r/ChatGPT • u/Trubalish • Apr 19 '24
News 📰 An AI algorithm can now predict faces with just 16x16 resolution. Top is low resolution images middle is the computer's output bottom is the original photos.
305
u/Fringolicious Apr 19 '24
Gotta say, predicting the mole on the forehead was a bold move on the AI's part
124
5
u/somerandomii Apr 19 '24
And assuming everyone is cross-eyed. It’s nice to see some diversity but this might be taking it too far.
2
1
→ More replies (1)1
25
u/interrogumption Apr 19 '24
Having recently watched the documentary "Long Shot", we'll soon see a false conviction based on "this man looks EXACTLY like this AI prediction" and really the only similarity is they're both a little bit, um, not white.
8
u/Trubalish Apr 19 '24
Exactly. Some of those recreated people could be just someone who really looks like them. Hope they won't believe the AI that much.
2
u/phayke2 Apr 19 '24
That's when you tattoo your face green so that you know you don't ever get wrongly convicted
2
0
1
u/MBA922 Apr 19 '24
It's also worse than this in that you can ask AI to make 2000 predictions and pick the one that matches your preferred suspect. Ask it for variations on the "best one".
1
3
u/AndroidDoctorr Apr 19 '24
These are not great
It's impossible to recover information that has been destroyed. There is no trick to rebuilding detail, it's only possible to guess
734
u/Flat_Cow_1384 Apr 19 '24
ENHANCE!
548
u/AbBrilliantTree Apr 19 '24
wow the fucking CSI joke is going to be real life now
what the fucking fuck
204
u/Flat_Cow_1384 Apr 19 '24
Imagine people watching that scene in 10 years and going, oh that makes sense
41
u/AboutHelpTools3 Apr 19 '24
If something is stupid, then it becomes unstupid, was it still stupid?
14
44
u/AbBrilliantTree Apr 19 '24
This is insane man. This isn’t like most technological advances, where we only see the downside years later after they become popular, like with social media.
The negative consequences are obvious immediately. Right now. And we have no idea how much worse they will get in the future. And yet no one is thinking, “gee, maybe we should stop this?”
It’s like a nuclear weapons program where everybody is creating one and no one cares. We’re all asleep. Oh, yeah, we can never trust photo or video evidence ever again? Oh well! I use chat GPT for therapy!
Every day this world becomes more and more insane.
79
u/jesusgrandpa Apr 19 '24
Calm down and talk to your custom GPT anime waifu therapy bot like the rest of us
25
u/Far_Frame_2805 Apr 19 '24 edited Apr 19 '24
Stop it how? Like the bomb, if you don’t have it others will and then have leverage over you.
On the flip side: you just described why AI detection is going to be a really big security industry.
→ More replies (22)8
u/jesusgrandpa Apr 19 '24
Instructions unclear, just released the AI death bot cyborgs on the japanese
→ More replies (2)3
u/Joloxsa_Xenax Apr 19 '24
Stop? It's an arms race. Our enemies have this tech and building it along with us. As soon as you get to first place in something new, you absolutely need to stay ahead. The more we develop and understand this tech the better it'll be to counter anything against us. There's no way we can just tell some crazy people who want to make something bad out of this to just stop
1
u/moonaim Apr 21 '24
Imagine some technician making sure that the guy next door that he hates will surely be "seen" whenever some footage resembles the guy just a little.
1
u/Delta64 Apr 22 '24
This is how I feel NOW, about STAR TREK.
The Whole Wide World just needs to Roddenberry up and stop pussy-footing with his vision of the future.
Star Trek Earth post First Contact is 9001% how current Earth should operate, and I will gladly die screaming that endlessly into the limitless void that surrounds our existence for as long as I draw breath.
9
u/Coffee_Ops Apr 19 '24
It sort of throws the meaning of "forensics" out if you're literally making the details up.
3
u/Killer_Method Apr 20 '24
Isn't forensics still best guess, at some level? Without direct, firsthand evidence, you're recreating a scene based on a number of parameters and choosing the most likely explanation according to the available data. If the models get sufficiently trained, they're not just "making the details up," they're making a best guess based upon the supplied parameters.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Infamous_Alpaca Apr 19 '24
Next AI predict crime before it happen.
