DALL·E 3
openai.com
openai.com
Ah - this isn't out yet. That puts this in the "announcement of an announcement" category (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).
Let's have a thread once the actual thing is there to be discussed. There's no harm in waiting (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...).
I wanted a way to experiment/see what DALL•E 2 could create and share with others as some sort of inspiration/a starting point.
This was before the API was available, so I had to generate and save them all manually. And it was rather expensive! But fun.
Looks like I'll have to update them all for DALL•E 3 when I get access.
Because there's no way to control the seed, a direct comparison (using a before/after slider, for example) probably wouldn't make sense. But I could put the group of 4 images from each version above/below each other as a general comparison, perhaps?
Even if it was the same seed, from my understanding Dalle3 would have to be just a further trained version of the same checkpoint to even resemble Dalle2's image. Like stable diffusion 1.4 vs 1.5 and 2.0 and 2.1 will make identifiably similar images, but 1.5 vs 2.1 vs SDXL won't look remotely similar.
Even more so because I'd wager they changed their encoder and/or decoder too.
* I think that if they generated something like a controlnet for guidance the same way in both models then they might be comparable but from my understanding Dalle2 doesn't work that way at all.
Comparisons would still be interesting though!
I guess it'll just have to be comparisons of the general concepts. It'll be good to see the change in understanding of the prompt and the change in image detail.
If anyone at OpenAI wants to give me early access to give me a head-start… smiles
EDIT: it's only living artists actually that you can't prompt (hopefully, the article says so at least)
But otherwise you're right — some might not work.
It's an interesting problem. Like, what's the point of conception for a work of art?
> ... in the style of a famous Spanish artist who was born in 1881 and passed away in 1973 [and a bunch of other shit about Pablo Picasso]
(I also notice that this is more verbose than just "in the style of Pablo Picasso", which probably helps OpenAI's bottom line given costs associated with token counts. I doubt that's their intention with the change, just something of note. And, of course, a living example would be more applicable for copyright issues but the idea is still demonstrated.)
Looking at the images it's particularly interesting how it seems to have never once gotten the text correct, always just being a little bit off. Well sometimes way off, but mostly quite close.
Even then it's not perfect since I'm getting info off of the command you send, which may have fallen into whatever the defaults were at the time, and so when interpreted today, not easily possible to reconstruct the version/seed/etc. from that point in the past, if you didn't include it in the prompt. But still, I just like having a folder of 30k images that I can never lose, with at least the prompt, so I can go through and re-run them later (even manually) to get comparisons over time.
- ChatGPT integration is absolutely huge (ChatGPT Plus and enterprise integrations coming in October). This may severely thwart Midjourney and a whole bunch other text-to-image SaaS companies, leaving them only available to focus on NSFW use cases. - Quality looks comparable to Midjourney - but Midjourney has other useful features like upscaling, creating multiple variations, etc. Will DallE3 keep up, UX wise? - I absolutely prefer ChatGPT over Discord as the UI, so UI-wise I prefer this.
Anything else that is 'open source' AI and allows on-device AI systems eventually brings the cost to $0.
Especially with DALL-E. Honestly I'd be more excited if MidJourney released something new. DALL-E was the first but, in my experience, the lower-quality option. It felt like a toy, MidJourney felt like a top-tier product akin to Photoshop Express on mobile, still limited but amazing results every time, and Stable Diffusion feels like photoshop allowing endless possibilities locally without restrictions except it's FREE!
I just started training LoRA, and the lack of definitive information is a burden; but following the commonalities in all of the guides i was able to get a LoRA to model a person i know, extremely accurately, about 1/8th of the time. in my experience, getting a "5 star" image 12% of the time is outstanding. And when i say 1/8th i mean i ran off 100 images, and hand ranked the ones that actually used the LoRA correctly, and 4 and 5 star ranks were 21/100 - i just double checked my numbers!
Currently with Midjourney/SD you sometimes get an amazing image, sometimes not. It feels like a casino. SD you can mask and try again but it’s fiddly and time consuming.
But if you could say ‘that image is great but I wanted there to be just one monkey, and can you make the sky green’ and have it take the original image modify it. Then that is a frikkin game changer and everyone else is dust.
This _probably_ isn’t the way it’s going to work. But I hope it is!
So long as it actually can create an image virtually the same but changed only how I want it. That would just blow everything else away.
I mean I guess it’s. Or that ridiculous. Generative fill in photoshop is kind of this, but the ability to understand from a text prompt what I want to ‘mask’ - if that’s even how it would work - would be very clever
I recently had a somewhat frustrating experience of having a generated foreground thing and a generated background that were both independently awesome - and trying to wheedle Stable Diffusion into combining them the way I wanted was possible, but took a lot of manual labor, and the results were "just ok".
Generate an image, maybe even a low quality one. Fix the seed and then start iterating on that
As far as the OP goes, they claim you don't need to prompt engineer anymore, but they just moved prompt engineering to chatgpt, with all of the fun caveats that comes with.
Also, just for future reference - lots of UI elements in A1111 have very descriptive tooltips, they help a lot when I can't quite remember the full effects of each setting.
By default the random seed is different for each generation, so even if the prompt and every setting is the same you'll get vastly different images ( which is the expected outcome ).
