Yikes. It’s a little scary to think I may have uploaded a photo of myself to Facebook without first reading the TOS and then consulting a futurologist to make sense of its implications.
This is pretty cool and eerie at the same time. The biggest thing to keep into mind about these algorithms is that the computer “dream” of these moving videos so they can be inaccurate. Nevertheless, seeing some moving video of my ancestors would be pretty neat.
My understanding (happy to be proven incorrect) is that's still a matter of disagreement. AFAIK, the idea of the brain having feature detectors of various kinds remains a matter of research as it has been for decades.
I’m not an expert but my understanding of it is that our brains aren’t like computers. So, rather than storing precise memories, we probably have multiple memories sharing the same neural connections. Like, the memory of grandpa’s beard is probably mixed up with the memory of all sorts of beards.
In that way, the artificial neural net seems similar (while at the same time vastly different).
I'm pretty sure that you either see the same thing as I do when you close your eyes, or you don't, and that it's very difficult to communicate about what "seeing" something in your mind actually means.
Within about an hour, I got sent the link to Deep Nostalgia by several acquaintances. None of whom are AI Researchers or particularly tech minded. Daily Prophet come to life resonates. ML techniques that touch universal, ancestral themes clearly have more mainstream appeal than an agent that can solve geometry proofs. Raw human emotional response is thus a crucial component of evaluating Beneficial AI.
Honestly it reminds me of an effect straight out of Harry Potter films. Would be an interesting affect if it could be easily applied to otherwise static billboards and such
I think that puppeteering the dead is actually quite a disturbing thing to do in general, and find endeavors such as the "resurrection" of Tupac to be in very poor taste.
Accurate to what? How some other person moves? Its like wearing someone else's skin Ed Gein style. Maybe if they were modeling it based on other photography.
But it can't be accurate. Actors know that even micromovements tell a story and convey emotion. The computer cannot possibly infer enough about the person from a single photo to reconstruct that story. Were they a fidgety person? Were they tired that day? Bored? Impatient because they need to get the store before it closes and the photoshoot is taking a long time?
Imagine running this software on a photo of your parents. Do you think you would be impressed by the accuracy?
Could not agree more. I also maintain the unpopular opinion that speculatory colorization of black and white historical imagery is also doing damage to the accuracy of the general historical canon.
It’s a fair point but I think there’s a difference between some music group that owns the rights to Tupac’s likeness creating an image of him to sell more things and a family member wanting to see an deceased relative in motion.
But I take your point that it could be used in distasteful ways, much like how Tupac was used (IMO).
I can't be the only one who has thought that deep fakes + Cameo = moneymaker! Pitch the celebs "hey you can have 70% of the cameo money, but you don't have to lower yourself to _actually doing the cameo_". We'll just take the other 30% to pay actors to do it for you.
You can't try to imitate him to trick audiences into thinking it's him, no. That's already been a lawsuit (well, not Brad Pitt), and resulted in SAG rules against it.
The Prior-Units theorem states that if you can put an idea into words, there exists prior units in proportion to the utility of the idea (so there's an infinity of novel but useless ideas).
Is there a variant of this along those lines but in regards to "someone made a movie about this"?
I watched the movie and had to read the wiki page about the novel to follow it. And I'm a) no longer smoking weed, b) used to teach a history of film class in a lit department at a university, b) also enjoyed Lem when I was reading those works.
I enjoyed the film, but it's very difficult to read without at least a glance at a synopsis of the source material.
More interesting is the book it's loosely based on, where protagonist is split between delusional and real mental states. Stanislav Lem's The Futurological Congress, excellent read.
I imagine when processing power doubles a few more times that we'll be able to do that in real time. Pick your movie, then pick which actors you want, use your Mii as the next James Bond, etc..
It would be in Cameo's interest to ban deepfakes preemptively (since devaluing actors, their primary content creators, would not be wise even moreso if they are unionized), and I'm honestly surprised they haven't already.
The thing is, you need to find an actor who can do a perfect impression of your rhythms and mannerisms -- facial, bodily, and vocal.
Which is actually incredibly hard. It's easy to do jokingly and exaggeratedly for SNL. But getting it down enough to be believable is a ton of work.
