News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A preliminary analysis of DALL-E 2 (Marcus, Davis, Aaronson). Parent comment

Re:A preliminary analysis of DALL-E 2 (Marcus, Davis, Aaronson) by soraki_soladead on Monday May 02, 2022 @11:54AM (#31236791)
Many of the perceived failures of DALL-E 2 are subjective and ambiguous (by the author's own interpretation in some cases!) and speak to the author's negative biases which are well known outside of this publication.

To be clear, I'm not defending DALL-E 2. I'm criticizing a poorly written paper that was published to Arxiv to lend further credibility for a Twitter audience to substantiate a claim that the DALL-E 2 authors have not made but that Gary Marcus has a vested interest in perpetuating:

> How much does DALL-E have to do with AGI? Maybe not so much, after all… A lesson in caveat emptor: - https://twitter.com/GaryMarcus/status/1521120022298464256

This should have been a blog post or Twitter thread like the dozen or so other experimentations people have done with the system.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A preliminary analysis of DALL-E 2 (Marcus, Davis, Aaronson) by joshcryer on Monday May 02, 2022 @02:48PM (#31239192)
Yikes, that Twitter feed: "Thoughts and prayers for the deep learning fanboys," as if ones admiration for DALL-E 2's achievement is something to be mocked... I feel like this sentiment is the way we're going to get I Have no Mouth, and I Must Scream. There's just something in there about negative AI minimalists or AI alarmists (same coin different side).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A preliminary analysis of DALL-E 2 (Marcus, Davis, Aaronson) by nomel on Monday May 02, 2022 @08:27PM (#31242853)
> Many of the perceived failures of DALL-E 2 are subjective and ambiguous

Could you expand on this a bit? DALL-E provides graphical, interpretive, output meant for humans. Isn't that necessarily subjective? Any qualitative metric of DALL-E 2 will need to involve some aggregate of humans being subjective. The papers title is "A very preliminary analysis of DALL-E 2", so low data points/opinions/speculation/further questions should be expected.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A preliminary analysis of DALL-E 2 (Marcus, Davis, Aaronson) by pixl97 on Monday May 02, 2022 @03:49PM (#31239983)
Heh, so many of these people's reaction to 'we have not created AGI' seems to be mocking and pessimism that we ever will.

My response to 'we have not created AGI' is

"Thank goodness".

I don't think we're ready for that yet.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A preliminary analysis of DALL-E 2 (Marcus, Davis, Aaronson) by jmmcd on Monday May 02, 2022 @12:57PM (#31237706)
Marcus is only one of three. From what we know if Aaronson, I doubt that this was a Marcus-driven paper with the others just along for the ride. But I agree some of the intro has a Marcus ring to it.
[ Parent | on HN ]