[quadcore]

I dont know how artists feel about DALL-E but as an amateur I feel bad. "This should be forbidden" bad. I guess the root of this feeling is the same as the one Copilot gives OSS programmers, it feels like theft and copyright enfringement. The pictures in this case uses techniques and colors scheme widely used by illustrator in the entertainment industries. Some of them are even above the average quality and that's scary too.

Do we know if regulators are looking into Copilot and DALL-E? To which extent do we want computer doing what human do? I mean.. Art? Feels like bad taste to me.

[kuboble]

For what is worth, dall-e is great for exploring but it's nowhere near to being able to deliver a particular image you might have in your mind.

I wanted a very particular, well defined scene:

- A pig and a donkey play poker at the poker table. - The pig is using a computer while playing and we can see the screen of the pig. - The pig must look like a pig - The donkey must look like a donkey - The cards and chips must look like chips and cards

The dall-e simply can't deliver. Nothing is even remotely close to what I want. The best things I came up with after dozens of attempts (I bought extra credits) is something like this: https://i.gyazo.com/4bec0651b78f29a45c291a7f48f468e4.jpg

Kinda there, but the pig doesn't look like a pig or a donkey doesn't look like a donkey, or it's not a pig that has a computer and the cards and chips never look like cards and chips.

So in short - nobody is losing their jobs yet I think.

[jfoster]

Have you tried creating it in multiple steps, using the "Edit" button? You can erase the parts of the image you want to change, and you can even change the prompt at each step.

If the pig or donkey doesn't look right, you could erase just that part of the image using the same prompt to get a different look.

For example, to create the image you want, I would:

1. Start with the basic prompt: "a pig and donkey playing poker"

2. Generate random variations of my favourite image from that to see how far I can get from that.

3. Edit as necessary with the same prompt to get the right look for the pig/donkey.

4. Erase a section of the image next to the pig and use a prompt like "pig using a laptop" to get DALL-E to generate a laptop in that position.

[kuboble]

Yes, I have tried a lot, and still haven't gotten close to the desired end-effect.

I maybe want to shift my claim. I am not sure that it's impossible to create this particular image but that it's almost certainly cheaper to hire someone to draw the exact image I have in mind.

I think there is also a new proffesion comming: a DALL-E prompter job.

[misnome]

> I think there is also a new profession coming: a DALL-E prompter job.

Exactly, except we call this job "Artist" or "Programmer".

Whenever something like this comes along and people decry that it will "replace artists" or "replace programmers"... someone needs to generate the inputs to get what they want. Nothing helps solve the "But I know what I mean" problem. Either it's not good enough to do "general purpose" tasks, or it is, but it needs coaxing and someone who understands interacting with the systems well enough to get the desired output.

[kuboble]

I agree with all you say with the exception that it is very distinct from being a programmer or an artist like a painter or graphical designer.

As a programmer I love that when I type [i*i for i in range(10)] I can predict the output and that the output will always be the same. I get frustrated if the same action produces unexpected and non-reproducible results.

Good Dall-e prompter is more like a guide who can navigate through the unknowns. He knows how to use seemingly meaningless words to manipulate the beast. I think it's some form of art and at the same time like being a technician of a complex machinery or wild animal trainer.

[legutierr]

These AI created images may not be a replacement for bespoke illustration or photography, but if the choice is between stock images and DALL-E, many people would prefer a DALL-E image that fits closer to what they want than what they may find by searching a stock image website.

[arecurrence]

I suspect this is where an API and additional cost reductions will move the needle even before we improve the models themselves (which seems to be coming at a rapid pace right now). I can see a scenario like this working well in the future:

1. Get close via prompt debugging to what you want (effectively where you are now)

2. Run an image generation pipeline that creates 10,000 images or an infinite stream

3. Run each image through an 'image to text' step for vector similarity filtering

4. Take images that have very similar 'image to text' similarity scores to the original prompt and present to the user.

Once we can run models of this quality locally, it can even be a job that runs overnight and you wake up in the morning to a set of results to look at.

[lima]

It has a hard time with the computer, but without, the results are almost usable:

https://imgur.com/a/lVqmnz3

Chances are that someone with prompt engineering experience could get it to produce the desired output with some more poking and prodding.

It'll certainly raise the lower-end bar for custom illustrations/stock footage.

[nonethewiser]

I see what you're getting at, yet the result is still amazing.

[jstanley]

All that will happen is humans start operating another abstraction layer up -- same thing as happened every previous time the machines have "taken our jobs".

It's a good thing.

[legutierr]

Consider, however, that the output of these systems may not be copyrightable.

