3 ms·
AI-imager Midjourney v5 stuns with photorealistic images–and 5-fingered hands
- pocketarc 4y agoI was wrong. Wrong for doubting the progress of AI, the pace at which things would improve, the usefulness of it all. I don’t subscribe to the idea of these models having any kind of intelligence (they’re just really good prediction machines), but man, they are getting unbeatable at their tasks, at a breakneck pace.
- Kim_Bruning 4y agoAn F-35 is just a really good kite, and a Bugatti Veyron is just a really good horseless carriage. And human intelligence is just a really good prediction machine. Entirely true, but somewhat misleading. The same goes for your statement "these models are just really good prediction machines". Seems a bit misleading. Mind you, qua terminology: there's a lot of levels of intelligence below human level (eg. insect level, or bird level, or etc...), and there's a lot of kinds of intelligence besides human (eg again: birds, insects, octopedes, etc). So we might be able to get away with calling this a kind of intelligence anyway, without beating around the bush.
- fnordpiglet 4y agoI’m not sure I don’t believe we aren’t very good prediction machines ourselves. Don’t forget people have to actually study logic, and studying is reinforcement of likelihood. And even with having practiced logic we make logical errors all the time despite feeling confident in our statements. I’ve found little in my life that tells me human intelligence isn’t just predicting the next “right” thought given experiences of should be the next right thought in a specific situation. Our “sense” or feeling of rationality, understanding, etc, may just be guides for probability of “right.” Confusion happens when a situation is novel enough that we can’t predict the next right thought. Etc. So, I’m actually not convinced what happens as the models produce an expected next token it’s not a form of intelligence in the same vein as human intelligence. I suspect as these models are pulled into more complex ensembles it’ll become striking how “intelligent” they are, and as they become less simply prediction engines how alien they becomes - because it would turn out we were just prediction models to begin with.
- mannyv 4y agoThis is pretty much the end of stock photography as we know it.
- airstrike 4y agoThere is no spoon
- cwillu 4y agoThat's not a spoon, that's a knife.
- flanbiscuit 4y agoI see you've played knifey spoony before
- karmakaze 4y agoIt's still only mimicry. The barbarian pictured is of the Hollywood movie kind. I real one would likely have more body fat. Could it be able do tell the difference between what's more historically accurate and made up? It's basically the flip-side of GIGO, now it's PIPO photorealistic in, photorealistic out regardless of verity.
- airstrike 4y agoI mean, that's textbook moving the goalposts. Send that prompt as a briefing to an artist. Would that artist come up with a similar barbarian as what's in the article or will they be "historically accurate" and draw one with higher body fat %?
- karmakaze 4y agoThe difference I'm pointing out is that an artist can have an idea of such things without reference images of them. Or what historically accurate could mean without having to be explicit about the Hollywoodness of existing images.
- j-kent 4y agoHow long before we are nostalgic for the early AI aesthetic and it becomes a distinct style trend, much like the Playstation 1 era graphics that are showing up in indie games currently? I already miss the dreamy weirdness of the earlier models.
- elforce002 4y agoListen, I'm all for tech innovation, but we need regulation asap. This new wave of "AI" is going to be really dangerous if we don't deal with it early on. What's to stop a pedo from grabbing this tech start creating despicable things with it? Rapists? Scammers?