When you set the seed to a fixed number you get the same image every time you generate if all other settings and the prompt are exactly the same.
So I start off with a pretty high CFG Scale to give it enough room to imagine things ( Refiner and Resize turned off )
Once I have a good base image, I'll send it to img2img and iterate some more one it.
* like a mimeograph!
Since gpt4 natively understands images, there's the potential for it to look at the image, and understand what about it you want to change
I'm not going to post links, but there are several active projects & companies already doing that.
Probably not. Bing Chat (which uses GPT-4 internally) already has integration of Bing Image Creator (which uses Dall-E ~2.5 internally), and it isn't good. It just writes image prompts for you, when you could simply write them yourself. It's a useless game of telephone.
> Creators can now also opt their images out from training of our future image generation models.
So this version was again trained (without permission) on copyrighted work. And they try to shift the burden onto artists to manually opt out.
Aren't they afraid some court might, at some point, force them to pay each artist back a fee for each generated image?
So am I!
You also have the right to have your eyes open in a public dressing room, but you’re not allowed to turn on your camera and film.
You’re also allowed to have fireworks but not recreational C4s. And so on.
What's illegal here is unauthorized distribution. Downloading a copy of something from a public server cannot get you in trouble here. Only publishing does.
I'd say they're banking on the horse having bolted by the time such a thing might happen (i.e. courts would need to force 1000s of very large powerful companies to pay millions of people - an insurmountable legal effort).
This is less about AI, per se, and more about corporate -vs- personal IP rights. Historically, IP law has bent to benefit large corporations while citing personal IP rights as the raison d'être (& never fulfilling on that justification). What OpenAI (& many others) are doing here is just very flagrantly demonstrating how that justification was only ever an excuse, & that restrictions imposed by the Berne Convention, et al, have never really applied to corporations at scale (outside of small case-by-case exceptional examples).
The livelihoods being stolen are not being stolen by AI - rather it's a further reinforcement (scaling up) of a system that has been doing so for well over 100 years.
This is literal Luddism.
They are certainly striking under-the-table deals with big IP holders like Disney to not poke the bears, but leave all smaller actors defenseless (or rather penniless, more so than they already are).
Sam Altman has already empirically proven himself to be rich enough to be above the courts with the whole WorldCoin thing, why should he assume it would suddenly be different now?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/08...
So far there is no solid proof of that. They didn't disclose the sources or the methodology. Except for 'trained' and 'copyrighted' the rest is questionable. Otherwise they would be already paying royalties.
They could have used the output from prev version 2 with prompts generated by GPT, and then corrected by humans based on the produced image. Also they could use CV to analyze new/old images. I.e. if there is a new feature in the image add it to prompt and train again.
“so for everything else, there’s Midjourney”
So it's not just about wanting to make explicit images, it's about not having a different entity control what you can and cannot do.
I do branding and presentations all the time with graphics from Midjourney and rapidly iterate in that discord chat in various branches compiled in parallel all day. Make something as convenient, cheaper, private/offline, and faster and I'm there. Otherwise the ideology is irrelevant to me, and the unsaid secret is that that's true for most everyone else too.
As an aside, textual inversion also made some great inroads into this sort of thing. So smallest size to largest: textual inversion(megs), Locon/lycoris/lora(tens of megs), full model (gigs!). The accuracy range over all compositions follows the same respective order, as well.
Hypernetworks exist as well for sd15 at least, they're up to I think around 80mb?
Well put. I was wondering how that aspect was going to be acknowledged & phrased here.
They can't do that with MidJourney and DallE.
Just take a loot at civitai to see the kind of finetuned models that are out there.
Which means there are countless (free) amazing tools around SD.
StableDiffusion is threatened by exactly nothing.
(others have mentioned that SD shall happily generate porn: I don't care about that... But I care about SD being the actual "open AI").
Images generated, with the exact same settings (including seed), on m1 laptop are not the same as the images from my nvidia GPU desktop with the SD-webui.
Also, it's basically free if you own a Mac or an iPhone.
EDIT: for what it's worth, I'm not making NSFW stuff with MidJourney. I'm talking about things like being unable to use the word "cutting" or "slicing" because they could be used to make gore but I wanted "A stock photo of a person cutting cheese on a counter"
They mention you can disallow GPTBot on your site, sure, but even if you do, what happens if the Bot already scraped your image? In any case, probably other people would just publish your picture in some other website that does not disallow GPTBot anyway.
A quick glance at /r/Midjourney or even the images featured in DALLE link above shows how boring the “default result” is when using a generator. While it may be easier to create images, you still need some artistic sense and skills to figure out which ones are appealing. In the bigger picture I think this basically means that illustration-type art will become more of a curatorial activity, in which being able to filter through masses of images becomes the predominant skill needed.
ControlNet is a obvious counterexample. If you think "diffusion is just collaging", upload a control image using this space that cannot exist in the source dataset (e.g. a personal sketch) and generate your own image: https://huggingface.co/spaces/AP123/IllusionDiffusion
https://investor.shutterstock.com/news-releases/news-release...
