Fake Models, etc.

The face at 1:11 looks like Kristen Stewart's face applied to a man's head.

The nature of what constitutes fake, generated from constituent pieces, versus generated whole-cloth from scratch seems like an important distinction. Playing mix-and-match with facial features isn't exactly the same as a full deep-fake.
 
I suppose I should also add, if they're just playing mix-and-match with facial features to attempt to modify non-free images enough to make them their own, they might be in for a shock if any photographers discover elements of their photos in this company's portfolio and attempt to take them to court over it. Copyright does allow sufficiently derivative work to be free from the original work's copyright, but the nature of what constitutes sufficent derivation is up for debate.
 
These are 100 percent AI creations, not modified images, not deep fakes, not masive retouches.
 
Haven't they always used fake people in ads?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 
Haven't they always used fake people in ads?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

So all those enhancement aids I bought won't really work? :aiwebs_016:
 
These would pair up well with the floating heads in the antique shop...

(And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!)
 
I suppose I should also add, if they're just playing mix-and-match with facial features to attempt to modify non-free images enough to make them their own, they might be in for a shock if any photographers discover elements of their photos in this company's portfolio and attempt to take them to court over it. Copyright does allow sufficiently derivative work to be free from the original work's copyright, but the nature of what constitutes sufficent derivation is up for debate.

Oh great, so now photographers not only have to worry about outright theft of images, but now whether they've had pieces ripped off? Can you imagine the legal battles over what constitutes sufficient deviation in the AI composite? How do you even set a standard?
 
And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!
Right, to the discerning eye. But to the general public, these and other deep fakes can be used to trick the general public.

Very scary if you ask me.
 
And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!
Right, to the discerning eye. But to the general public, these and other deep fakes can be used to trick the general public.

Very scary if you ask me.

I didn't see anything in the video that says that these were the best quality available. Since it was prepared for a "news" piece, it might not have been seen as important. Besides that, remember that "popular' digital photography started at 640 x 480 (Apple QuickTime camera). If this is the best that can be done today, it won't take long to improve, if the market wants better.

I'm still letting this sink in. It doesn't make me happy. . . .
 
I suppose I should also add, if they're just playing mix-and-match with facial features to attempt to modify non-free images enough to make them their own, they might be in for a shock if any photographers discover elements of their photos in this company's portfolio and attempt to take them to court over it. Copyright does allow sufficiently derivative work to be free from the original work's copyright, but the nature of what constitutes sufficent derivation is up for debate.

These would pair up well with the floating heads in the antique shop...

(And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!)

And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!
Right, to the discerning eye. But to the general public, these and other deep fakes can be used to trick the general public.

Very scary if you ask me.
 
I suppose I should also add, if they're just playing mix-and-match with facial features to attempt to modify non-free images enough to make them their own, they might be in for a shock if any photographers discover elements of their photos in this company's portfolio and attempt to take them to court over it. Copyright does allow sufficiently derivative work to be free from the original work's copyright, but the nature of what constitutes sufficent derivation is up for debate.

These would pair up well with the floating heads in the antique shop...

(And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!)

And most of those are really lousy quality... they ought to be good for all those cheesy google ads!
Right, to the discerning eye. But to the general public, these and other deep fakes can be used to trick the general public.

Very scary if you ask me.

The images shown are -not- retouches or "deep fakes". The images show what is now possible when a human-looking face is constructed 100% through artificial intelligence. It would be nice if people would understand the basic idea here, which is that we now have software which can create a face from scratch, with absolutely zero need for a photographic starting point. A deep fake is a computer-generated likeness based upon an actual person.
 
I remember hearing/reading somewhere that once computer graphics became powerful enough, there would no longer be a need for real (human) actors.
 
we now have software which can create a face from scratch, with absolutely zero need for a photographic starting point

Yes to a point, someone had to enter parameters to use, based on a knowledge of facial features to begin with. That's like Lr's AI "auto" button, they used input from tons of photographers on processing inputs to allow the AI to have a starting point. Now granted artificial intelligence is more, in that it has the ability to use certain basics to build on. In the case of Lr it supposedly "remembers" you're processing and adjusts it's basic knowledge to more closely represent your particular style. Adobe makes big bets on AI and the public cloud – TechCrunch
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top