amanuonsense

8 ms·

1.
by amanuonsense 4y ago
> I'm not sure sure that originality is that different between a human and a neural network. It is, yes. For example, a neural network can't invent a new art style on its own, or at least existing models can't, they can on
2.
by amanuonsense 4y ago
Silly yourself. If there were simply a "non-zero" number of charts in them, the model wouldn't have, you know, modelled them. That the model can reproduce graphs is clear evidence that it saw enough graphs to reproduce them.
3.
by amanuonsense 4y ago
Hah. That could be a great way to use those models. "Talk to the AI until you know what you want, then I'll make it for you". I'm totally with your wife, btw, the attitude of her customers sounds horrible. On the other h
4.
by amanuonsense 4y ago
If I understand your interpretation correctly, you wouldn't expect it to generate anything else precise, either. For instance, you wouldn't expect it to be able to generate the precise contours of a face, correct?
5.
by amanuonsense 4y ago
What you said was that they weren't trained on chart images, not that they weren't the focus: > The image generation models weren't trained on chart images, everyone already knows they're gonna be bad at that. I have
6.
by amanuonsense 4y ago
I was in a meeting on Cognitive AI at the Royal Society in London last week where a gentleman from Stanford presented work where GPT-3 was prompted to solve math equations step-by-step and did well (better than I would have expected). Point
7.
by amanuonsense 4y ago
Isn't yours just a bad faith comment? Why would I not have clicked the link?
8.
by amanuonsense 4y ago
> The image generation models weren't trained on chart images, everyone already knows they're gonna be bad at that. Stable Diffusion was trained on images of charts and graphs. It knows what a powerpoint presentation and even a
9.
by amanuonsense 4y ago
We already know what those models are good at. Everybody keeps posting their cherry-picked good results. Why not get the chance to see some failures, too? Isn't it interesting to know what those models are bad at? There's too few
10.
by amanuonsense 4y ago
Wait, why is this the wrong comparison? Where does it say that those models can't generate graphs? Why is everyone so sure that this is not one of the intended applications of image generation? Who made up those rules that drive nerds
11.
by amanuonsense 4y ago
> Those tools are for generating images and art, not precise schematics. Who says that? Where does it say that Dall-E and Stable Diffusion are only for generating images and art? Why are graphs not images? And why can't they be art?
12.
by amanuonsense 4y ago
This is what it should look like: https://www.bdaddik.com/en/comics-collectible-postcards/2967... Modulo s/Lucky Luke/astronaut/g Note that the image above should be in Dall-E's training set. S
13.
by amanuonsense 4y ago
After reading your comment I asked Stable Diffusion to create photorealistic images of a graph with three lines (similar to the smallest prompt in the article). Here's the results of three attempts with slightly different prompts: htt
14.
by amanuonsense 4y ago
OK, so people complain that Stable Diffusion and friends are trained on art so it's not fair to ask them to produce graphs because graphs are not art. So I asked them to produce artistic graphs. Here are the results of the prompts &quo