So, when you move human involvement up to a higher layer of abstraction, it’s possible that the economics of the whole effort will be fundamentally transformed. Meaning, if these systems displace human artists, copyright itself may cease to be a motivator of economic activity—removing a significant incentive for the production of new art.

Also, keep in mind that:

(1) there are likely to be many fewer human custodians of systems like this who sustain themselves economically than there are artists who currently sustain themselves by producing new art; and

(2) these systems are only as good as the artistic inputs that are fed to them, and is very unlikely that the contributing artists gave their consent or were compensated for their involvement in any way.

[jstanley]

Sorry, I'm not seeing the downsides. That all sounds like a big improvement.

And regarding point 2: do you think human artists are as good as they are without already having seen lots of great artworks produced by others? Human artists don't create art from an empty vacuum of nothingness either.

[legutierr]

You don’t see a downside to there being fewer artists creating art?

Art benefits humanity not only because we consume it, but also because we produce it.

Making art is part of what makes us human.

[corysama]

I’ve used Midjourney for months now. Artists love it. It will lead to fewer people creating art the same way the cars led to less people traveling. It’s like having a pre-concept artist for for concept artist. Instant style boards to run by your client.

[legutierr]

Comparing artistic production to driving is a poor metaphor.

No doubt that AI-driven tools can be leveraged by artists to create interesting things, in the same way that visual artists have used tools like Photoshop.

But there is something much more profound happening with DALL-E, etc. As I mentioned above, these AI systems simultaneously depend on human artists to populate its training corpus, while making it much less likely that these artists will be able to make a living producing art.

Even if other artists working higher-up in the value chain benefit from these systems, you are likely to see fewer professional illustrators and visual artists because these systems exists.

Something will be lost. We can hope that what we gain in return will be of equal value.

[bastawhiz]

> The pictures in this case uses techniques and colors scheme widely used by illustrator in the entertainment industries.

"Widely used" seems to negate your point here, no? I would expect a machine to use widely used techniques, rather than ones specific to individual artists. I don't know about you, but I've never seen DALL-E replicate an art style that isn't popular enough to be common knowledge.

> Some of them are even above the average quality and that's scary too.

Is your suggestion to make systems like DALL-E worse? Or to forbid the creation of systems that exceed a certain measurable performance?

[nonethewiser]

It's purely luddite reasoning. The real objection is that it makes artists less valuable.

Which is unfortunate, because they already arent that valuable (save for the top ~1%). But it's not a good reason to oppose DALL-E.

[quadcore]

The real objection is that it makes artists less valuable.

Close but not exactly. How do they feel about it?

At some point if we all feel bad, well this is very bad.

Maybe we should ban DALL-E for the same reasons we ban hard drugs: for the health of the community.

[bastawhiz]

How do the weavers, whalers, candlestick makers, lamp lighters, and everyone else made redundant in the last few centuries feel? Why do artists find themselves special? The only reason they have avoided automation this long is because we haven't made machines that can think with any sense of creativity until now.

Many of us will become redundant thanks to automation in the next few decades. That's just how it is.

[wittycardio]

If you're a programmer working on non trivial problems you should be happy about copilot. It's just a tool to be more productive. Same with dall-e for artists. They will eliminate unproductive jobs and create new more interesting opportunities. In the long run technological progress is always good

[kranke155]

I completely agree with you. If we’re just going to allow “AI” to eat into all human data and remix it in a way that only the 20 people involved in programming it make money (instead of the 2 million who were used as sources for the human data) then that is just the biggest stealth theft of wealth in recent human history.

It’s the equivalent of the technological enslavement of most humans who will be told that their inputs used in the AÍ “have no value” while the AÍ aggregates it all.

[tracerbulletx]

I agree that we should at least be concerned, I think the best argument against this stuff is that we should be building a world where AI replaces dangerous, repetitive, tedious work. Using it to take away the economic value of work humans ENJOY doing is dangerous. I think detractors that are eager to dismiss it as not as good as humans are wrong though and it's shockingly close to going far beyond what humans can do artistically. It won't be long before these systems can not only dream up an image from language, but make that image an animated 3d scene with dynamic lighting and animation and behaviors. If this technology keeps progressing media and artistic creation are going to be changed completely.

[nonethewiser]

Illustrators also use techniques and color schemes that are widely used in the entertainment industry. It's not intellectual property and it's already happening.

[fooker]

You can not regulate away tech advancements.

Your competitors (researchers, companies, or countries - depending on granularity) certainly won't.

[quadcore]

Unless it kills the souls of their people.