×
all 98 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]instanced_banana 237 points238 points  (15 children)

We have reached endgame.

[–]plasticparakeet 101 points102 points  (5 children)

reached

If you only knew, someone had this idea before but with blockchain.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]GardenGnostic 36 points37 points  (0 children)

    That's just cryptokitties with girls.

    [–]7373737373 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    Good lord

    [–]hyperion2011 10 points11 points  (0 children)

    https://crypko.ai/#/announcement

    The market is ripe for disruption!

    [–]Chavarlison 12 points13 points  (6 children)

    Not quite. I noticed it is only doing one template. One face shape for all. Also, anyone else see Asuka from Evangelion in the bottom part of the 8x8?

    [–]yodal_ 10 points11 points  (1 child)

    If you read the text it states those are faces taken from social media to train the whole thing.

    [–]Chavarlison 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Oh... I guess I didn't read that part. It was indeed Asuka.

    [–]HoriSanBestDad 7 points8 points  (3 children)

    Yeah, also notice Holo from Spice and Wolf? Second row, third column from the top left. Also at the third from the bottom row, second from the right.

    [–]Brian 5 points6 points  (1 child)

    The author actually made further models to generate specifically Holo and Asuka faces, posting a sample of them on r/spiceandwolf and r/evangelion ( holo faces, asuka faces) under a pseudonym to see how easily they'd be taken for fanart.

    Presumably the "selected from social media" here is including ones they've posted that were generated by those models as well as the more general model.

    [–]gwern 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Presumably the "selected from social media" here is including ones they've posted that were generated by those models as well as the more general model.

    No, the 8x8 is all from the general model's TWDNE samples, ones which were reshared as 'good' on social media. (Might as well make use of the human flesh-engine searching all 100k faces...)

    The training set already included Holo/Asuka faces so they do pop up in the general model's output; the finetuning/specialization is about making a model which creates only a specific character, since we still don't have good control of it, and hopefully doing better on that specific character after being focused on it. (Subjectively, the Asukas/Holos produced by the Asuka/Holo-specialized models do seem better than the Asuka/Holos found by random sampling in the general model, but it's hard to be sure.)

    [–]Chavarlison 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    Turns out those are the pictures used to train the AI to make their imaginary waifus. The AI isn't that good yet because I still don't see the ones it makes as waifu material.

    Edit: looked through the list again and I only notice a handful I recognize. It's amazing how much a character's personality exists throughout the whole accessory ensemble instead of just in the face. i.e. Holo's ears, Mai's framing hair, etc.

    [–]MedicalTape 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Actually... This is to go even further beyond.

    [–]MrK_HS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Still a month, man

    [–]haabilo 182 points183 points  (22 children)

    This site:

    Can create unlimited waifus through sheer programmatic perfection.

    Also this site:

    Can't figure out javascript intervals.

    [–]gwern 94 points95 points  (10 children)

    A sad and cautionary example of what happens when you minmax for your GAN-trainer prestige class but forget to save any points for your JS feat.

    (The bug may or may not be fixed now.)

    [–]rydan 36 points37 points  (8 children)

    This is my problem. I can make practically any type of service or website, so long as it doesn't require a frontend.

    [–]Chii 21 points22 points  (1 child)

    And if you can find a person who can make any frontend, but can't do any backend if their life depended on it, you'd make the ultimate startup!

    [–]sorahn -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Yo

    [–]CartmansEvilTwin 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Same. If I get told "this is how should look like" I can build it, but every time I'm trying to come up with my own front end design, it looks like absolute garbage.

    [–]13steinj 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    My problem is I can make a front end, but I can't design it, because my intuition on aesthetics is shit. Show me a photoshop mockup and I'll do it, ask me to make the mockup and I'll throw my hands in the air.

    [–]meneldal2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    UI design is not an easy job.

    And looking at many websites, they don't have good UI designers on staff.

    [–]robolab-io 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Hey... Check out Vue. Start from the official page tutorial. You'll know Vue in 30 minutes.

    [–]porcupinederp 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Vue solves nothing if you suck at UI design ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    [–]lawstudent2 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

    I can’t tell if this is sarcastic or not? Like saying “I can make any kind of car except for the frame, body and interior.”

