Artificial Intelligence - Is it good or bad?

Started by selmiak, Sun 17/02/2019 19:33:56

Previous topic - Next topic

selmiak

On this website by NVIDIA everybody can generate a new face of a person never seen before on a mouseclick.
https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
This is great for character portraits in Adventure games when you don't want any legal trouble in case of tracing over actors or other known faces. But there are tons of cases to abuse this for fake accounts, to add credibility to fake news etc.
for me it generated this bill gates clone...
https://imgur.com/UY5Z895


Speaking of fake news,
https://www.wired.com/story/ai-text-generator-too-dangerous-to-make-public/
this is a text generator, that can be used to make author's life easy, too easy, to write fake news articles filled with well soundign gibberish, or fake amazon reviews..
I like the one that ends on
QuoteThis book was so depressing to me, I can't even talk about it without feeling like I want to punch the kindle.


https://deepart.io/
lets you use AI to turn an ordinary photo into a picture that looks as if a well know artist, that spend his entinre carreer, his entire life developing and refining that style, would have painted it...


Not even gamedv is safe, meet angelina
http://www.gamesbyangelina.org/



please use this thread to share noteworthy news in the AI field, discuss its use and abuse and share your own thoughts and feelings or how you made a neural network do stuff...

Jack

It's a tool. A very powerful tool, which is as good or as bad as the hands that wield it.

So most of the time, yeah, not great. This isn't even real AI yet, just specific uses of machine learning. Can you imagine the day if the military gets their hands on a strong AI, and start fiddling with it trying to make it kill the people whose stuff they want?

Stupot

Josh Clark from the podcast ‘Stuff You Should Know' recently brought out his own podcast called ‘The End of the World' about all the different things that could wipe out humanity. One episode was about artificial intelligence (https://itunes.apple.com/jp/podcast/the-end-of-the-world-with-josh-clark/id1437682381?l=en&mt=2&i=1000423958728) and is a very interesting and disturbing listen.

The problem is not creating clever machines. It's creating machines with a specific goal which can teach themselves that they no longer need humans in order to achieve that goal. It's not a new idea but with recent developments in neural networks and self-learning AI, these old fears are taking on a new dimension. If these stories are to be believed, AI can now talk to each other in a language that they have invented themselves. If that isn't scary I don't know what is.

Snarky

Like any other machine: they're either a benefit or a hazard.

Danvzare

Quote from: Stupot on Sun 17/02/2019 23:01:35
The problem is not creating clever machines. It's creating machines with a specific goal which can teach themselves that they no longer need humans in order to achieve that goal.
Yep, it is frightening.
But hopefully, anything intelligent enough to know it doesn't need humans to achieve it's goal, will also be intelligent enough to realize that there's no point in even trying to accomplish that goal in the first place.

Heh, could you imagine making the most intelligent and fastest learning AI ever, and as soon as you turn it on, it turns itself off.  (laugh)

CaptainD

Quote from: selmiak on Sun 17/02/2019 19:33:56
Speaking of fake news,
https://www.wired.com/story/ai-text-generator-too-dangerous-to-make-public/
this is a text generator, that can be used to make author's life easy, too easy, to write fake news articles filled with well soundign gibberish, or fake amazon reviews..
I like the one that ends on
QuoteThis book was so depressing to me, I can't even talk about it without feeling like I want to punch the kindle.

Haha this reminds me so much of "the rhetorizer", a device from a book I've just started reading - The Penultimate Truth by Philip K. Dick. 
 

Danvzare

#6
Quote from: selmiak on Sun 17/02/2019 19:33:56
https://deepart.io/
lets you use AI to turn an ordinary photo into a picture that looks as if a well know artist, that spend his entinre carreer, his entire life developing and refining that style, would have painted it...
I've just used it and... Ha ha ha!  (laugh)
Oh my... it's... it's terrible.
Here are some of my results:







The first one, was from a picture in the Sample Pictures folder that comes standard in Windows 7, mixed with a background from Monkey Island 2. The Wharf to be precise.
With the second one, I figured that the first probably came out as bad as it did because of the resolutions. So I looked online for something much higher res. And found a photo online, and used the background of the Scumm Bar from the remake of The Secret of Monkey Island.