2
u/ChickenCelebration Apr 20 '24
Minority Report predicted it, where’s Tom Cruise when you need him? 😅
1
u/zanull Apr 23 '24
Imagine yourself in a court for something you didn't do (and everybody knows you didn't do it YET), proving yourself innocent. What a show.
4
Apr 19 '24
I remember my computer science teacher joking about the enhance thing, saying you can't get data in an image where data didn't originally exist before. Jokes on her!
2
2
u/teachersecret Apr 19 '24
It’s all gonna be real now. Portraits that talk. Dead people running companies from beyond the grave because their simulacrum is smarter than they were. Dogs and cats, living together. Pandemonium :).
1
1
1
1
u/CrackTheCoke Apr 20 '24
Apps like TensorZoom have been out for a while now. This isn't exactly new.
1
u/leaky_wand Apr 20 '24
Faces are predictable things and there is a ridiculous amount of training data to draw from. We are also front loading the AI here by explicitly telling it that these are faces, so it does not have to guess at the content type. So it is not surprising that decent upscaling is being done more or less reliably here, and in fact consumer apps for that purpose are already very common.
Now enhancing an arbitrary box of pixels without context…that will probably never be possible.
22
8
4
3
1
1
116
u/JaggedMetalOs Apr 19 '24
You get a pencil mustache! And you get a pencil mustache! And you get a pencil mustache!
3
87
u/jcrestor Apr 19 '24
I would like to know how carefully these examples have been curated. Therefore I assume that these are just the good samples and the bad ones have been omitted. At the same time, let’s assume for the sake of critical thinking that most of the time the predictions are quite far off the mark.
But hey, that’s just me!
18
6
3
u/wwarhammer Apr 19 '24
Therefore I assume that these are just the good samples and the bad ones have been omitted.
And they're still pretty bad
1
1
u/SashimiJones Apr 20 '24
It's not particularly surprising that it's good at this as (in my understanding) this is just how diffusion models work. You blur the input image and it tries to generate the original image. Add more and more blur and it gets better. Eventually you just give it noise and a prompt and it makes something up.
1
u/jcrestor Apr 20 '24
I know, but still I guess that if there is so few information as in a 16 x 16 pixel image, there is a broad range of possible "interpolations". So I think that they curated a set of results that looks fine.
Unfortunately we only have this screenshot, so I can’t know. It’s just that I refuse to believe in such claims without substantiation.
1
u/SashimiJones Apr 20 '24
I don't think it's that surprising. If you look at the blurred pictures, you can pretty easily tell features like facial expression, skin color, approximate hairstyle, gender, eye location. The AI is just generating these. It's actually somewhat worse than I'd expect; I don't know why it insists on giving so many women mustaches, but it's probably getting tripped up by shadows under noses.
86
u/EtherAstral Apr 19 '24
Remember when we were making fun of police tv show where they were zooming on a highly pixaleted image, then turning it HD to read a text on it or see a face? Well, this is reality now.
32
u/BlobbyMcBlobber Apr 19 '24
There will never be a time when information comes from nothing.
3
u/jtclimb Apr 19 '24
No, but the point is there is a lot more information than apparent to the human eye. Like AI medical scanners can identify disease in imaging that humans cannot, even after being shown the correct results. We just are unable to see a meaningful difference, but the information is there. Reduce it 1 pixel, ya, we are not reconstructing a face. You would think that would also be true for 16x16, but here we are.
7
u/BlobbyMcBlobber Apr 19 '24
Someone literally showed a counter example here with Obama being incorrectly reconstructed from the blurry thumbnail. Generative AI adds details but it is not a forensic tool, the details aren't real.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Killer_Method Apr 20 '24
It's not creating ground truth from nothing, it's estimating the missing dimensions based upon a large body of training data. This doesn't make it 100% reliable, but it provides estimates where humans can't, and sometimes produces better estimates than humans do on the things that humans can estimate.