More transparency about the training data, as always, would be greatly appreciated.
or attribution even
Also another thing that's been on my mind is I wonder if all this AI generation stuff could cause a Games Industry style crash where due to such a over saturation of highly advertised but meaningless/worthless AI content consumers lose interest and stop spending money in different respective industries (books, ganes, films, digital art, music, etc.) and then they crash.
"DALL·E 3 is designed to decline requests that ask for an image in the style of a living artist. Creators can now also opt their images out from training of our future image generation models."
Very carefully-worded statement. So...still relying on people's hard work, but on the upside, you get to opt out of having your work be fodder for DALL·E4." </s>
* using living artists work to train models = good
* generating living artists work using said models = bad
Good ethical consistency from the OpenAI crew
An artist tracing an image in an artbook and selling it = bad
Seems consistent to me
An artist using an artbook as reference material = good
An artist with one billion arms, using every artbook ever published, creating millions of images per second in every possible style for fractions of a penny per image, outcompeting every other artist forever = bad
Or maybe one could argue that because it's owned?
If, however, the rights holder chooses to just give them away; or, y'know, puts them on their own website for anyone to look at - there is then no license fee to be paid for looking.
Note that this still does not mean someone can make copies and sell them. That's a separate right. But using such materials as a reference is just fine, and people do this all the time.
It was a pithy one-liner about categories in response to a pithy one-liner about categories.
But I'd say the underlying question I'm trying to ask is philosophical: what property do humans have and machines lack that makes the first's learning from copyrighted works acceptable, and the second's unacceptable? (eastof suggested a property below).
Humans have had parts removed and reattached. With transplants components have been replaced entirely. There is a point at which you can destruct a machine from which it is impossible to reconstruct without getting into ship of Theseus issues. That point is different for different things.
The appeal is thus to a completely novel principle that you have come up with for yourself; and it seems that rather than presenting arguments for why others should adopt this principle, you are trying to present it in such a way that someone not paying close attention would be fooled into believing that it is common sense and widely accepted. An analogy with the classic "you wouldn't download a car" comes to mind.
This even applies if the AI copies an artists art style (in the same vein as a human looking at one artists art over a weekend and then being commissioned to paint something in the same style, which is completely legal since you can't copyright an art style; although Adobe would love that[0]).
(I would also argue that it learns and generates images in ways that are non-human, just based on speed and scale alone)
But systems of law are still capable of recognizing the distinction between the personhood of corporations and of people, just as they can recognize the difference between humans and AI even if AIs can be demonstrated to "learn" the way humans do. As always, context and nuance matter. Laws aren't written or decided upon based on pure logic or calculus but on what human beings want and consider to be in their self-interest.
If you wouldn't be able to sue a painter over producing an image, why should you be allowed to sue a programmer over producing that image?
A tale as old as time, "it's different when we do it".
You can't do that. It's copyright-maximalist copyright infringement.
Copyright in the United States was drafted into the Constitution as a way of rewarding creators so they could create more.
They're already being rewarded, perhaps too handsomely, there is no need to extend it further. If they persist in trying to take more than they're given, then the public will just need to revoke the privilege. It's not a human right.
It's in your own fucking link for godsakes.
Also in my "own fucking link":
> Prior to the invention of movable type in the West in the mid-15th century, texts were copied by hand and the small number of texts generated few occasions for these rights to be tested. During the Roman Empire, a period of prosperous book trade, no copyright or similar regulations existed, copying by those other than professional booksellers was rare. This is because books were, typically, copied by literate slaves, who were expensive to buy and maintain. Thus, any copier would have had to pay much the same expense as a professional publisher. Roman book sellers would sometimes pay a well-regarded author for first access to a text for copying, but they had no exclusive rights to a work and authors were not normally paid anything for their work. Martial, in his Epigrams, complains about receiving no profit despite the popularity of his poetry throughout the Roman Empire.
> The printing press came into use in Europe in the 1400s and 1500s, and made it much cheaper to produce books. As there was initially no copyright law, anyone could buy or rent a press and print any text. Popular new works were immediately re-set and re-published by competitors, so printers needed a constant stream of new material. Fees paid to authors for new works were high, and significantly supplemented the incomes of many academics.
Incidentally, if you click the link about King Dermott and get to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_C%C3%BAl_Dreimhne, it says that's "an account that first appears... nearly a thousand years after the alleged events supposedly took place, and therefore a highly unreliable source".
Some folks seem to have some strong ire towards OpenAI (maybe a bit less recently), but for one, they seem to do a really, really, _really_ good job at making themselves "the benchmark to beat" for certain things, and in doing that, I think they really seem to push the field quite far forward. <3 :'))))
Yes, they should. OpenAI IS Microsoft, never forget this. Any old timer like myself remembers the crap Microsoft pulled in 90's. And nowadays they still would do the same (and in background sometime they still do it) if they would lead in those areas. I have no love towards FB/Zucky boi, but the move to make LLAMA free is a good one. Hopefully another leak comes from inside OpenAI and we get access to everything.
I think that might be a bit "enemy of my enemy". Remember "commoditize your complement"? Not that I'm averse to the tech giants forcing each other into a race to the bottom.
There are risks, esp in a profit-motivated capitalistic environment. Most researchers don't take the LessWrong in-culture talk seriously. I'm not sure many people are going to be able to actually understand the concerns of people in that group given the way you've presented their opinion(s).
Yes but politicians do, for some reason. AI Safety has become a meaningless term, because it is so broad it ranges from "no slurs please" over "diverse skin colors in pictures please" to the completely hypothetical "no extinction plz".
In the cases where it's false (you could get an artificial human) it still doesn't obviously lead to bad real life consequences, because that relies on another unfounded leap from superintelligence to "takes over the world" ignoring things like, how does it pay its electricity bills, and how does it solve the economic calculation problem.
It's more like having children. Sure they might become a serial killer, but that's a weird reason not to do it.
Are there any implementations of Python in Html? No, because Html is not a programming language. Are there any implementations of Html in Python? Many, because Python is a programming language.
Given these assumptions, one easily imagine that Html is a weaker language than Python.
So if Html is weak, let's make it stronger! Let's add some more Html headers of webpages, than three. Html has now 1 million headers! Is it less weak now? Does it come closer in strength to Python?
No, because the formal properties of Html did not change at all, no matter the number of headers. So, do the formal properties of the grammar generator called GPT, are any different related to how many animals it got statistical data on? No, the formal properties of GPT's grammar did not change at all, if it happens to know about 3 animals or a trillion.
I didn't say X-risk concerns were invented by AI marketeers, I said the “AI safety” language was invented by the overlapping groups of X-risk cultists and AI marketeers, some of whom (Sam Altman, for one) are the same people.
What is the meaning of this? Why is it part of your post?
We humans all have our quirks! <3 :'))))
Perhaps the Dall-E 2 unintentionally got that better.
In addition, having access to a library of prompts, and being able to produce, create, and store images within the web interface will unlock this type of generative ai for images to many more people.
Compare this to the midjourney way, in which users must not only sign up, they have to use a discord bot (not saying this is hard, but more so, a larger barrier to entry).
Native integration will mean instant adoption by millions on day 1.
> DALL·E 3 [...] will be available to ChatGPT Plus and Enterprise customers in October via the API, and in Labs later this fall.
This is about DALL-E 3, which is just announced. Nobody's played with it yet so we don't know if it's a lot better or not.
Why is the spoon writing on the back of a clipboard, for example?
The open source community is pushing forward SD forward far faster than Midjourney is improving.
You can see it at https://cosmictrip.space
(and coming soon is an adventure game series backed by DALL-E and GPT-4)
If you want to self-host, check out comfyui. It is a breeze to install, and offers an api for headless interactions. On my 5 year old i7 NUC it produces a 1024x1024 image (cpu only! no gpu needed) in around 20 mins using the SDXL model.
Wonder if DALL-E itself counts as a forbidden living artist or if soon we will „generate x in the style of DALL-E 2“
However...I'm a very visual thinker, when I'm thinking or speaking, I often see images in my head of what I'm trying to convey.
I wonder if aligning ChatGPT and DALL-E or something similar so that I can "see" an image of what the computer is saying as well as the text might be a great next step towards making me feel more engaged with the technology.
That and native speech to text would be nice so I can just talk at it and have it just sitting on the side as a helper-bot instead of being the main point of my focus while I work on or do other things.
You might know Thai already but have you tried using ControlNet to make images with stable diffusion? It allows you to input an image that it follows along with the prompt, and there’s a bunch of ways to influence it. You can even give it a hand drawn sketch. Or have it pick out position of limbs, or use the edges of objects and keep those.
If you have something specific you want to create then it’s amazingly helpful.
The only easy to use site I know of that offers it is happyaccidents.ai (or you can run yourself if you have SD installed)
This conversation reminds me of the old Star Trek:The Next Generation episodes in the Holodeck, only they're talking to "the computer" to iterate on a holodeck scenario design.
I think this might just be inherent in the domain - the state space for images is so much larger than it is for text, so there's just a lot more ways to interpret a text prompt. Sane "defaults" help, but it might just be inherently true that it takes a longer prompt to get close to what you're seeing in your head.
Too bad, since there might be some interesting advances (the way the model follows the prompts better for instance), but OpenAI is continuing to advance the tech behind closed doors.
They honestly could have just waited to announce this until it was actually released!
Would love to be proven wrong!
1984, the year the Mac was introduced (and when the more customizable, nitty-gritty Apple II series was their main seller) was also Apple’s all time peak in share of the personal computer market in terms of units sold.
So…yeah, I think the comparison is apt, but maybe not in the way you think it is.
> MJ is already better than SDXL if you don’t need any of the [elements of the rich ecosystem beyond the base models]
Yeah, I think you kind of missed the point there. (Also, not convinced you are right even there, MJ seems to be much worse at prompt-following than base SDXL model, and on other qualities in the range where subjective opinions are going to vary considerably on which is better, judging from the head-to-head comparisons with prompts I’ve seen, largely from people claiming that MJ is better so presumably not trying to subtly favor SDXL in the construction of the comparisons. Because of the ecosystem, its been a long time since I found MJ more useful than even SD 1.5-based toolsets.)
I don't have as much experience with SDXL, but I've used plenty of Dall-E and other models; most of them generate results that follow the prompt well, but look more like a collage than a piece of art. Which may very well be what you're going for, but for doing more abstract and creative brain storming, I much prefer the Midjourney, which definitely has a specific "look".
