Ah yes, the "moar boobs and add a little bit of sexy tummy tee hee" photoshop filter.
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
110 points (95.8% liked)
Australian News
778 readers
180 users here now
A place to share and discuss news relating to Australia and Australians.
Rules
- Follow the aussie.zone rules
- Keep discussions civil and respectful
- Exclude profanity from post titles
- Exclude excessive profanity from comments
- Satire is allowed, however post titles must be prefixed with
[satire]
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australia
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Banner: ABC
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sounds like generative AI in Photoshop
Which also requires a written prompt in order to generate the altered clothing after which a few options appear for the user to select and go with. The generated imagery is added as a new layer on top of the base image. It looks like they also added some adjustment layers (like for color or for contrast for example).There are so many steps to this where a human has to make a conscious decision to carry on.
paid plugin
They claimed that they outpainted a cropped version of the image, and the image they showed was what the AI came up with and they decided to print it as a real photo.
I honestly can't tell whether simply not caring is worse or not than photoshopping her tits bigger "on purpose."
It’s completely bullshit because nothing about her in the photo has been outpainted, its purely infilling. The entire midriff has been altered, but its the same height.
AI isn't written with code
@ryannathans
Oh... So all the hype, sales and industry has just sprung out of nowhere as if by magic... I never knew...
You're both half wrong.
There is code behind the scenes, but the training data is separate to the code. The training data is going to be scrapped from the web and it's going to be biased towards whatever is common on the Internet, the 'schoolboys' writing the code aren't exactly responsible for that, blame the media and what it influences mainly.
@Deceptichum @palitu @mozz @ryannathans
Soz, I forgot the 'sarchasm' tag...
You know, the gap between someone being sarcastic and the person that doesn't get it.
With all that said I am very disappointed that the sum total of human achievement for the last few millenia has come down to coding and training and recoding and retraining lumps of silicon to deliver half baked results that *still* have to be verified and are therefore not worth the power it takes to run them...
Waste. Of. Time.
Like a lot of technology it depends on what you do with it. A train can carry your stuff more effectively than a mule. You can use it to carry materials to build a university, or raw ingredients for a new drug that you can manufacture at scale, and that's probably a good thing. You can use it to carry weapons for a war that doesn't need to happen, or cattle from an increasingly-industrialized food supply, and that's a bad thing. You can maintain it poorly and spill toxic chemicals. Up to you.
@mozz @palitu @ryannathans @Deceptichum
Get it to solve Gaza/Ukraine/Yemen and I'll concede a point.
Until then its just a fucking scam and a waste of resources.
Well, that's a pretty silly statement. Saying it's impossible for this technology to be useful or a good thing, is just silly as if someone else said it's inevitable that it'll be a good thing.
The chicken pox vaccine didn't solve war in the middle east, but I'd still argue that it's clearly good that it happened. Same for AI; it can be good without needing to clear this insanely high bar you seem to feel is necessary for it to prove its usefulness.
For what it's worth, though, the part I'll agree with you on is that people will misuse the technology in ways to scam others out of money, or to make the world a worse place, maybe so much so that it eclipses any good that comes out of it. I'm just saying that's a choice they're making, not something inherent in the technology itself.
@mozz @palitu @ryannathans @Deceptichum
It's the complete abrogation of human values to a system that is being presented as being the saviour of everything that really pisses me off.
Going back to the original thread... the sum total of all of that effort in coding, training, power consumption and hardware has been to...
produce a picture of a female Australian politician with bigger tits...
coz that's what the techbro built model/configuration/metadata said.
Complete. Waste. Of. Time.
i have found some interesting uses, someone at work gets it to summarise meeting minutes, pretty good at it too, but you MUST review it, and ensure that it capture everything as well as the right conclusions.
I do think that it can make us lazy, and we will start to get worse at a lot of stuff.
It is prone to biases and misunderstanding, just like a person. it will be an interesting trip up the hype curve!
Wat
Honestly we should bring back stocks.
A day in the stocks for whatever idiot did this and the fact checking/editorial team that reviews their work would probably help them understand why people might be touchy about how they're seen in public.
add in rotten cabbage and tomatoes...
I'm not into torture, on other's at least. I just think that society might benefit from a bit of public humiliation of those that treat others as less than them.
if they are rotten, it shouldn't hurt, i dont think it is torture, just corporal punishment.
Oh wow, I really didn't think I'd see an example of "oops, AI did this by mistake, no one else is at fault" so fast after reading this article yesterday. Well, maybe it is the other way round, here they claim AI did it itself, the article is more about humans having to correct AI to make it look like AI is working perfectly...
it sounds very much a "blame the machine", it was not their fault... who has this an an AI workflow.
if man:
break
if woman:
sexify()
"...is common practice, the image was resized to fit our specs. During that process, the automation by Photoshop created an image that was not consistent with the original."
Oh God I can't 😂
*midriff 😉
Sounds like an electric guitar move 🎸 ⚡
sigh fixed...
whats the comm for people not knowing the saying, and just putting what they think they hear?
https://lemmy.world/c/boneappletea
It's all water under the fridge.
I had a fun trip down that comm. Thanks :)
I wonder if the new excuse any time a media company does something dodgy is "oh it was the AI sorry!"