4 ms·

Even the hands in this tweet's image are not correct. There are a bunch with 4 digits, two thumbs, 6 fingers, fingers splayed in anatomically improbable directi

by lsy 4y ago

Even the hands in this tweet's image are not correct. There are a bunch with 4 digits, two thumbs, 6 fingers, fingers splayed in anatomically improbable directions. Not to mention there are probably two hundred and fifty hands in this photo (not the very explicit "one hundred" mentioned in the tweet). What is with these types of AI booster tweets? Nobody bothers to even check if it shows what they're implying it shows?

antisthenes 4y ago
> What is with these types of AI booster tweets? Nobody bothers to even check if it shows what they're implying it shows? It's Twitter. The only thing matters is tweeting, not some fact-checking nonsense. We can leave those tedious tasks to GPT-4.
boredemployee 4y ago
>> There are a bunch with 4 digits, two thumbs, 6 fingers, fingers splayed in anatomically improbable directions. Diversity and inclusion.
hombre_fatal 4y ago
> Nobody bothers to even check if it shows what they're implying it shows Or the vast majority of the hands are fine and everyone understands that it's a big upgrade except for some "well ackshully it's not perfect" HNers. I had to zoom in and go hand to hand to find some outliers.
- Jensson 4y ago
  It did do hands correctly before, not always but sometimes. So I'd expect "can do hands" meant it no longer made those mistakes or why say that? But they didn't even manage to make a picture without mistakes, so to me as a naive outsider I don't see what the announcement is. If they said "is much better at hands" it would be much clearer to me what happened and nobody would complain, that looks pretty ok for the most part, but saying "it can do hands" based on those pictures doesn't seem right.
  - 1attice 4y ago
    I'm genuinely sorry, but this reply sounds petulant to me. Please don't complain that you don't understand the significance or the magnitude of a particular advance. Please don't complain that the phrasing of the tweet wasn't accessible -- your ping time to google.com is no different than mine. This is HN. Wear your intellectual Sunday best.
    - starkparker 4y ago
      Even with Google, and having used Midjourney since v3, I still don't have enough context to understand what the advance is here. Midjourney could do hands before, just not consistently. That doesn't seem to have changed. So is it that MJ can now do more realistic hands inconsistently? Or did consistency get better without achieving reliability? I can't make this not sound sarcastic, but I'm trying very hard to ask this earnestly: I never had trouble getting too many hands into a picture with v3 or v4. Is v5 getting the correct number of hands more frequently now? Is that it?
      - 1attice 4y ago
        Yes, that's it precisely. The odds of having a good hand have gone up dramatically, near as I can tell. Even the hands that aren't quite right seem better somehow. I expect either MJ 7 or 8 to do hands flawlessly, every time.
        nwienert 4y ago
        This is HN so if you’re claiming “dramatically” let’s get some proof.
        1attice 4y ago
        sure. See image on the tweet that started this thread. Now, take a look at these hands from MJ3: https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/wlujgw/midjourney_fail_why_dont_ai_art_generators/ https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/wlujgw/midjourn... It's important to note that MJ3 reliably did not produce human looking hands. It's equally important to note that MJ5 usually does, at least from a quick count/survey of the hands shown in the provided image. Is that sufficient? If not, what proofs would be sufficient?
anonzzzies 4y ago
> Nobody bothers to even check if it shows what they're implying it shows? Twitter, insta, YouTube… It’s not a great minds collection.
Bjorkbat 4y ago
This touches on a big reason why it's so hard for me to get on board with generative AI. The hype around it is pretty much the same as the hype I saw with NFTs, complete with a community lacking any awareness of just how uninteresting, if not downright bad, their "art" was. We went from bad pixel art to people making some lame picture of two people holding hands in a foggy cyberpunk setting. The hands aren't the problem. There, I said it. The hands were never a big deal, just the most visible symptom of the actual problem. The problem is that AI art sucks and these people are too self-deluded to realize that because they want to believe that they have a shot at making that coveted internet money. Otherwise, honestly, the tech behind AI art is actually pretty fascinating, it's just that the community is absolutely the worst.
- scrollaway 4y ago
  > The problem is that AI art sucks Uh, no. I mean, what sucks and doesn't suck in art is subjective, but you're objectively wrong because, quite simply: A lot of people like AI art. A colleague of mine is way into doing AI art and does pretty amazing stuff. eg: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/552952459958550548/1043616493474156554/image.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/552952459958550548/10... https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/552952459958550548/1051417172955639828/05458-1831326428-lovecraftian_santa_claus_intricate_highly_detailed_1970s_scifi_novel_cover_art_by_raymond_swanland_and_peter_elson_.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/552952459958550548/10... "It can't do hands"… well, don't f*king draw hands with it then. It's like complaining that my hammer doesn't make good pizza… you know what I do to solve that?
- 1attice 4y ago
  You desperately want this to be hype. You, like me, have an intrinsic investment in the idea of human supremacy. Neither the popularity of produced artifacts nor the rate of improvement support your cynicism. The gap between the world you want to inhabit and the one that is being born is widening.
- jkubicek 4y ago
  > This touches on a big reason why it's so hard for me to get on board with generative AI. The hype around it is pretty much the same as the hype I saw with NFTs, complete with a community lacking any awareness of just how uninteresting, if not downright bad, their "art" was. I strongly disagree. NFTs were always ugly and useless. Generative AI is useful and valuable right this minute. I'll even concede that the output from these systems is mostly ugly, but for many use cases, that's OK. Given the choice between nothing, extremely cheap custom art that looks OK, and commissioning a proper artist to draw exactly what we want, I think generative AI is going to be the clear winner most of the time. If you're a contract artist who does work for small companies and individuals, I don't see a future where generative AI doesn't severely undercut your business.