If you are actually a visual artist, I think the leader of the pack right now is controlnet, because you can exactly determine the visual structure of your image. While MJ or Dall-e may be better at "imagining" concepts, or have a more aesthetic sensibility (with Loras and custom-trained models, I'm not even sure about that) with controlnet you can very precisely specify how your image should be structured.
This is closer to how traditional artists work. They don't go for the details (color, texture, shading) first. They do a sketch: what are the big forms in this image? How do they fit together? Then they begin filling in intermediate details. What is the color palette? Where are light sources? Which areas have contrast? Which do not? Only after they have done all of that preliminary work will they actually implement the frills on the dress, or the twirls of the mustache.
If you are just a person who wants to make some pretty pictures, Midjourney (and, Dalle3, now) is probably your best bet. If you are an artist who wants to use an actual tool, you are using StableDiffusion. I think it's unlikely that the centralized "plug and play" Midjourney or OpenAI will ever be able to or interested in replicating the complex interface of stablediffusion. But there is a tremendous opportunity for a startup that can improve the UX of the complex workflows that are being developed by "ai artists."
That's also why I am convinced that MidJourney / Dalle will not replace artists. You simply cannot, with a single prompt, replace the work of a true visual artist.
They already are, because employers don't care about "true visual art," they care about cost and productivity, and getting an intern or someone outsourced to write prompts is both cheaper and faster than paying an actual artist, and capitalism dictates the path of least resistance is the path all competitive business must take. Companies are already replacing their creative staff with AI, or are planning to. AI generated art is already everywhere in advertising. And yes, they contain obvious errors that wouldn't exist with a real artist. And no, companies do not give a damn.
There's one image with "Explore Venus", and in the video, the hedgehog has a mailbox with Larry on it. Both of those look good, but obviously super cherry picked.
Also, cherry picked examples from Dall-e 3 may not be representative of the average output. Like some SD 1.5 models may look amazing on civitai or reddit, but you soon realise that they are terrible on average and overfitted to very specific kind of pictures and characters.
There can be only one!
This seems weird to me, but I admit I'm about as far from an artistic person as it is possible to be. I understand why it was done (people kept asking for pictures in the style of that one dude and they were better and he hated it) but it still just seems strange.
The content that the people themselves posted to the Internet? I'm pretty sure that OpenAI didn't break into any artist's studios and steal anything.
Do art students steal when they tour the museum? Please, I really need to know... what sort of dingbat philosophy is it that thinks that this even slightly resembles stealing, in either of the "copyright infringement is stealing" or the "actual theft" meanings.
I hope the DSM VI includes copyright maximalism in its list of mental illnesses.
None of what you've said is relevant. The same or similar processes the brain uses are at work here.
> This argument is absurd and is based on the flawed notion that software has "equal rights" to humans,
The people who run the software have the same "equal rights" as humans. If you're allowed to download one of those images and look at it, they're allowed to download it and train their software with it.
You're trying to invent new intellectual property rights out of thin air. No thanks, we already have more than enough of that lunacy.
The path way to an OpenAI monopoly is quite clear, especially with the controlling stake from Microsoft. So I won't be surprised to see OpenAI continuously attempt and revive their regulatory capture using licences [1] against actual 'open' AI companies who release their papers, code, models, etc.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35960125
[1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/openai-chief-goes-before-...
The quality is good and is free currently.
Does this mean that ChatGPT plus price will increase? Otherwise the value you will get for the subscription is crazy!
“An expressive oil painting of a basketball player dunking, depicted as an explosion of a nebula.”
Plus users will be able to directly create images within the ChatGPT web interface.
> When prompted with an idea, ChatGPT will automatically generate tailored, detailed prompts for DALL-E 3
Then there’s a video of someone typing into ChatGPT and it responding with images
$ http https://openai.com/dall-e-3
HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
Cache-Control: no-cache
Connection: keep-alive
Content-Encoding: gzip
https://github.com/lllyasviel/Fooocus
Other stable diffusion UIs have this as an option too.
I'd love to see some basic usage included in my GPT+ sub
edit: Welll... they say "Try ChatGPT (DALL·E 3 coming soon!)" ... if they are including some DALLE usage in GPT i'm going to resub instantly. So huge.
Really accelerating AI development, with humans in the loop for now.
Nice! I teach ChatGPT on midjourney’s documentation and it gives me great prompts on my loose ideas
This follows that concept
What does this mean? How do you use ChatGPT Plus through the API?
Anyone have any tips on getting beta access to these models earlier? I've been in GPT3 beta since June 2021, and I was only ever able to get Codex early.
How generous.
who at OpenAI decides the right and wrong??
Edit:
OpenAI is a corporation and their stakeholders include Microsoft, Peter Thiel, and Infosys.
Yeah, not really surprising that they are not "Open".
I still can't believe such a deal is legal.
Also at first this objection really resonated with me. I think the meaning of OpenAI has spread pretty well now, and that it's getting to the point where raising this objection is tiresome.
There is an important point to be made about how it got popularized as being open and then they went and closed it while keeping the momentum, but that should be made instead of just saying, "wait, it's called OpenAI but isn't open?!?!"