Also, celebs LOVE doing cameos. They're not lowering themselves. It's a blast to do. Except in very rare circumstances, celebs aren't doing cameos for the money.
> Martha Powell (Hayley Atwell) and Ash Starmer (Domhnall Gleeson) are a young couple who have moved to Ash's remote family house in the countryside. The day after moving in, Ash is killed while returning the hire van. At the funeral, Martha's friend Sarah (Sinead Matthews) talks about a new online service which helped her in a similar situation. Martha yells at her, but Sarah signs Martha up anyway. After discovering she is pregnant, Martha reluctantly tries it out. Using all of Ash's past online communications and social media profiles, the service creates a new virtual "Ash". Starting out with instant messaging, Martha uploads more videos and photos and begins to talk with the artificial Ash over the phone. Martha takes it on countryside walks, talking to it constantly while neglecting her sister's messages and calls.
came here to find this. This sort of animation is beyond the uncanny valley; far enough to wrench someone's heart who has lost someone see their dear one moving again. But alas, too removed from reality.
This would also work for a scary room in amusement parks. Imagine Harry Potter-like photos of yourself + previous visitors screaming and trying to get out of the picture frame.
It's not just an image transform, because it has to create facial features that were occluded in the original. (And correctly occluded existing features when the head turns.)
In the video with the sunglasses, for instance, the computer had to invent that ear on our left. (With mixed results -- it looks a bit like Mike Tyson got at it.)
I would be just like Harry Potter, when it would be possible to print moving photos on a paper or a wall. With a sound preferably. I liked the idea of an moving image of Harry Potter repeatedly saying "Eat dung, Umbridge". Wouldn't it great to paint a graffiti saying obscene things to a passers-by? Then you could hide behind bushes and record a video how people react. Oh, and you could draw another graffiti which might answer to the first one. The city would become a different place, I'd stop using internet and start using reality again. It would be so much fun. Not for a long I expect, then morally wounded citizens would ban moving graffiti to make world boring again. But for a few years we could have a lot of fun. And then move to underground.
So freaking amazing how good the 3D depth perception is on that 3rd GIF. The right side of his hair is correctly obscured when he turns his head and even his eyelids move correctly. The only slight issue is his "lazy eye", but then you could argue the AI took a little creative liberty
just tried it with 3 or 4 pictures: some parts of the animation are convincing, but another good part is just too distorted, the tool fails to keep the shape of the head, the person becomes someone else. Good fun tho.
In fact they have a separate colorisation feature for B&W pics. It turns people white (with a pink hue), and there isn't a setting to let it know that the subject isn't white.
While we're on the subject of nostalgia.. did you know nostalgia used to be considered a serious mental illness? Although, it seems, it can do you some good, or so the research says
“Get out of here! Go back to Rome. You're young and the world is yours. I'm old. I don't want to hear you talk anymore. I want to hear others talking about you. Don't come back. Don't think about us. Don't look back. Don't write.
Don't give in to nostalgia. Forget us all. If you do and you come back, don't come see me. I won't let you in my house. Understand?“
Cinema Paradiso
It might be nice for someone to combine one of these with a recoloring model.
I remember initially being surprised when my parents told me that "the past was in color; just the photos were in black and white". Apparently, color film photography didn't really become economical until the 1960s. Being able to see black and white photos of the past with added colors can help give a better sense of what the past actually looked like.
(The usual caveats about the risks of incorrect recoloring apply, of course.)
My intuition is that like taxiderming a beloved pet, these will feel "not quite right" because of the lack of subtle characteristics that make the person who they are in your memory.
I used this to animate a relative of mine that we had just discovered in court documents (from a mugshot from 1926) and blew my family's collective mind. I had to keep reminding them that this wasn't real - this is an AI-driven fantasy. They did not seem capable of understanding what I was saying. I am scared of our Black Mirror future.
Technically this is amazing but I find it too disturbing as a thing. This is like creeping out the past into something it was not. Again, I applaud the technical aspect of this and it was bound to happen sooner or later. Will it become a thing where we take our long dead great great grandparents for a ride? Im not sure but I hope it will not
Yeah, I just feel deeply uneasy about this and I can't really put my finger on why, perhaps it just feels too flippant. My sister died 20 years ago and i feel like if i were to upload her image I would run the risk of overwriting my own memories of her somehow? I'm sure others feel differently but this isn't for me.