by lsy 4y ago

antisthenes 4y ago

> What is with these types of AI booster tweets? Nobody bothers to even check if it shows what they're implying it shows? It's Twitter. The only thing matters is tweeting, not some fact-checking nonsense. We can leave those tedious tasks to GPT-4.

boredemployee 4y ago

>> There are a bunch with 4 digits, two thumbs, 6 fingers, fingers splayed in anatomically improbable directions. Diversity and inclusion.

hombre_fatal 4y ago

> Nobody bothers to even check if it shows what they're implying it shows Or the vast majority of the hands are fine and everyone understands that it's a big upgrade except for some "well ackshully it's not perfect" HNers. I had to zoom in and go hand to hand to find some outliers.

Jensson 4y ago
It did do hands correctly before, not always but sometimes. So I'd expect "can do hands" meant it no longer made those mistakes or why say that? But they didn't even manage to make a picture without mistakes, so to me as a naive outsider I don't see what the announcement is. If they said "is much better at hands" it would be much clearer to me what happened and nobody would complain, that looks pretty ok for the most part, but saying "it can do hands" based on those pictures doesn't seem right.
- 1attice 4y ago
  I'm genuinely sorry, but this reply sounds petulant to me. Please don't complain that you don't understand the significance or the magnitude of a particular advance. Please don't complain that the phrasing of the tweet wasn't accessible -- your ping time to google.com is no different than mine. This is HN. Wear your intellectual Sunday best.
  - starkparker 4y ago
    Even with Google, and having used Midjourney since v3, I still don't have enough context to understand what the advance is here. Midjourney could do hands before, just not consistently. That doesn't seem to have changed. So is it that MJ can now do more realistic hands inconsistently? Or did consistency get better without achieving reliability? I can't make this not sound sarcastic, but I'm trying very hard to ask this earnestly: I never had trouble getting too many hands into a picture with v3 or v4. Is v5 getting the correct number of hands more frequently now? Is that it?
    - 1attice 4y ago
      Yes, that's it precisely. The odds of having a good hand have gone up dramatically, near as I can tell. Even the hands that aren't quite right seem better somehow. I expect either MJ 7 or 8 to do hands flawlessly, every time.
      - nwienert 4y ago
        This is HN so if you’re claiming “dramatically” let’s get some proof.
        1attice 4y ago
        sure. See image on the tweet that started this thread. Now, take a look at these hands from MJ3: https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/wlujgw/midjourney_fail_why_dont_ai_art_generators/ https://www.reddit.com/r/midjourney/comments/wlujgw/midjourn... It's important to note that MJ3 reliably did not produce human looking hands. It's equally important to note that MJ5 usually does, at least from a quick count/survey of the hands shown in the provided image. Is that sufficient? If not, what proofs would be sufficient?

anonzzzies 4y ago

> Nobody bothers to even check if it shows what they're implying it shows? Twitter, insta, YouTube… It’s not a great minds collection.

Bjorkbat 4y ago

This touches on a big reason why it's so hard for me to get on board with generative AI. The hype around it is pretty much the same as the hype I saw with NFTs, complete with a community lacking any awareness of just how uninteresting, if not downright bad, their "art" was. We went from bad pixel art to people making some lame picture of two people holding hands in a foggy cyberpunk setting. The hands aren't the problem. There, I said it. The hands were never a big deal, just the most visible symptom of the actual problem. The problem is that AI art sucks and these people are too self-deluded to realize that because they want to believe that they have a shot at making that coveted internet money. Otherwise, honestly, the tech behind AI art is actually pretty fascinating, it's just that the community is absolutely the worst.

scrollaway 4y ago
> The problem is that AI art sucks Uh, no. I mean, what sucks and doesn't suck in art is subjective, but you're objectively wrong because, quite simply: A lot of people like AI art. A colleague of mine is way into doing AI art and does pretty amazing stuff. eg: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/552952459958550548/1043616493474156554/image.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/552952459958550548/10... https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/552952459958550548/1051417172955639828/05458-1831326428-lovecraftian_santa_claus_intricate_highly_detailed_1970s_scifi_novel_cover_art_by_raymond_swanland_and_peter_elson_.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/552952459958550548/10... "It can't do hands"… well, don't f*king draw hands with it then. It's like complaining that my hammer doesn't make good pizza… you know what I do to solve that?
1attice 4y ago
You desperately want this to be hype. You, like me, have an intrinsic investment in the idea of human supremacy. Neither the popularity of produced artifacts nor the rate of improvement support your cynicism. The gap between the world you want to inhabit and the one that is being born is widening.
jkubicek 4y ago
> This touches on a big reason why it's so hard for me to get on board with generative AI. The hype around it is pretty much the same as the hype I saw with NFTs, complete with a community lacking any awareness of just how uninteresting, if not downright bad, their "art" was. I strongly disagree. NFTs were always ugly and useless. Generative AI is useful and valuable right this minute. I'll even concede that the output from these systems is mostly ugly, but for many use cases, that's OK. Given the choice between nothing, extremely cheap custom art that looks OK, and commissioning a proper artist to draw exactly what we want, I think generative AI is going to be the clear winner most of the time. If you're a contract artist who does work for small companies and individuals, I don't see a future where generative AI doesn't severely undercut your business.