However, stuff gets started as an open play all the time and gets closed, without open in the brand name, for instance https://ghuntley.com/fracture/ - hence the term https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openwashing
https://community.openai.com/t/my-account-has-been-banned-fo... (see related topics for some more)
I can actually appreciate “open” as “open to access” or “open to actually having a product iso posturing about being so far ahead but never releasing anything worthwhile” (looking at Google).
The other aspect you're missing is once you stop criticizing it, you are passively normalizing it. And that's horseshit. Call out the fuckers that do bad shit more often because they deserve it. I am not saying you are a shill, but you are doing exactly what the company wants - normalizing their shitty behavior and defending them against criticism for it.
Yeahno... that's not gonna suffice. Squeaky wheel gets the oil!
> Are we rioting against capitalism or something?
That would be nice... can we do it Fight Club style?
And its not about HN, it is about the larger community grumbling. Not that it will do anything but if they're going to annoy us with their disingenuous naming then we can annoy them by calling them out for it. There are a million other names of blithe corpo-jibberish they could use, but they didn't.
And it is oh-so-convenient how discussion that you don't like is "noise". Us smarties are fantastic at rationlizing arent we? Yes let's just limit the conversation to breathless panty-creaming only. I'm sure the CEO would really like that!
> Mr. Smith thought the word “federal” suggested an interest in nationwide economic activity, and hoped the name would resonate with the Federal Reserve Bank, a potential customer.
Edit: and don’t get me started on the Better Business “Bureau”
Don't get me wrong, I love open-source, open-weights research, but the elephant in the room is that people aren't willing to do that on dirt-poor postdoc salaries anymore, for good reasons, especially when greedy landlords are now charging upwards of $4000/month just to have a reasonable living space, and the government takes close to 50% of your salary.
Years on, it's still a little hard to fully grasp the imminent, momentous impact this (has yet to have?) on commercial artists. I fear it will become pretty much impossible to make any sort of living off art in the next decade.
I mean: the outputs on the page are just awesome. Leagues ahead of the stuff we have now. And I'm already seeing old-gen generated AI images on corporate blog posts—everyone will jump on DALL-E 3.
Being in the profession right now must be very discouraging indeed. My heart goes out to those artists who will eventually be replaced by cheap, intuitive text prompts.
Commercialising art for corps was one of the last ways to exist as an artist in today's economy and get by. I fear the extinction of the profession will have a big impact on our cultural capital.
Does a new form of “art” evolve that makes use of these seemingly omnipotent brushes?
I'm becoming more and more redpilled on the generative art stuff. The risk-benefit analysis checks out in favour of LLMs, but maybe art is something we can keep our Markov chains off of.
It’s simply a new tool for artists to create art with. It will change art but I doubt it will destroy art. Like you said, a new form of art will evolve from it.
Is that true? Are there fewer live music shows, plays, live comedy, etc... than there were before cinema and television?
Those spirals got backlash for being "too easy to do", but others have done more creative things with the same technology: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/15wdoqa/be...
That's the importance of accessibility, and has happened all the time in art history (e.g. photography did not kill painting on a canvas)
For instance the emergence of extremely good reproductions didn't affect the price of the original paintings. Same way the evolution of photoshop doesn't have much effect on the price of picture prints.
Now stock photography could be impacted. But otherwise generative AI only opens the door to more picture production, and won't be put in competition to the traditional painting/prints market/direct artist support market.
> What does a world without art look like.
As an aside I always find it funny when 'art' is used as short form for 'pictures', especially in the world's context.
I think, given the context being an generative AI for images it should be fairly obvious what I’m talking about.
I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before they do it for music, dancing, fighting and whatever else you care to tag with the term.
For example, Flag by Jasper Johns sold for $110M in 2010 [1]. The fact that almost anyone could make something like this (the subject matter is public domain, and the technique is within reach of anyone who has taken an art class) doesn't seem to have diminished its value.
And as for all of the art you see in the everyday world, being able to design it more easily would likely lead to more of it, not less. Instead of seeing the same 20 things that they carry at IKEA over and over, you'd have custom artwork everywhere.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_(painting)
EDIT: Added the last paragraph while you were replying.
Nope. I mean the visual art we see all around us. If it’s trivial to generate it’ll be everywhere and nobody will value it. It will become a annoyance to people - so what fills that space then? Bare walls? Or will things go to a new level. Was kind of my line of thinking.
I also think the output isn’t yet good enough to be usable without some human intervention (fixing hands, spot treatments, etc.)
And Chinese wages are rising, so it'll eventually be too low-level for them.
What you're talking about is illustration, which will indeed have a difficult time in the future.
Maybe in your circle, but that's certainly not the case generally.
I've never heard these terms used like you are using them.
See also: Art Forum. ArtNews. MoMa. The Met. Etc.
I didn’t invent the term.
Great, now that's solved, let's agree on a definition of 'punk' next
I encourage you to check out the work at museums and galleries in whichever city you live in. It should be immediately obvious that these aren’t really skills that transfer to Photoshop and blog post images.
a lot of art isn't always so much about the technique but the content. ai might make the gap from beginner and crap to pleasing to look at in a technical sense, but that doesn't mean the art it self will be interesting or meaningful.
if you really think art as a whole is at risk of being destroyed by ai you should go to your nearest high quality museum and really think if ai would make that. i know like half the posters are in the bay area lol, go to sf moma this weekend and think about this.