It's exceptionally creepy. I think you nailed part of the reason why: it's an imposter, it's fraudulent. Straight out of the twilight zone.
Just wait until AI malware starts impersonating people we know or used to know in a concerted harrassment or manipulation campaign. Oh the evil shit people are going to do in the next decade or two.
100 comments
[ 5.3 ms ] story [ 193 ms ] threadThis is pretty cool and eerie at the same time. The biggest thing to keep into mind about these algorithms is that the computer “dream” of these moving videos so they can be inaccurate. Nevertheless, seeing some moving video of my ancestors would be pretty neat.
The AI "dream" is based only on the single image.
In that way, the artificial neural net seems similar (while at the same time vastly different).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia
Also note that aphantasia is not a condition which is confirmed to even exist.
I've tested it and it only really works with high quality pics taken against a plain background. Otherwise your ancestors look like ghouls.
I think that puppeteering the dead is actually quite a disturbing thing to do in general, and find endeavors such as the "resurrection" of Tupac to be in very poor taste.
Imagine running this software on a photo of your parents. Do you think you would be impressed by the accuracy?
But I take your point that it could be used in distasteful ways, much like how Tupac was used (IMO).
> 30-odd geek sued for Billions for infringing on the "Brad Pitt" brand.
Interesting times...
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/revealed_the_real_life_dr
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1821641/
Is there a variant of this along those lines but in regards to "someone made a movie about this"?
I enjoyed the film, but it's very difficult to read without at least a glance at a synopsis of the source material.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cam_(film)
Which is actually incredibly hard. It's easy to do jokingly and exaggeratedly for SNL. But getting it down enough to be believable is a ton of work.
Also, celebs LOVE doing cameos. They're not lowering themselves. It's a blast to do. Except in very rare circumstances, celebs aren't doing cameos for the money.
> Martha Powell (Hayley Atwell) and Ash Starmer (Domhnall Gleeson) are a young couple who have moved to Ash's remote family house in the countryside. The day after moving in, Ash is killed while returning the hire van. At the funeral, Martha's friend Sarah (Sinead Matthews) talks about a new online service which helped her in a similar situation. Martha yells at her, but Sarah signs Martha up anyway. After discovering she is pregnant, Martha reluctantly tries it out. Using all of Ash's past online communications and social media profiles, the service creates a new virtual "Ash". Starting out with instant messaging, Martha uploads more videos and photos and begins to talk with the artificial Ash over the phone. Martha takes it on countryside walks, talking to it constantly while neglecting her sister's messages and calls.
https://myhr.tg/1O7m77RK
And these articulated sunglasses.
https://myhr.tg/1rX4Z8Xs
In the video with the sunglasses, for instance, the computer had to invent that ear on our left. (With mixed results -- it looks a bit like Mike Tyson got at it.)
https://i.imgur.com/Bn0AgkJ.mp4
Straight-on photos seem to work a lot better, for obvious reasons. It's not very good at compensating proportions for turned heads.
A friend of mine, her mother from eastern europe in the 1970s:
https://i.imgur.com/iLc4iIt.mp4
That one came out decently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6I_wEetSck&t=30s
While we're on the subject of nostalgia.. did you know nostalgia used to be considered a serious mental illness? Although, it seems, it can do you some good, or so the research says
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/09/science/what-is-nostalgia...
The past can be like a black hole if you get too close it pulls you again and again until you disappear.
I remember initially being surprised when my parents told me that "the past was in color; just the photos were in black and white". Apparently, color film photography didn't really become economical until the 1960s. Being able to see black and white photos of the past with added colors can help give a better sense of what the past actually looked like.
(The usual caveats about the risks of incorrect recoloring apply, of course.)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18363870
https://www.myheritage.com/deep-nostalgia/result/861467271-5...
1. Take the output of thispersondoesnotexist.com
2. Animate the image of the "person" using this tool
3. Profit?
https://myhr.tg/10yVgL9d
Just wait until AI malware starts impersonating people we know or used to know in a concerted harrassment or manipulation campaign. Oh the evil shit people are going to do in the next decade or two.