    [–]haabilo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I actually contacted you about this bug. So I made myself look/sound a bit like a dick now. 😅

    Great stuff in any case.

    [–]312c 3 points4 points  (10 children)

    Also this site:

    Doesn't redirect non-www to www

    [–]gwern 15 points16 points  (0 children)

    I did try to fix that towards the beginning but somehow I borked the DNS for 20 minutes and was too terrified to try again. :(

    [–]elint 18 points19 points  (8 children)

    To be fair, that's backwards anyway. www is silly (and yes, I know there are similar pages for "always-www", but they're wrong).

    [–]ForeverAlot 17 points18 points  (6 children)

    That page can be largely reduced to "I don't like www and you shouldn't either". It doesn't address any of the technical trade-offs, such as cross-domain cookies, or acknowledge that a default redirect from the naked domain to www adequately addresses most confusion.

    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]BaconOfGreasy 9 points10 points  (2 children)

      I'll volunteer another technical trade-off that matters even if you have no other subdomains: you can CNAME your www subdomain to your CDN and keep your MX records. See: https://www.netlify.com/blog/2016/01/12/this-weekends-ddos-attack-and-whats-in-a-cname/

      [–]ForeverAlot 5 points6 points  (1 child)

      Isn't that only really a concern if you have other subdomains?

      Cross-domain cookies, yes.

      Generally, for grandma's yarn store, the technical reasons for including or omitting www do not apply, and the decision primarily comes down to branding. The only technical problem they need to address is redirecting from one to the other, because society is presently so confused about the matter that you need to anticipate both expectations.

      Unfortunately there is a non-trivial overlap of sites that really care about the branding -- and in particular www not being part of it -- and sites where the technical reasons for including www do apply.

      But whatever anyone's feelings on the continued relevance of the www subdomain, the linked Web site arguing against is simply misleading and unscientific. It boils down to, "it doesn't really matter and I don't like it, so leave it out", to which you might as well counter, "it doesn't really matter, until it does, so leave it in". https://www.yes-www.org/ is a little better in this regard.

      [–]YM_Industries -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

      Most of those reasons are either irrelevant or also apply to non-www.

      [–]droogans 41 points42 points  (6 children)

      This waifu does not exist, and that is a good thing.

      [–]swishyfeather 30 points31 points  (2 children)

      Um, I echo that sentiment

      [–]deliciousbrains 9 points10 points  (0 children)

      kiiiiillll meeeeee

      [–]Jerome_Eugene_Morrow 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      Daisuki, Armpit-chan.

      [–]WTFwhatthehell 14 points15 points  (0 children)

      There was a 4chan thread of people searching for the fucked up ones. Because the fucked up ones are their waifus.

      [–]NoraJolyne 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      *junji ito flashbacks*

      [–]MrK_HS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Next time make a NSFW tag man, I'm at uni

      [–]cheraphy 26 points27 points  (0 children)

      A'ight. Definitely need that demo page as a background.

      EDIT: Done and done

      1. Wallpaper Engine (google it) .

      2. Make new wallpaper

      3. html file with that demo page in an iframe.

      I recommend adding pointer-events: none; to the CSS to disable the mouseover zoom.

      [–]Brosmium93 18 points19 points  (3 children)

      I can see Holo from Spice and Wolf was in the training set.

      [–]gwern 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      If it's too hard to find Korbos in TWDNE, don't worry, I actually trained a specialized version of the StyleGAN on just Holo faces (which gave very nice results): https://www.reddit.com/r/SpiceandWolf/comments/apazs0/my_holo_face_collection/

      [–]ultranoobian 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      Who other to learn from, than the Wise Wolf herself?

      [–]Papa_Furanku 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      u/HoloFan4Life would be proud.

      [–]Kiyiko 26 points27 points  (26 children)

      Are people able to copy these waifus for their own commercial productions, or are they copyrighted?

      If they're copyrighted, does that cover every possible waifu that can be generated by it?

      [–]gwern 52 points53 points  (14 children)

      IP law is still unsettled on this topic of machine-generated art, but it's probably either all of the images are public domain (and can be safely used in a commercial production) or that by selecting among them & tweaking them, you create a new copyright on it by a de minimis creative contribution (likewise).

      Programs are not legal persons or entities and cannot own anything, so the NN definitely doesn't own the copyright.

