Discover the magic of the internet at Imgur, a community powered entertainment destination. Lift your spirits with funny jokes, trending memes, entertaining gifs, inspiring stories, viral videos, and so much more from users like ptkWilliams.
Yeah I meant the drawing, the original. I would consider that a painting, but that’s semantics.
One of the biggest issues I see with this is the two people in the bottom right. They are naked and most likely slaves. One of them has a lighter skin color and the other a darker skin color. Whilst it isn’t the focus of the original drawing, it is a part of it, because it is a part of history.
In the new “AI improved” version, not only is all detail lost and are there straight up mistakes, the light colored slave now has clothes on (implying it’s not a slave) and the darker colored one is simply deleted.
Rewriting history by deleting slavery using AI is a HUGE issue and highlights why you should absolutely not do this.
The original contains so much more information and context, you are deleting all of that. Basically everything that made the original worth anything and worth including in the article is gone.
If you say you can’t see the differences you are full of shit, get the fuck out of here.
Oh, I see – I meant the 2nd lighthouse picture. The one that is much higher fidelity to the original image. I see what you’re saying about the first image
No need to be ugly I don’t think — Thanks for the feedback all the same.
I honestly did not notice it because my focus was on the lighthouse structure itself and that level of fidelity wasn’t something I personally needed as an addendum to the original image (not replacement)
So, I could get tiny subject fidelity up by using larger images from the start, but that would dramatically increase generation time.
Right now an image runs through GPT AND generates in about 10-15 seconds. If we pretend you were using this, what the max time you’d want to wait for the highest quality image?
If I added an upscale button to the AI image that produced a 4X much higher detail/fidelity image but took longer, would that be a solution?
I think you have a flawed understanding of what “AI” is and does.
It doesn’t enhance, it doesn’t improve, it doesn’t increase tiny subject fidelity. It makes stuff up, it invents data, in other words it’s total BS.
Using something like AI upscaling for videogames is fine, because if it fucks up it’s at worse a tiny glitch to get annoyed with. Using it on something like Wikipedia, which for many people is a source of information, is VERY dangerous and downright stupid. You can’t rely on anything produced by AI. It isn’t the magic zoom and enhance button we know from TV and movies.
When Elden Ring came out, I wanted a huge ass poster of it. But even the official press release only included images of limited resolution, fine for a wallpaper on the computer, not fine for a high quality print. I messed around with different AI upscaling techniques till I found one I was happy with. Even then I spent hours tweaking the parameters and throwing a lot of computing power against it, till I got out something I was happy with. And even now I know small little details which aren’t right because of that algorithm, but I’m the only one who knows or sees so I was OK with it.
If you are learning about subjects by using AI, please stop and use actual primary sources. What you are learning is fiction, a fantasy and not real life.
So, this is more than just running the image through an AI generator – It uses a few techniques to lock the image to the lines in the original image and the prompt is aware of the article data and the image via GPT vision, controlnet, and the internet.
Also, this does not replace the images on Wikipedia, it’s a chrome extension that let’s you toggle between original and generated images – The intent is if you see an old 1700s etching and wonder what it really looked like – Or see a poorly drawn Mughal era painting and wonder what the scene might have looked like in real life – The only real ‘funcitonal’ use I’ve seen building it is with coins and other things that are ‘worn down’ It does a pretty good job at making that stuff more visible – There’s a few coin examples in the post.
Can you look at the line drawing of the lighthouse of Alexandria and the AI generated image for me and tell me if there’s some level of fidelity improvement that could be present to make you feel differently? I struggle to find a lot of differences other than the color.
The ‘upscale’ button could just let us start with a higher resolution starting image with all details preserved – In the painting of the lighthouse, where the boy is removed, that kind of thing would get fixed and small characters would be much better preserved, at the cost of generation time – I’m not saying just upscale the AI image.
On the comment about fiction/fantasy – The majority of the images we’re modifying are not ‘primary sources’ in that Hermann Thiersch never saw the Lighthouse – This feels like the same level of fantasy since we’re using his original image with such high fidelity. I’m curious to get your thoughts.
Please just stop, you don’t know what you are doing.
People who went to school for over a decade in this subject would be able to tell you a thousand things about some of the images you are referencing. People worked hard to include the best possible image with the article.
You then go and generate some BS image and say: “I struggle to find a lot of differences other than the color.”
And no these things cannot be fixed, there is no fixing a flawed principle. You can’t fix it by renaming it or by saying it’s only a chrome extension. Please stop.
Do you have any articles or reading I can do on what those ‘thousand’ things would be? I can definitely build that into the model either with fine-tuning or connecting GPT to the internet.
I wholesale disagree things can’t be fixed and your logic there doesn’t really track. In general your manner reminds me of the famous Sartre quote. You don’t seem to really be interested in engaging in good faith. I find your failure to even attempt an answer at my question suggests your true motives.