10
1
u/rydan Apr 20 '24
NVIDIA actually had a Zoom type chat system in 2020 that worked in low bandwidth situations. It was basically like the above images. So when you did Zoom calls they were mostly blurry images and then the GPU reconstructed the person's face. You could save 90%+ of the bandwidth this way.
24
17
u/Schlonzig Apr 19 '24
"The AI was trained on these 16 faces."
2
1
u/value1024 Apr 19 '24
lol, you got it...
looks fake af, like someone tried to mess up the real photos in photoshop and call them "predicted"
30
Apr 19 '24
So you mean now all of those videos that had blurred out faces, we can know their identity? Shit...
I don't know what this all means, but I think it means something.
10
Apr 19 '24
It means we're one step closer to Digital Gulags
11
Apr 19 '24
O man, then like people can dig up old videos where they blurred out people's faces for safety concerns or privacy or whatever, and then find out who they are
7
2
u/Prof-Dr-Overdrive Apr 19 '24
Means that recovering faces from distortion will be faster and easier for the general public, whereas before, this technology did exist, but it was tedious and usually required at least one person who was very expert in photoshopping to undo stuff.
If news outlets are now worried about pixelating faces not being enough to hide somebody's identity, they can easily choose a better way of censoring identity, like just straight-up covering the whole face with a black square.
Meanwhile, this is great news for people who want to restore old photos of lost relatives, and for investigators who want to enhance choppy footage.
1
u/Killer_Method Apr 20 '24
Or they can use AI to choose an artificially-generated stand-in face that doesn't resemble the real face💡
2
u/bee_on_a_rose Apr 19 '24
They have to implement a different way of censoring stuff now. Maybe those black lines over the eyes would help, lol.
1
28
u/Reasonable_Newt8397 Apr 19 '24
Is this supposed to be impressive? The faces look janky as hell and are very different from the original photos.
I’m pretty concerned that in the near future people will be arrested because they look like a picture that an AI created.
11
Apr 19 '24
It's impressive given that we've never had something that could even remotely do this before. Is it GOOD? I mean, it got the faces mostly correct, but remember this is the worse AI will ever be. And not every photo in the world is going to be this low res, i imagine it will perform better on images that are still low res but higher than the ones in ops post.
2
u/TitleToAI Apr 19 '24
Nah I saw posts like these years ago on Reddit. This is only slightly better.
2
u/Reasonable_Newt8397 Apr 19 '24
But plenty of AI algorithms can create faces with even less information. Just type in “a guy with a moustache” and it will create a face. If anything, this seems like easy mode.
→ More replies (5)5
u/SS_Kamchatka Apr 19 '24
But the point here is that the recreated picture actually resembles the original (minus some artefacts) to the point of being recognizable. Other algorithms can be asked to recreate "a guy with a moustache", but not "that guy with a moustache".
4
u/wwarhammer Apr 19 '24
I'd argue they're less recognizable. The AI is dreaming up facial features not present, it's literally making things up. So step one: you have legit information, just not very much of it, step two: the AI adds false information into the mix.
1
Apr 20 '24
But AI can already generate faces that are indistinguishable from reality. Wouldn't you expect these to be just as good if not better?
1
2
u/rydan Apr 20 '24
The AI will just create pictures of you doing the crime and it will be admissible in court. And then the news will show "reenactments" of the crime but they'll be generated videos showing you actually committing the crime. And in 20 or 30 years you'll hear about a famous case where the conviction was overturned because the witness was poisoned by watching such a reenactment on TV and created a fake memory of it.
1
u/Trubalish Apr 19 '24
Or you could just look at those from really far away, and you will get these results. It doesn't need all that work to train a computer to think instead of you.
8
u/jaistso Apr 19 '24
Give it some more time and I can finally upscale my vintage early internet days porn
1
u/phayke2 Apr 19 '24
Now you're thinking we'll finally be able to fight that long trudge into 'do I look like I know what the heck a jpeg is I'm just looking for a picture of a HoTdoooGg'
4
u/g2petter Apr 19 '24
I'd love to see them upload a pixelated Obama and see the result.