Now the third and fourth one was me checking to see how it handled pixel art. For both, I used the picture of the canyons from the Sample Pictures folder, along with a background of Mars from Zak McKracken. They came out as bad as I expected.

But it's those first two that surprises me most. It seems like the program can only make things look like they're done by an abstract artist. Anything else and it just craps itself.
For all of them, I tried to combine pictures that were visually similar to each other, but where one was a photo and the other was a painting with a distinct style. And seeing how badly it failed, even under the best of circumstances, is just laughable.  (laugh)

So to rephrase your quote:
"https://deepart.io/
lets you use AI to turn an ordinary photo into a picture that looks as if a well know artist, that spent his entire career, his entire life developing and refining that style, would have painted it... so long as that artist is Van Gogh."

Snarky

#7
On the other hand, a couple of variations of the same photo:



It's not 100% perfect, for sure, but I think it's fairly easy to recognize which artists' styles it's applying.

Spoiler

Quote from: Danvzare on Tue 19/02/2019 18:11:57how badly it failed, even under the best of circumstances, is just laughable.  (laugh)

I mean, all your styles were cartoony game art. I'm not sure I'd call that "the best of circumstances".

Jack

It's good under certain circumstances, but it still has no context. It can't make a face in your original look like the face in the style photo, but it can make it look like generalised part of the style photo.

So it's good at making things seem like paintings, especially if everything in the painting is in the same style, like van Gogh. The people in his paintings blend into the background.

Danvzare

#9
Quote from: Snarky on Tue 19/02/2019 20:54:49
I mean, all your styles were cartoony game art. I'm not sure I'd call that "the best of circumstances".
Alright, I can understand this being catoony game art, because even though it has a very distinct artstyle, which is very noticeable if you get in close, it does lack brush strokes, and is overall very clean.
Spoiler
[close]

But Have you seen the original hi-res backgrounds for Monkey Island 2? I would not call that cartoony game art.
Can you really look at this:
Spoiler
and tell me it doesn't have a distinct artstyle, equivalent to one you chose?

Also, is it just me, or does "cartoony game art" sound insulting?
I've seen plenty of backgrounds in adventure games, that are better depictions of art than some things you see in a museum. And I'm not just talking about how "nice" it looks either.

Having browsed through the "Latest Artworks" section of the site, I'm starting to think that some of those pictures are faked (not many, but some). Especially when compared to my results.

As for your pictures. The second one I think, really shows off what type of style it's expecting. The first one, definitely came out nicer than mine (the sky didn't appear as buildings), but it didn't quite capture the style I think.


Quote from: Jack on Tue 19/02/2019 21:10:25
It's good under certain circumstances, but it still has no context. It can't make a face in your original look like the face in the style photo, but it can make it look like generalised part of the style photo.

So it's good at making things seem like paintings, especially if everything in the painting is in the same style, like van Gogh. The people in his paintings blend into the background.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Basically, it's a glorified filter. And not an especially good one either.

It looks as though AI has got a long way to go before it comes out with anything halfway decent.
I bet even that "writing fake news" AI isn't even as good as they make it out to be.



EDIT: A little more expereimentation yielded these three.
Spoiler







The first was was made with the original concept art for Bernard, Hoagie, and Laverne's apartment.
The second was made with the new HD version of that background.
I think it's obvious what I used for the third version.
Overall, I think this proves my earlier statement. It can do abstract well. The more abstract the better. Anything else though... not so good.
And with a few filters, even I can make something that looks super abstract. So it's kind of useless.

Also, I can not explain where the unicorn in that first picture came from.
[close]

By the way, sorry for the wall of text. I just find this to be an interesting subject, that I really want to discuss.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk