you can't distinguish" - a common tactic for wanna-be AI hypists.
  - mejutoco 4y ago
    > there has never been AI art before now. This is a bold claim. I disagree with it. Here is a book from 2006 that already touches on genetic AI creatures evolving and similar topics as art. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262731768/metacreation/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262731768/metacreation/