      [–]bobobo1618 11 points12 points  (9 children)

      I wonder though, couldn't the output be treated as a derivative work of some of all of the training data?

      [–]Jump3r3 10 points11 points  (7 children)

      But isn't that how humans learn to draw? Looking at other artists' work and trying to reproduce that?

      [–]bobobo1618 -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

      Perhaps in a vague sense of "this was produced with paint, I too can produce visual representations with paint" but most artists don't learn by copying the work of others. They learn by producing their own original work. For example substantial parts of my wife's training (as a professional illustrator) were sketching live models and going to farms/zoos/gardens to draw the plants and animals from life.

      The main argument in my mind is that a computer is a deterministic machine. It can only process its inputs and produce an output. It may be advanced but it can't (at least with our current level of technology) create anything original of its own. Everything you get out of a neural network like this will be derived from the training data. The computer doesn't have the capacity to add originality to its output.

      [–]WTFwhatthehell 9 points10 points  (3 children)

      but most artists don't learn by copying the work of others

      You have met humans, right?

      Ask someone to compose a novel tune and 999 times out if a thousand they'll produce a warmed over mishmash of tunes they heard in their youth.

      Ask someone to write a fantasy book and they'll make yet another generic Tolkien ripoff.

      A computer may be deterministic but the choices of datasets , how the elements are merged, what's accepted and rejected, what tweaks are made are still all human.

      [–]bobobo1618 -5 points-4 points  (2 children)

      Yes but I'm talking about artists, not some random joe off the street.

      Before Tolkien, there was no Lord of the Rings to rip off. Tolkien himself was a human and he created Lord of the Rings. A computer couldn't have (and still can't) do that.

      [–]WTFwhatthehell 11 points12 points  (0 children)

      Artists aren't filled with special magical goo. They still remix and recycle. Typically liberally.

      Before Tolkien there were countless folktales and religious tropes that he ripped off constantly.

      And we don't limit the granting of copyright to magical beings who exist on the elemental plane of creativity, existing without any recycling. Mere mortals also get copyrights for their "inspired by x" works.

      [–]Jump3r3 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      But this doesn't mean that Tolkien didn't inspire from earlier writers. You know, creating is taking patterns from nature, other people's work etc and merging them together in one's unique way. You always create in some convention, so you have frame of creating, some sort of bounds

      [–]nikomo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      but most artists don't learn by copying the work of others.

      Not true for the famous painters in our history, a significant amount of them learnt by copying the works of masters.

      I'd argue for music as well, sampling is a well-established process by now, and most instrument players start by learning someone else's works. For young guitar players, Metallica comes to mind.

      [–]FryGuy1013 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      That's not really how GANs work though. At a high level, it's basically training two AIs, one to generate a picture, and one to learn how to figure out if a picture is drawn by the first AI or part of the data set. So the first AI is the one being "creative". It doesn't even have access to the data set, it just wants to make pictures and keeps doing it until it gets a treat (tricks the other AI), and tries again if it doesn't get a treat (didn't trick the other AI).

      [–]meneldal2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      That's my interpretation as well.

      You can't copyright the network architecture (you can however copyright the code itself). You can try to patent it (but I doubt it would work since it's not new enough compared to some other stuff).

      So any copyright would be with the training data itself. I am not familiar enough with copyright law to tell what license would work there.

      The trained model could be argued to be a derivative work, but is the output a derivative work as well? It's not that simple.

      [–]AlexWIWA 8 points9 points  (3 children)

      Knowing America, something made by a machine will belong to whoever made the machine.

      I really hope it gets decided in favor of public domain.

      [–]AhriLux 17 points18 points  (1 child)

      something made by a machine will belong to whoever made owns the machine.

      ftfy

      [–]AlexWIWA 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      True. I've made a lot of software that I either don't own any of or own a token amount.

      Good catch

      [–]jpl75 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      To me this makes sense (with the correction of whoever owns the machine as is pointed by another reply):

      I own the software program, or have a license to use the software program and the license explicitly assigns intellectual property rights for the software output to me (e.g. the GPL licensed GCC Runtime Exception). Why would an output from a neural network be treated any differently to, for example, a programming language compiler output?