If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
The drawing is the original and the painting is the AI image :)
On that image too, I can’t even see any difference in the lines at all – which differences are most obvious and upsetting to you?
Thanks for the feedback!
Yeah I meant the drawing, the original. I would consider that a painting, but that’s semantics.
One of the biggest issues I see with this is the two people in the bottom right. They are naked and most likely slaves. One of them has a lighter skin color and the other a darker skin color. Whilst it isn’t the focus of the original drawing, it is a part of it, because it is a part of history.
In the new “AI improved” version, not only is all detail lost and are there straight up mistakes, the light colored slave now has clothes on (implying it’s not a slave) and the darker colored one is simply deleted. Rewriting history by deleting slavery using AI is a HUGE issue and highlights why you should absolutely not do this.
The original contains so much more information and context, you are deleting all of that. Basically everything that made the original worth anything and worth including in the article is gone.
If you say you can’t see the differences you are full of shit, get the fuck out of here.
Oh, I see – I meant the 2nd lighthouse picture. The one that is much higher fidelity to the original image. I see what you’re saying about the first image
No need to be ugly I don’t think — Thanks for the feedback all the same.
I honestly did not notice it because my focus was on the lighthouse structure itself and that level of fidelity wasn’t something I personally needed as an addendum to the original image (not replacement)
So, I could get tiny subject fidelity up by using larger images from the start, but that would dramatically increase generation time.
Right now an image runs through GPT AND generates in about 10-15 seconds. If we pretend you were using this, what the max time you’d want to wait for the highest quality image?
If I added an upscale button to the AI image that produced a 4X much higher detail/fidelity image but took longer, would that be a solution?
I think you have a flawed understanding of what “AI” is and does.
It doesn’t enhance, it doesn’t improve, it doesn’t increase tiny subject fidelity. It makes stuff up, it invents data, in other words it’s total BS.
Using something like AI upscaling for videogames is fine, because if it fucks up it’s at worse a tiny glitch to get annoyed with. Using it on something like Wikipedia, which for many people is a source of information, is VERY dangerous and downright stupid. You can’t rely on anything produced by AI. It isn’t the magic zoom and enhance button we know from TV and movies.
When Elden Ring came out, I wanted a huge ass poster of it. But even the official press release only included images of limited resolution, fine for a wallpaper on the computer, not fine for a high quality print. I messed around with different AI upscaling techniques till I found one I was happy with. Even then I spent hours tweaking the parameters and throwing a lot of computing power against it, till I got out something I was happy with. And even now I know small little details which aren’t right because of that algorithm, but I’m the only one who knows or sees so I was OK with it.
If you are learning about subjects by using AI, please stop and use actual primary sources. What you are learning is fiction, a fantasy and not real life.
So, this is more than just running the image through an AI generator – It uses a few techniques to lock the image to the lines in the original image and the prompt is aware of the article data and the image via GPT vision, controlnet, and the internet.
Also, this does not replace the images on Wikipedia, it’s a chrome extension that let’s you toggle between original and generated images – The intent is if you see an old 1700s etching and wonder what it really looked like – Or see a poorly drawn Mughal era painting and wonder what the scene might have looked like in real life – The only real ‘funcitonal’ use I’ve seen building it is with coins and other things that are ‘worn down’ It does a pretty good job at making that stuff more visible – There’s a few coin examples in the post.
Can you look at the line drawing of the lighthouse of Alexandria and the AI generated image for me and tell me if there’s some level of fidelity improvement that could be present to make you feel differently? I struggle to find a lot of differences other than the color.
The ‘upscale’ button could just let us start with a higher resolution starting image with all details preserved – In the painting of the lighthouse, where the boy is removed, that kind of thing would get fixed and small characters would be much better preserved, at the cost of generation time – I’m not saying just upscale the AI image.
On the comment about fiction/fantasy – The majority of the images we’re modifying are not ‘primary sources’ in that Hermann Thiersch never saw the Lighthouse – This feels like the same level of fantasy since we’re using his original image with such high fidelity. I’m curious to get your thoughts.
Thanks for the feedback!
Please just stop, you don’t know what you are doing.
People who went to school for over a decade in this subject would be able to tell you a thousand things about some of the images you are referencing. People worked hard to include the best possible image with the article.
You then go and generate some BS image and say: “I struggle to find a lot of differences other than the color.”
And no these things cannot be fixed, there is no fixing a flawed principle. You can’t fix it by renaming it or by saying it’s only a chrome extension. Please stop.
Do you have any articles or reading I can do on what those ‘thousand’ things would be? I can definitely build that into the model either with fine-tuning or connecting GPT to the internet.
I wholesale disagree things can’t be fixed and your logic there doesn’t really track. In general your manner reminds me of the famous Sartre quote. You don’t seem to really be interested in engaging in good faith. I find your failure to even attempt an answer at my question suggests your true motives.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-anti-semites-are-completely-unaware-of-the-absurdity
Have a great day and look out for the next update! I will incorporate your feedback into the changes.