Nobody cares about personal use. That's why we have concepts like fair use. It's when you turn around and try to make a business out of it.

You want to generate photos of copyrighted characters? Go for it. But OpenAI is making money off of that and that's the issue.

It seems like they made an effort to stop it, but their product is designed in such a way that doing so effectively is a sisyphean task.

The line of thinking you've displayed here is so obviously the inevitable trajectory of the internet; it's baffling that states are still clinging to denial.

> Now, what if I get the highest fidelity speakers and the highest fidelity microphone I can and play that song in my home. Then I use a deep learned denoiser to clean the signal and isolate the song’s true audio. Is this theft?

If the answer to this becomes "yes" for some motion down this spectrum, then it seems to me that it's tantamount to prohibiting general-purpose computing.

If you can evaluate any math of your fancy using hardware that you own, then indeed you can run this tooling, and indeed your thoughts can be repaired into something closely resembling the source material.

If the AI company sells it to you, no matter your prompting, they are stealing. If you also sell that work, then so are you.

This is similar to my experience trying to get Stable Diffusion to denoise a photo for me. (AIUI, under the hood they're trained to turn noise into an image that matches the prompt.) It would either do nothing (with settings turned way down) or take massive creative liberties (such as replacing my friend's face with a cartoon caricature while leaving the rest of the photo looking realistic).

I've had much better luck with models specifically trained for denoising. For denoising, the SCUNet model run via chaiNNer works well for me most of the time. (Occasionally SCUNet likes to leave noise alone in areas that are full of background blur, which I assume has to do with the way the image gets processed as tiles. It would make sense for the model to get confused with a tile that only has background blur, like maybe it assumes that the input image should contain nonzero high-frequency data.)

For your use case, you might want to use something like Real-ESRGAN or another superresolution / image restoration model, but I haven't played much in that space so I can't make concrete recommendations.

>hyper realistic photo

Never use the words "hyper realistic" when you want a photo. It makes no sense and misleads the generator. No one would describe a simple photograph as "hyper realistic," not a single real photo in the dataset will be tagged as "(hyper) realistic."

Hyperrealism is an art style and only ever used in the context of explicitely non-photographic artworks.

I think that upon closer inspections the (current) technology cannot make 'perfect' fake photos, so for the time being, the historian of the future will have no issue to ask his/her AI: "is that picture of Henry Bemis, with Bruce Willis, Einstein, and Ayrton Senna having a beer real?" And the AI will say "mos-def-nope!"

Correct. I will say the following as a STEM person that was lucky enough to have an art bachelor as well. One side of the world, the STEM nerds that have never understood nor experienced the inherently inefficient process of making art for lack of talent and predisposition, have won the game of capitalism many times over thanks to the incredible 40-years momentum of tech progress. Now they're trying to convince everyone else that art is stoopid, as proven by the fact that it's just a probabilistic choice away from being fully and utterly replicable. They ignore, willfully and possibly sometimes just for lack of understanding, that art and the creativity behind it is something that operates on a completely different plane than their logical view of the world, and Gen AI is the fundamental enabler letting them unleash all of their contempt for the inefficiency of humanities.

You don't even need to add much more to the prompts. Just a few words, and it changes the characters you get. It won't always produce something good, but at least we have a lot of control over what it produces. Examples:

"An image of an Indian female archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip" (https://sora.com/g/gen_01jqzet1p8fjaa808bmqnvf7rk)

"An image of a fat Russian archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip" (https://sora.com/g/gen_01jqzfk727erer98a6yexafe70)

"An image of a skeletal archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip" (https://sora.com/g/gen_01jqzfnaz6fgqvgwqw8w4ntf6p)

Or, give ChatGPT a starting image. (https://sora.com/g/gen_01jqzf7vdweg4v5198aqfynjym)

And by further remixing the images ChatGPT produces, you can get your images to be even more unique. (https://sora.com/g/gen_01jqzfzmbze0wa310m42f8j5yw)

This is the opposite of how people have thought about creativity for centuries, though.

The most creative person is someone who generates original, compelling work with no prompting at all. A very creative person will give you something amazing and compelling from a very small prompt. A so-so creative person will require more specific direction to produce something good. All the way down to the new intern who need paragraphs of specs and multiple rounds of revision to produce something usable. Which is about where the multi-billion-dollar AI seems to be?

"Prompt artist" makes me sigh out loud

Did you read the whole article? I don’t think he’s making that kind of argument. This is what he said:

> I only have one image in mind when I hear “an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip”.

> It would be unexpected and sort of amazing were the LLMs to come up with completely new images for the above prompts.

> Still, the near perfect mimicry is an uncomfortable reminder that AI is getting better at copying and closer to…something, but also a clear sign that we are a ways off from the differentiated or original reasoning/thinking that people associate with Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)