Bumble open sources AI code to automatically blur NSFW photos Bumble has open sourced an AI image classifier model designed to automatically blur nude pictures sent on its dating app. The tool, dubbed Private Detector, was launched on Bumble in 2019. If it detects fleshy skin tones and characteristic shapes of sensitive body parts, the model blurs out the image to prevent a user from …
That generative AI uses previous artists' work to make images does not appear to be any different than any human art student. They study the Masters' techniques, styles and composition to produce their own art. The fact that there is a genre such as Anime shows that some amount of intellectual property has been copied from one place to another. But if a computer does it, it is different for reasons.
But if a computer does it, it is different for reasons.
I guess it comes down to perceived skills and talent when performing in someone else's style, against those needed to get a computer to do the same.
I don't personally understand the vitriol directed at bg_5you. Nothing wrong with reasoned "you shouldn't do that", explanations as to why "that's not a good or appropriate thing to do", even "that's crap", "an insult", but the backlash goes far beyond that.
IMO there's far too much "with us or against us" polarisation and tribalism these days. We are increasingly losing our tolerance of others and that's not a good thing.
This post has been deleted by its author
Even in human circles, trying to make work you can pass off as a famous artist is considered poor form, so no it isn't different in that regard.
A human who tries to create art in the specific style of another has to put in a lot of work. They must study their muse's works and learn in great detail the exact style and technique of the artist, before spending a great deal of time honing their skills. This is very different from an AI training set, so that's "reasons".
A typical human student does not however try to do that. They learn from great artists and borrow techniques which they apply to their own passions, or they blend styles from multiple artists or come up with something totally new.
I haven't attended an art class for nearly 60 years now but originally, as a kid, I was drawing nude males (naked civil servants) and females - I'm not Quentin Crisp but I grew up in that world occasionally. So these days I still see clothes as just draped over a body that my early work predicted ... as a result I have no interest in nudity because there's nowhere I can't see it, regardless of what anyone (LOL or any politician) is wearing.
Computer generated art has been ongoing for some time. Creating a collage and post-processing it is nothing more than an inevitable progression.
Is this plagiarism or inspiration? Is a human applying an "oil painting" preset to an image plagiarising those who can paint in oil? How about a robot that has been programmed to paint using oil based on an image (this happened quite a few years ago).
How about someone applying a lot of post-processing and image merges in photoshop to enhance a photo they took, adding or changing the sky? Is that art or not?
The problems are not about the use of tools, which is what computers are and the marketing BS of "AI" aside, they are still just tools. The important dividing line is where something is passed off as something that it is not. Does it really matter if a computer generated an image or not? Claiming that it was generated by a human, let alone a specific human, when it was not is where the line should be. Similarly claiming that a heavily manipulated photo is real is wrong too, it may be lovely and a work of art but it is not a photo anymore, it's a piece of art.
The spittle sprayers who claim that it's wrong for a tool to be able to mimic an art style are completely out of touch with reality. How do they think that animated movies are made to look in a particular style? By individual hand drawn cells?
Computer generated music will come along soon enough too, and we'll have the same old arguments rolled out again about how a computer shouldn't be allowed to create music. They are tools, nothing more.
... 'the current adoption of AI in STEM subjects in academia is "slow" and resources and expertise is "unevenly distributed."'
(a) It does not appear to be especially "slow" given what I see when looking through research job ads here in the UK, and (b) you aren't going to fix "unevenly distributed" by throwing money at all those top "usual suspects" institutions.
"he received death threats after he shared a model he had trained to produce images in the style of the late graphic South Korean cartoonist "
Not only does common sense seem to be even less common than previously thought, but any sense of proportion appears to have gone missing too. <satire>Thank the Vulture that we're all pseudonymous here. Otherwise the ranks of commentards might well be decimated within a week.</satire>
Speaking admittedly as a man, but ladies I have been acquainted with have always considered the trouser protuberance from a strictly 'function over form' perspective.
Do even gentlemen who enjoy the company of other gentlemen consider the 'sceptre of one's manhood' of intrinsic prettiness ?
is to get everybody (including kids) used to the naked human body.
Seriously, I never quite understood the stigma associated with human nakedness. In the West, showing too much leg is considered risqué, whereas in Asia you have to cover up your shoulders. And if we cast the net a bit wider, we can find that showing female hair or eyes is way to revealing, or that exposed breasts and even full nakedness is quite normal.
Back in the days of my PhD, it took the US students exactly two trips to the sunbathing beach (Zürihorn) to realize that the female form is quite ordinary. (Don't look it up, nobody is excited to encounter your misplaced curiosity.) Made me realize how prudish our US cousins are; the locals had stopped staring a long time ago.
The rules about decency are quite arbitrary. Let's change the rules.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
