3 ms·
It doesn't really work for anything. It would be trivial to defeat this.
by version_five 3y ago
It doesn't really work for anything. It would be trivial to defeat this.
- K0balt 3y agoWhile I share your reservations, I think we should either give it a whirl or wait for someone else to try adversarial processing before we dismiss it out of hand. My guess is though that if you had a training set of processed vs unprocessed pairs that you could train an “unmister” if you wanted to.
- TheRealPomax 3y agoNot much point in giving it a whirl when the resulting images are clearly not something you'd put in your site to show off your work. The problem with this (and glaze, etc) is that it does what it claims by ruining the image it's used on.
- spookie 3y agoUnfortunately it's the natural progression of the web, given the unethical ways people are training their models. This is going to happen in more ways than just images.
- K0balt 3y agoThe image degradation seems like certainly a potential dealbreaker from an art perspective. Perhaps in some modalities it would be less noticeable?
- bhickey 3y agoWe should dismiss it out of hand. Any image that a human can look at can be fed to a neural net. It's just an instance of the analog hole.
- roughly 3y ago> My guess is though that if you had a training set of processed vs unprocessed pairs that you could train an “unmister” if you wanted to. I look forward to the masterclass in ethical justification acrobatics that would accompany such an effort
- K0balt 3y agoClearly you haven’t met my in-laws.
- theaiquestion 3y agoFunny enough the first one I've found that works consistently with this one(however unusably destructive) is the "whirl" filter in GIMP. Previous adversarial methods I've beat with simple noise/blur. This one is fairly resistant to basic filters.