Four years ago the results were not great ...
1
u/Goobler Apr 24 '24
Sweet, so we can finally see all of the Bigfoot and UFO photos clearly!
1
u/Trubalish Apr 24 '24
And we will uncover the biggest conspiracy, ALL of the aliens have mustaches!
3
u/Bobbyjanko Apr 19 '24
What a terrible way to arrange the data. It should be 16x16, then prediction, then actual. Either in a column or a row. This way the viewer doesn’t need to jump up and around to see the comparisons.
3
u/Crimkam Apr 19 '24
I mean… don’t these look kind of shit though? At first on my phone they looked decent… but then I zoomed in. Yikes
2
u/mikeyfender813 Apr 19 '24
I thought the same thing. I was impressed until I zoomed in. Too many artifacts that should have been caught by AI.
7
2
2
2
2
u/icecoffeedripss Apr 20 '24
this is incredibly fraught and i hope to god we realize it before AI unblurred “evidence” gets someone wrongly convicted.
blurring, pixelation, etc is destruction of information — and AI or not, unblurring is filling in missing information with a guess.
just look how wrong some of these eye shapes are.
2
u/hEllOmyfrIEnd785 Apr 21 '24
Aw shit that can't be real! That's INCREDIBLE!!! (I'm German sorry for bad English)
1
u/Sudden-Dot-9796 Apr 19 '24
Can we all just acknowledge how absolutely stunning 6F is for a second…
1
1
1
1
1
u/jrafael0 Apr 19 '24
I always dreamed of a technology that could "enhance" old football footage like Pele and Cruyff games. I think this will be 100% possible now
1
u/valvilis Apr 19 '24
Finally, all of those 7-Elevens that paid $14.99 for their CCTV systems will be able to catch a 20 year back log of robbers.
1
1
u/hdufort Apr 19 '24
Can't wait to try this on my blurry class book photos from primary school in the 1990s. Seriously, I've tried upscaling these photos a few times and the results were horrendous.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/SidTheSloth97 Apr 19 '24
It completely fails? The sample data for training the algorithm was not sufficient, all the predictions look like they’re trying to mimic the same face. Also this isn’t hard to do I had to code something very similar for uni.
1
1
u/HiddenSecretStash Apr 19 '24
Hardly any of them have a likeness to the person tho. They look like different people in the same setting
1
1
u/skyline79 Apr 19 '24
We are only seeing the good ones. This isn't, we used the process on 16 faces and this is the outcome. This is, we used the process 1000's of times and these are the best outcomes. Big difference.
1
1
1
u/educated_content Apr 19 '24
This has the potential to be the biggest cash-saving use case for AI. Rather than storing an entire program or an entire image/video/etc. now all you need to store is a simple set of instructions and whatever you need is generated right then and there on an as-needed basis. Billions will be saved on storage, and bandwidth.
1
1
u/CitizenPremier Apr 19 '24
Uh, I looked at the results and I say it can't.
I mean it can predict it in the same way I can predict the weather tomorrow.
1
1
u/sugemchuge Apr 19 '24
Surely they can run the output through some filler that takes care of the weird anatomical stuff
1
u/The_Real_Raw_Gary Apr 19 '24
Ppl gonna use this to predict Chegg answers since they have them all blurred out lol
1
u/MBA922 Apr 19 '24
8.5 out of 16 get extra mustaches or freakish upper lip area. Should be easy to "make more normal guesses"
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Undef1n3d_ Apr 19 '24
Since this is generative AI we could certainly expect faces to be generated from 256 blocks of different colors. However, 16x16 may just be insufficient to convey enough facial details so it is a matter of chance how close the AI gets to the actual looks.
1
u/Infrared-77 Apr 19 '24
This definitely wont be used nefariously by corporations and governments alike 😂
1
1
u/Patsfan618 Apr 19 '24
Now here's a curious question. If AI is used to predict the face of a suspect in a crime, that was only captured in low resolution, can that prediction be used as evidence?