So you just need to pair DallE with an axidraw?
idk how a computer would deal with the unpredictability of a medium like water color. axidraw looks more like a printer thats using a pencil instead of ink.
skip to 36min in here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OokWxQPU5kw
It would be a terrible outcome if authorship and illustration are mostly reduced to editing and touching up errors in AI-generated statistically likely art.
(Although oddly, for programming, I'm really looking forward to that outcome).
Software developers have been having technology completely eat their work out from under them since the dawn of the industry. But jobs aren’t being lost over it; there’s more demand for software developers than ever. When software advancements reduce the work needed to produce output, the world has moved on by taking that as the new baseline which software developers build upon and demanding more software to be built with bigger and better features.
Back when I first started working, it was somebody’s entire job to take pages and pages of content and transcribe them into HTML manually so that they could be published on a website. People used to do that all day, every day. Then CMSs came along and completely eliminated that work. Now sure, if a developer decided that all they wanted to do was write static HTML and refused to adapt their skills, they would be out of a job. But we all used the new technology to build more dynamic websites that provided more value. The new technology didn’t take away our jobs, it provided an opportunity to do a better job.
It’s the same with this. These aren’t tools to replace artists – these are tools artists can use to do more and better work. These aren’t tools that will reduce demand – when everybody can get on-demand, totally custom artwork, people will want more of it, not less.
Automation does not always increase demand for the jobs being automated. Tractors didn't create more demand for oxen than ever.
Farm automation allowed a single man to plow many fields in the time one field would have taken.
Automation allows one person to accomplish more with less.
Tractors didn’t reduce the demand for product, but increased it many fold.
Automation increases demand; every time.
Sure, automation increased demand for food, but demand did not increase enough to not destroy 5/6th of farmers jobs.
Now this may not be a bad thing at all, that's not the point, but I am not sure "hey demand for art will increase but 5 out of 6 artist jobs will no longer exist!" is a super hopeful statement to artists.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-people-employed...
Yours is a different definition of demand than the economics definition, which is basically the amount customers will buy as a function of price. Higher demand means buyers will pay a higher price for the same art.
Automation increases supply, which increases the volume of art consumed, mainly because it is available at a lower price. That is shifting to a different point on the same demand curve, and doesn't mean that demand has increased.
Just look at the dairy industry. Pre-automation sales numbers vs. post-automation sales numbers.
This is true for every industry on earth, and doesn't care about the pedantic definition of demand. Consumer demand = more purchases. More purchases = more revenue.
Clip art/stock photography though, you can do that with 0 artists if you have the actual art bit automated.
you could do that with zero artists for decades because it's already fully commoditized. Everyone who is cheap already just buys a subscription to some gigantic vault of stock imagery owned by some digital rights holder for pennies.
the mechanical reproduction of art did not start in 2020
Ever stopped at one of those self-checkout registers at the grocery store that didn't exist in your childhood and wondered what happened to the cashier who used to be there?
A lot of people mumble something about "jobs not worth doing", but I'm not sure if web front-end development (how many unique, differentiated, worthwhile websites exist? how much of that code is glue and boilerplate, and people solving the same problem in parallel every day?) fares much better in that gauntlet.
Software developers right now are, for the first time in their lives, experiencing a little backlash to their privilege -- for hundreds of millions, they've been riding that rollercoaster all their lives.
They're still there, they're restocking shelves.
Similarly, the invention of ATM machines increased the number of bank tellers.
Have web builders totally replaced developers? No, not at all. It’s definitely cut out the lowest end of the market, but that’s because your local restaurant really doesn’t need more than a squarespace template.
But warping a website builder to do something more complex is complicated. To the point where you need to hire someone trained in using that builder tool. Then that person finds the edges of the customizability of that tool and reaches for just writing HTML/CSS/JS.
I could totally see a similar trajectory here. We’ll have prompt engineers, and they’ll realize sometimes photoshop is just easier to tweak the output, then maybe they’ll realize it’s easier to prompt for components of an image, and composite them manually… and then we’ve reached a point where it’s just a tool that makes art easier.
Though… it still does feel somehow different from web development. Will just have to see how things shake out.
The reverse doesn't hold -- there are no tools that allow an artist with no training or study to be an effective developer. I'd say the CMS example is more of a data entry job than a development job now, it's two different things.
Most of the advancements in tech still need trained developers to utilize them. GPT-4 cannot create non-trivial programs itself and does not seem particularly close to doing so, it's mainly used for scaffolding and bug fixing and guiding, all of which still need a trained developer at the wheel.
I'm worried for the future of artists.
Basically, there is no circumstance under which automation reduces demand for labor. It's like if you got a pay raise and started worrying it might make you poorer.
I mean sure yeah, in the past I would pay for logos from artists and now I just make them with AI for my projects instead.
Right, but it used to be a development job, which is the point. The CMS took a development job and turned it into a data entry job -- exactly what DALL-E does to some limited forms of artistry.
But development didn't disappear, and neither will artistry.
- will be more artwork be bought (probably)
- will the increase in the quantity of artwork being bought (assuming there is one) compensate the decrease in price for each piece of art?
