These pics aren't real, they were rendered using a neural network

These pics aren't real, they were rendered using a neural network.

>Jow Forums will still scorn AI

Attached: not real.png (1068x544, 858K)

Other urls found in this thread:

arxiv.org/pdf/1809.11096.pdf
gist.github.com/JonnoFTW/5b036797593c5c40aabdf2d6c1399387
openreview.net/pdf?id=B1xsqj09Fm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

i bet you can't tell which one is real in this one

Attached: collage6.jpg (2400x1200, 201K)

rendered by combining other real pictures you mean

If AI comes near me, I will beat him up. For real.

u wot m8

Link to the paper or you're full of shit

Deepmind does it again

arxiv.org/pdf/1809.11096.pdf

>brainlet detected

holy shit it's true
we just need a couple more order of magnitude improvements in computational power and these things will become self-aware or something

Attached: Capture.png (762x758, 1.18M)

and the worst thing is there will still be retards who say "it's just a markov chain bro, I studied that shit in uni"

What is that image? Seriously, I'm still wondering what it's supposed to be.

dog + tennis ball mashed into some weird thing

an example of "class leakage in a partially trained model", aka a mixture between a tenis ball and a pupper

gist.github.com/JonnoFTW/5b036797593c5c40aabdf2d6c1399387

kek this thing is hillarious
it has potential for propaganda purposes. imagine feeding it images of trannies mixed in with images of your political opponent

Attached: Capture2.png (776x787, 1.17M)

Attached: Capture.png (771x789, 931K)

This process is very computationally expensive

It's mostly true though

Impressive. You notice that the images are off, but only after you've stared at them for a several seconds. You could use them in horror to make environments that look slightly off. The real question is, how far off are we from synthesizing porn?

couldn't they make a pre-trained one that does the mixing on inference?

they look kinda leaky with warped geometry, like an hyper-realist version of dali or a playstation 1 game. but some of them look perfect to me tbqh

Attached: 9S1GgLu.jpg (497x750, 47K)

Damn, for some reason it looks like my dreams.

I wonder if that's how our brain works when dreaming

oh no im sure the computer just thought it up on its own
AI is alive after all

>Those are very convincing and in no way horribly rendered pictures

WTF I love AI now :3

I see a scheming face with evil intentions. The other one is some big-cheeked girl.

This is the funniest academic field.

You better.
Laugh while you can.

moar

here's a link to the paper, since OP hasn't posted it
openreview.net/pdf?id=B1xsqj09Fm

why don't they provide pretrained networks anybody could run?

disregard this he did earlier i am a pygmy shit

I'm currently training a model to generate OC hentai

Why would they?

lol kys, retard
"neural networks" are so fucking stupid. just throw lots of existing data at them. of course they'll fucking know

to publicize themselves

>Laugh while you can.
people will keep laughing while you produce nothing of use. bad photoshop "content aware" shit is still shit. i'm still laughing

must be why each image independently looks like fucking shit.

Did the AI somehow not realize that animal appendages are always attached to the animals body somehow? as in body parts aren't supposed to just spill out into the background?

The point is not that it saves and applies the data, the point is that it learns how to do it intelligently. Neural networks are not stupid, in fact it's the only method to do quite a lot of stuff. Saying neural nets are stupid is like saying the fast fourier transform is stupid. They're useful tools.

Try to make photoshop or whatever software you choose automatically generate novel images from an existing dataset. What you're talking about just doesn't exist. 3d rendering software needs somebody to manually make the 3d models and set up the scene plus it can't learn from existing pics, photoshop needs somebody to manually select (roughly at least) where to crop and paste things to make novel images.

in the same sense that any human artist is just copying things he saw before

>Neural networks are not stupid
you're just too stupid to understand, "and that's a good thing"

no not at all
computers dont have creativity
creativity is what makes art have any value
it's the invention of something new

> him

Attached: WnpLjHc[1].jpg (1133x1243, 122K)

yeah, no fucking shit. meanwhile, you can make a human do anything
you can have someone paint, and yes, using prior experience, but humans can do it more intelligently. there's still nothing that comes close to imagination. all you have is stupid single-use "applications" that all take GBs or even TBs of horseshit data.

I think it is the same.
Except humans are doing it at a higher content resolution than the AI of today.

The AI is sorting through pictures of puppies, where the human is sorting through remembered brush stroke techniques and remembered images of puppy features.

creativity doesn't really imply the creation of something "new" though

just something original. Picasso's works were highly original but none of his colors, forms, or shapes were "new"

Fucking humanists. You'll just keep coming up with why what computers do isn't really intelligent or creative.

original means new

a computer has never done anything creative
intelligence, depends what you think intelligence is
you can tell it how to make a logical decision in the same way you would
is that intelligence?

I'd say it's more like a novel arrangement rather than something new entirely.

A word of advice: get some punctuation and don't just press the return key 'cause it's fun.

you know how to spot a brainlet when they feel proud of the fact they know how to type punctuation into a computer

that's a pointless distinction to make
you can say nothing is ever new cause it's just a rearrangement of the same atoms that aleady existed

It's more about not standing out by being visibly inferior in some way. You'll get taken more seriously.

> brainlet
> they know how to type punctuation
Exactly the opposite, brainlets can't do even that.

Unless you have google levels of compute that's probably not going to work.

>t. assblasted creatively challenged AI

Also, would you check these trips of truth.

Neural nets are in general more stupid than humans, yes. But they also cost one dollar per hour to run instead of 10, and the ratio is increasing as we speak.
Also there are niche things in which NNs are better, such as simple games like Go.
>horseshit data
You sound mad about something. Not sure what though.
It does make new things in a creative way. It's just that at least for now it sucks compared to humans.
But I'd argue it has reached the creativity level of a 70iq person.