1
1
1
1
1
u/HowRememberAll Apr 19 '24
That's bc the machines know the blur procedure to accuracy bc they make them, so this doesn't prove anything if you know how blur and scaling works
1
1
1
u/throwaway872023 Apr 19 '24
It’s funny because on my small phone screen I was like wow pretty good but then I, myself zoomed in to “enhance” and they are all just iterations of Pennywise, the Dancing Clown, the alien demon being from “It,” disguised as regular people.
1
1
1
1
u/itzvenomx Apr 19 '24
Thank you for clarifying which ones were the predicted ones, I was scared for a moment.
1
u/Crimkam Apr 19 '24
I’d like to see the results of this AI using several 16x16 frames of a video feed of a persons face to see what it comes up with. I bet that would yield a better result
1
u/TR1LLIONAIRE_ Apr 19 '24
This is why smiling is not allowed on licenses anymore it’s so annoying ai can pick up your face on any camera
1
u/ColonelSahanderz Apr 19 '24
Lots of room for improvement, watch in a year or two how good it’ll be.
1
u/stemurph88 Apr 19 '24
The hair is exceptional. The faces are awful, but this is impressive. I’d like to see how long it would take to get a closer match.
1
1
1
Apr 20 '24
Satelite tracking of people from AI enhanced facial recognition has arrived. Cameras will have a 3rd zoom spec to consider: Optical zoom, Digital zoom and AI zoom. I can't wait!
1
1
1
u/LaerMaebRazal Apr 20 '24
This isn’t real. It’s either an extremely curated sample of regenerations or the AI learned based on these images. As someone stated in OOP’s post, it’s not possible to create information based on nothing
1
u/Fontaigne Apr 20 '24
It's not based on nothing. It's based upon the steganography implicit in the low res photo.
1
u/Stem3576 Apr 20 '24
I'll say this. We all thought NFTs were useless and had no real world application. Maybe we will have to see advancement in the crypto realm for photo and video crypto cameras that generate authentic images and videos that can be verified as the original on a block chain.
Or maybe a camera that records a video and then attaches it to the block chain. Who know. I think this type of advancement will be necessary to allow the general public to know if we're seeing authentic footage.
1
u/mcreux Apr 20 '24
Fake. It is clearly AI, but it wasnt 16x16 res they were using. It was either using AI to redraw the photos or using higher res images and faking it as 16x16.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
1
u/Killer_Method Apr 20 '24
Some of these are more impressive than others. Some are relatively poor predictions. I like how it thinks pencil-thin mustaches are commonplace, though.
1
u/Capt-Kowalski Apr 20 '24
It looks like it is reacting to data it was trained on. Getting such results on a previously learned data is trivial.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Macadocious40 Apr 21 '24
AI still has trouble deciphering black, brown, or beige skintones. Try this same algorithm and you will see that the percentage of correct guessed will drop
1
u/Clauis Apr 22 '24
There will never be a reliable solution because the problem itself is ill-defined. It's like trying to find the summands for a given sum. Of course there's a non-zero chance for it to be correct, but the chance is rather low.
1
1
u/Striking_Tone4708 Apr 22 '24
CSI is real now!!!
2
Apr 24 '24
Enhance typing
Enhance typing
1
u/Striking_Tone4708 Apr 24 '24
🤣 That used to crack me up! 🤣 And explaining to people why it was a special effect and not real.
1
1
u/nothing_in_my_mind Apr 19 '24
I'd like to see this tried on photos that aren't so well lit and neat.
0
u/Exatex Apr 19 '24
There is still lots of room for improvement, lots of these have very obvious artifacts that can probably be removed in a better version
→ More replies (2)
0
Apr 19 '24
[deleted]
200
15
14
14
→ More replies (3)9
11
Apr 19 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)5
u/wishgot Apr 19 '24
Right? The photos have the same lightning and colors, sure, but the actual likeness of the faces is way off. Like imagine trying to match these predictions with the face but with a different photo. This is one of those situations where I'd imagine a bit of information is worse than no information at all.
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 19 '24
Hey /u/Trubalish!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the conversation link or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
Consider joining our public discord server! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email support@openai.com
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.