Clearly for software, _so far_, the increase in productivity / decrease in price has led to such a big increase in demand for software that some programmers are better off - I say _some_ because many jobs within the software industry stopped existing.
Yet if we look at something like agriculture, there has been some increase in demand in food products(e.g. much more meat is being sold), but one can only eat so much - so most of the increase in productivity has led to way fewer people working as farmers, and not much increase in farmers income.
No "these are tools to replace farmers - these are tools farmers can use to do more and better work".
Basically people are making statements about the elasticity of demand with respect to prices for prices & quantities no one has ever observed. If making a piece of art is now 1/2 (random number) the cost thanks to AI, will people buy 50% more? 100% more? 1000% more? I have no idea and I am not sure why people think they do.
Also, it would be nice if there was something akin to a watermark that was perhaps invisible but upon inspection using a certain tool will reveal if it was created using the Generative AI model (similar to how real currency can be inspected and differentiated from fake currency notes)
Making a living from art is something that the majority of artists even before GenAI did not reach.
I agree that it will change things a lot, but fearing the "exctinction of art" is a bit dramatic IMO.
Sure, but will that have an effect on art? Most artists I know have day jobs completely unconnected to their art. Even the ones that draw stuff for a living don't consider that drawing their art. After spending all week working in the "drawing factory" they spend their weekends working on their 'real art'.
The only argument I can see is that fewer people will be willing to really learn the craft of drawing/illustration etc. if the chance of getting a day job doing that diminishes greatly.
Another example would be someone who loves to garden. If a gardening robot was invented those people would still garden themselves.
Generative AI allows people without mechanical skill to do art, by iteratively interacting until the AI gets it just right for them, so in that sense generative AI opens up art to many more people.
As for making money from art, I believe we're going to have to implement some sort of universal basic income. I currently don't have to work because I collect social security, so I pursue my hobbies the way most other people on UBI will do.
I can easily imagine a future where a single dedicated individual or at least a very small independent team can make a full-length movie without leaving their apartment on a tribal budget that rivals a big Hollywood production costing hundreds of mullions to produce today.
Right now you've got the writers striking, worried that the studios are going to replace them with AI, I think this is totally backwards, it's the studios who should be worried because the barriers to entry that protect them today are about to come crashing down.
I am already seeing a few people make short films using these tools. Right now anything "AI generated" has a certain novelty factor, like back in the day when 3D CGI was new and we were all rendering chrome 3d spheres and shiny red cubes and cylinders on black and white checkerboards, this phase is going to pass soon enough. Perhaps that surreal Midjourney glow will be part of 20's nostalgia in the decades to come. There's a whole new set of skills a new generation of artists are going to master and do things largely unimaginable a year or two ago. They're going to make art that expresses their own perspectives and ideas and not just what's currently allowed by the current consensus, just as the artists before them did.
This is definitely exciting to contemplate, but it's still quite tricky for the economics: Right now, the fact that you need 4000 people to make a blockbuster movie limits the number of movies being made, giving each movie enough of an audience (potentially) to make their money back.
Better tools will enable more awesome creatives to make content alone - but will there be enough eyeballs to consume that content, even if it's cheap to make?
It is all just impetus to go and find the prior form of "art" we have had all along. Art need not be about the Artist and her Works, or about creating something for some kind of vague consumption. Art can be about collectivity and shared truths. Art used to be about speaking to God or whatever, and whoever actually placed the pieces of glass were very secondary. At my most optimistic, I feel like some turn like this (but probably more secular) is inevitable. People need to get stuff out, and if this pressure is not relieved by our current ideas of labor and such, it will find a way nonetheless like water through stone.
I think the market for affordable prints and copies will definitely suffer, because I can create prints of Midjourney art that looks as good as anything I see in our small local galleries and gift shops.
AI safety is a thing apart from brand safety, and OpenAI would be well aware of this, just like GM is aware of what crash safety means.
Right, so in that case the occupants are their customers, and they're hopefully protecting them from harm. They're not optimizing for, say, pedestrian safety[0].
In this case, OpenAI's customers are other companies, and they're keeping them from harm, and the number one harm that companies are worried about re: AI is "what if we deploy an AI tool and it generates nudity etc that damages the bottom line."
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it seems to describe the situation as it is, doesn't it?
[0] https://driving.ca/auto-news/driver-info/blind-spots-on-pick...
And so continues the trend of "progressive" AI companies deliberately handicapping their models for no real good reason.
How is blocking porn a "progressive" thing? aren't conservatives the ones blocking porn these days?
for example: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/republ...
- utah: https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/SB0287.html
- louisiana (pdf): https://legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1289498
- florida: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/472/
- texas: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88...
https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/pornhub-blocks-access-utah-here...
In the end, this is about liability, not morals.
> OpenAI claims it focused a lot of work on DALL-E 3 in creating robust safety measures to prevent the creation of lewd or potentially hateful images.
The safety measures in OpenAI is pretty much cliche progressive hyper-moderation in 2023. You see them same approach on Reddit and elsewhere, and the left-leaning communities are consistently the most locked down to a particular overton window. This is not a very controversial take.
It goes well beyond just pornography and explicitly violent stuff.
Additionally, since OpenAI is asserting no rights over the image, a watermark would be inappropriate.