If you're over the age of 8 or so you know how to use punctuation
if it's something you hold in any esteem at all you probably don't have much else to be proud of

> If you're over the age of 8 or so you know how to use punctuation
So you're underage?

Creativity isn't the process, it's the inspiration, and computers obviously have none outside of what they're given by humans

well you gotta draw the line somewhere, but pretty much yeah you're right.

I think we'll find that humans and AI draw the line at different areas. To a human, arranging the same exact 4 colors of paint in a new orientation and distribution can make something new and original. to a computer a single digit altered by an outside source like EM interference can create something new. A mutation that can be further manipulated into other "new" things

>he thinks people haven't tried before
>he wants to feel special by running a program written by somebody else
Good luck getting some vaguely pornographic blobs of color. is right.

based rational human

You are confirmed for under 8.
I wonder if it's Discord that's doing this to kids. Maybe it's how they learn to communicate online. Some of them may have never voluntarily engaged with any form of writing where lines != sentences.

I'm 33 years old and see no reason to properly format my posts to shitpost with retards on the internet

Didn't somebody write a NN that can uncensor JAV?

Do you mean divine inspiration? Because if not, there is no reason a computer can't do it.

you can still tell every single one is fucked up in some way though

Any inspiration, the source of it isn't understood by humans so there's no reason to assume that computers are capable of it, because it certainly isn't mechanical in nature

If your goal is to shitpost with retards, which I assume involves fitting in with retards, by all means carry on.

And humans have none outside what was given to them by evolution. See what I did there?
Both human made AI and evolution are optimization processes favoring a product that itself has optimization capabilities. If neural networks don't have creativity, then neither do humans.

If it's physics, it can be simulated.

to be perfectly honest; perfect punctuation use all the time every time is a waste of time

Yes, but
1. That's not nearly the same as creating something from scratch
2. It doesn't even work that well.

Why does the face on the left look so punchable?

cause it looks like the robot that invented facebook

possible but thusfar unproven

Creativity lies in the why and not the how. Computers cannot currently consider the why

narcissa?!

I got you embarrassed, you poor soul. Good. Remember to not format your posts like a shitty poem again like .

that's not even me you fucking retard
would you like me to write you another poem

>possible but thusfar unproven
So, basically, you're saying that it could be souls.

Yes.

Where inspiration comes from is irrelevant, the point is that computers don't have it so they can't create art

it's impressive, but it ain't shit m8. AI is still dumb as a bag a rocks. (you can probably do the same thing with appropriately arranged set of rocks) ML still needs massive amounts of training data and adversarial examples are still a problem. ML has trouble with representations that aren't fields of pixels. AI while smart still doesn't have the motor skills of a three year old(if you post atlas, fuck off). Also muh common sense. You can't advance the field without criticism.

What defines art?

The fucking humanists in this thread, damn.
What are you gonna do when the killbots come for you?
"I'm sorry mr. terminator, I don't think robots like you possess the creative capacity of humans, or a soul, so you see-" *gets shot in the head*

You can't define it in a concrete sense, you can only define it by feeling

>the ratio is increasing as we speak
call me when they're not shit. until then, i don't want to hear about this stupid meme
>You sound mad about something. Not sure what though.
meme talk about it's something other than it is. it's just a dumbass algo going through a lot of existing data. it's nothing that exciting or innovative. we now have the parallel processing power to do it, still not enough, of course, and people are all wowed about it like it's something special

Lol they don't even look real, the issue with smearing and distortion is still an issue

Where inspiration comes from is ENTIRELY relevant. You say humans have it but computers don't. Why is this? If inspiration comes from a soul, why can't we simulate one?
I say all mental constructs, including inspiration, come from examination of one's surroundings, and processing that with knowledge that comes a priori or a posteriori. It is entirely possible to simulate this.

Thats what I said about two weeks ago. but then I started noticing this type of shit in real life.

start paying closer attention bro. its happening all around us

We have trouble with the immaterial and the material and at what point one becomes the other. Because we are unable to make a determination on this issue, we are unqualified to say what is or is not inspiration in any context outside of our own [personal] thoughts. I guess what I'm asking is how does one simulate inspiration if one does not even know what is being simulated?

>t. forgot to take meds

>how do people write science fiction, paint abstract art or just cool art in general?
sure, all of that stems from reality, but there is something that current AIs lack 100%, and it's been mentioned in the thread over and over again

>Why is this?
Nobody knows. To speculate is entirely that, speculation. Inspiraton can't come from examining your surroundings, inspiration is what makes you examine your surroundings in the first place. Computers motivations are entirely pre-programmed. Maybe ours are too and "art" is just deep contextual understanding, but AI hasn't proven that yet

Do you understand the potential of this tech if we had, say, 100x the hardware capabilities we do now? It probably would come close to the average human intelligence.
Why are you mad over people seeing what the algorithms are capable of now, and getting amazed at the possibilities it will bring in the future?
And btw, if you didn't want to hear about neural networks why did you click on this thread? Is it really that important to you to tell us how bitter you are about people being interested on new technological developments?
Your position is akin to somebody in the 19th century saying "i don't want to hear about these new computer things, call me when they don't get jammed and cost less than a sheet of paper and some ink".

yo don't get me wrong.
I think those pics are examples of shortcoming of the NN to produce pics we identify as "real". I think they might still be accurate depictions of learned patterns though.

Just start looking closer to the world around you, Its kind of glitchy too

>Do you understand the potential of this tech if we had, say, 100x the hardware capabilities we do now? It probably would come close to the average human intelligence.
Completely wrong. AI already runs into the point where throwing more data at a system doesn't generate more meaingful results