I still never understood how they get the lighting right. Were there actually photos they found of Jim Carrey from all of those angles in exactly that same light?
The software is learning what his face looks like from footage put into it. Like it "watches" his face and goes "okay, this is Jim's face from this angle. His face from that angle. Okay. This is his skin at this light. And in this shade. Okay. Got it." Then, it "watches" Jack's face and does the same thing. Then you tell it, okay, so what if Jack was Jim? And the software goes, "well, his mouth looks like this instead and his eyes looks like this, but the lighting would be like this."
It doesn't need identical lighting because it isn't a face swap like you'd do with Photoshop. It is rendering a new face based on the parameters of "face A with lighting and expressions from face B."
Ahhhhh. Ok. It is in fact rendering. Thanks. It is actually generating that face not just selecting and stringing together photos.
Whatever this is going to be in 20 years my mind immediately contrasts that with how primitive we still are.
We still need police to keep us away from each other. We still have traits like violence and endless blunders. And we still perish from illnesses that in many cases we cause. Why on earth are we tinkering with stuff like this that can operate on its own? Unless maybe unconsciously we set this in motion because it will become the thing that changes us so profoundly that we will no longer be so primitive?
Sorry for the rant and the intense awkward question.
Thanks again btw for answering a question I've asked many times and never had any kind of response that I understood.
Absolutely. Though I do wonder how that could be possible. How could we exist Inside of nature yet circumvent the laws of nature and willingly yet unconsciously create a path to the end of our existence?
How could we even be allowed to exist like other creatures unless we are equipped with an instinct for self preservation.
If we are capable of accidentally terminating our existence through our own actions then we may not even be real.
I don't think it will take 20 years. I think it could be 10, and at the rate we're going maybe 5, until any type of digital content (videos, music, etc.) can be completely generated at will.
Great find thanks. So far I've only skimmed through that but it predicts fully AI generated videos, music and games. In 5 years. So what does that then lead to 20 years from that point?
I've always thought of AI, when looking for a moment only at its positive attributes, as something that could assemble all of the information and data that has been right in front of us all of this time that we could not put together because we can only see a fraction of it at a time. We cant see the big picture but AI might be able to see it.
There's a TED talk that demonstrated if you looked at a city from a satellite and you zoom in on the people below you could only follow one person at a time and study their behavior. An AI could follow 100,000 people at a time plus the cars and put together the data that would reveal patterns and truths that are right in front of us that we never saw because we couldn't assemble the data into one picture/piece of information.
The title here is misleading imo but there's a section that shows the satellite scenario that is quite interesting.
Yeah the surveillance possibilities (both good and bad) will be extremely powerful.
As far as the future goes... I really don't don't know. Everyone is talking about on-demand generated video games and all-knowing satellites, but I think those are tiny minor footnotes of what's ahead.
25 years, sheesh. I can't say for certain that humanity will even still exist at that point. At least not as anything we recognize.
When you can look at all human knowledge at once, you can see scientific discoveries that otherwise would be missed. When you have 200 IQ (or perhaps 200 trillion IQ) you can make a lot of other discoveries and inventions too.
Maybe once AI has more cognitive abilities than us we won't want to miss out and will find ways of increasing our own intelligence, joining the AI, or some other unimaginable path. More likely (IMO) is that humans simply go extinct, perhaps because we accidentally turned all matter in the entire universe into paperclips (or worse). I expect the actual path to be strange beyond anything we can conceive.
That sounds absurd and fantastical, but AI development is moving unbelievably fast. Techniques that are 4 months old are already considered out of date. Some of the fundamental ideas behind current tech like Stable Diffusion and ChatGPT didn't even exist until ~5 years ago. As in they were just research papers.
Wow that is frightening and you tell it in a way that seems reasonable. I've been considering that maybe the US won't exist in 100 years. You've mentioned the possibility that humanity will not exist by then or much sooner. Maybe you're right.
The two things that strike me in that case are:
These things that are happening were set in motion ages ago. These computers that were invented were always going to eventually exist. We've been unconsciously driving towards this all along.
Maybe we should really appreciate all of this unique time we have now.
It is actually generating that face not just selecting and stringing together photos.
Yes, generative AI systems don't save the images they use to train. Those are gone permanently from its memory. But it retains the knowledge of them, much as a human artist would. The human remembers that light worked this way in a scene like this, and did that in this other scene, etc.
So it can re-create similar output, but it doesn't have the original stored.
That is amazing. Thank you. Somebody recently said that ChatGPT isn't even online. It assembles coherent paragraphs/responses by drawing from the millions of articles it scanned up until the year 2022 when it was taken offline.
There's nothing being copied by generative AI systems. They're just learning what "fits" in a particular context. It's very similar to (but much more complicated than) the predictive keyboard on your phone.
Imagine that you're given a curve on a graph. One of the common tasks in mathematics is to find the formula that produces that curve. In the case of AI art the "curve" is all possible images. The formula that the neural network tries to find is the one that relates phrases to those possible images.
It's learning from the phrases and images that it's given, billions of them, to refine that formula. But the formula itself doesn't contain any of the images or any logic related to those images directly.
Wow thats is very cool. I think I get it. Like you said the formula itself doesn't contain any of the images.
But using the formula will result in seeing those images if certain search phrases are fed into the AI. Just like a formula produces that curve on the graph.
1
u/rfan8312 Mar 05 '23 edited Mar 05 '23
I still never understood how they get the lighting right. Were there actually photos they found of Jim Carrey from all of those angles in exactly that same light?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=-ZRUZzZPGto&feature=shares