      And even if it is argued that humans were not involved in the creation (which is somewhat dubious claim given most training data still uses human produced content as input), even then a IP assignment typical to work-for-hire where IP ownership is transferred as part of a negotiated contract seems more appropriate. The neural network is using my resources to produce the work after all, and operates under the direction (configuration and administration) of how I've set it up to work.

      Both options above would to me seem more consistent with current IP practices than arguing for public domain.

      What are the arguments that neural network outputs should fall under public domain?

      [–]master5o1 9 points10 points  (7 children)

      every possible waifu that can be generated by it

      Can't copyright something that is yet to exist. But upon generation, probably yes.

      [–]rasterbated -1 points0 points  (6 children)

      Wouldn't be surprised if US Copyright Code had the program owning the copyright

      [–]master5o1 14 points15 points  (5 children)

      It'll be a specific exception to allow Disney to have copyright on all future works that may or may not contain a mouse.

      [–]AlexWIWA 2 points3 points  (2 children)

      Life of the author plus 45 universal cycles.

      [–]master5o1 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      That's 95 Universal cycles for corporate copyright.

      [–]AlexWIWA 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Nah man, Disney lobbied it to 208 since you finished your DisneyTM copyrighted content.

      [–]rasterbated 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Oh yeah, forgot to tell you, Disney Skynet now owns the copyright to the mouse. Sorry, bad break, Disney Skynet is our one true overlord now.

      [–]spektre 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Could they please seize the mice in my garage then.

      [–]ChickenOfDoom 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      It uses the stylegan code, so probably inherits its license, which does not allow for commercial use:

      https://github.com/NVlabs/stylegan/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

      Not sure if that also applies to things created using it though

      [–]gwern 20 points21 points  (1 child)

      The license of the source code does not apply to any model you create with it. (That license also applies to the pretrained models Nvidia released as well, however, I started from scratch and my model is not a derivative work of their models.)

      [–]ChickenOfDoom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      oh nice

      [–]franzwong 13 points14 points  (0 children)

      Sometimes I want to learn AI because of these kinds of weird reasons. I am not interested in analysis of US citizen healthiness, but I know to reach that level is not easy too.

      [–]pmmeforotterfacts 20 points21 points  (3 children)

      This is what we all arrive to achieve but few of us can achieve

      [–]PureAsbestos 8 points9 points  (2 children)

      Did you mean hope to achieve? Or is there something I’m missing?

      [–]ath0 9 points10 points  (1 child)

      Strive.

      [–]PureAsbestos 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Ah, thanks

      [–]ipv6-dns 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      such Waifus have not soul. You know, alive soul. For love

      [–]Abdul_Alhazred_ 12 points13 points  (1 child)

      Quickly! someone contact Elon-chan!

      [–]rydan 7 points8 points  (2 children)

      Wait. Has any of them actually ever existed? They are cartoons.

      [–]QSCFE 6 points7 points  (0 children)

      blasphemy

      [–]killmenow30 9 points10 points  (0 children)

      You have a point. Not one the waifu loving community likes to hear but still

      [–]CouldBeSpooder 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      These should be used as default avatars for anime forums when people first sign up.

      [–]Euphoricus 5 points6 points  (2 children)

      This looks like overfitted network.

      There seem to be two kinds of images : First kind looks like plain copy of existing face. Holo, Asuka and others are an example. Second kind is image that is just random mess.

      So the network either "remembers" the faces and then re-imagines it. And when it tries something novel, it fails.

      [–]swordglowsblue 8 points9 points  (0 children)

      You may be seeing the example images in the article of training data and work in progress results. If you go to the actual site instead of this article about it (you can find the URL at the top of the page), the results are actually quite impressive.

      [–]enzain 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Welcome to gan

      [–]Phrygue 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      How about picking a data set with varied data? This is like running a Bayesian word generator with those stupid TurboTax "free free free free" commercials. Free free free? Hot damn, it's all Shakespeare up in here!

      [–]RAKtheUndead 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Where's Curtis LeMay when you need him?

      [–]ConanTheLeader 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Do threads ever get this popular on /Programming?

      That's not a complaint, just a humorous observation.

      [–]iDrDonkey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      A friend asked on similar topic where it put out human faces instead of waifus. He asked me how does it know that that person is not on earth?

      Does that network know faces of all the people on earth?

      What about a person whose face is never seen on internet?