Slashdot Mirror


'This Person Does Not Exist' Website Uses AI To Create Realistic Yet Horrifying Faces (inverse.com)

A website that uses AI -- Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) -- to generate photos of people who do not exist is circulating on social media and forums this week. A news writeup adds: Every time the site is refreshed, a shockingly realistic -- but totally fake --picture of a person's face appears. Uber software engineer Phillip Wang created the page to demonstrate what GANs are capable of, and then posted it to the public Facebook group "Artificial Intelligence & Deep Learning" on Tuesday. The underlying code that made this possible, titled StyleGAN, was written by Nvidia and featured in a paper that has yet to be peer-reviewed. This exact type of neural network has the potential to revolutionize video game and 3D-modeling technology, but, as with almost any kind of technology, it could also be used for more sinister purposes.

67 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Should I be concerned? by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I pulled up the website and the picture looked a lot like me.....

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Should I be concerned? by sinij · · Score: 2

      Activate protocol 2! This is not a drill, activate protocol 2! The human consciousness simulation escaped the containment.

    2. Re:Should I be concerned? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      I just tried it, and got a picture of a normal looking young woman. Not "horrifying" at all.

      The site is really slow, and sucks up a lot of local CPU running JavaScript.

    3. Re:Should I be concerned? by Red_Forman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude, calm the fuck down a bit. We know it's not a drill. It's a screwdriver.

    4. Re:Should I be concerned? by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      No, they're actually kind of horrifying in many cases, in a manner that is subtle and creepy.

      It looks like the algorithm is basically combining two people's faces algorithmically, using the upper half of one and the lower half of another. They might be picking one skin tone and mapping it across the other part, or they might just always pick people whose skin tone is close enough be plausible. I can't really tell.

      The problem is, their algorithm isn't always combining pictures taken from exactly the same angle. As a result, the upper half of the face is just far enough off from the bottom half to put the resulting face squarely in the uncanny valley.

      They are all almost plausible, but only a few of them are close enough to not cause cognitive dissonance. When I look at most of them, my eye shifts from one part to the other trying to figure out the perspective, unable to do so. They quite literally give me a headache.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:Should I be concerned? by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      The picture itself isn't "horrifying", it's the fact that the picture (which as you say looks perfectly normal) isn't real. That "normal looking young woman" is a complete fiction of a neural network, despite looking (to the human eye anyways) perfectly real. People typically assume images of people are real, so being able to create completely realistic looking humans out of nothing allows an entirely new level of fake news.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    6. Re:Should I be concerned? by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      I'm curious....are these images 'copyrighted' as that they are generated?

      Just thinking it would be a useful tool if you needed to just put a face on an image or pamphlet, etc......

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Should I be concerned? by sh00z · · Score: 1

      You ever get a good look at Peter Ubberoth?

    8. Re:Should I be concerned? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Did you get a screen cap of any that you noticed that were off? I looked at about 30 pics, and I couldn't see anything like what you are talking about, despite actively *looking* for it.

    9. Re:Should I be concerned? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The picture itself isn't "horrifying", it's the fact that the picture (which as you say looks perfectly normal) isn't real.

      I don't see anything "horrifying" about it. GANs are interesting and the results are sometimes impressive. But "horror"? No.

      Also, the only thing "new" about this website is that the images are supposedly generated on-the-fly. The faces are not much different than published results for other face GANs. GANs have been around since 2014, and high quality face generators have been around since 2017.

    10. Re:Should I be concerned? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I got a weird one of a man with frameless glasses, kind of. On his left is the stalk for the ear leading up to a lens. Then it gets bizarre as the nose piece sinks under the skin to resurface on his right side, just at the right most of his eye socket to form the stalk for the right ear.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    11. Re:Should I be concerned? by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Most of the stuff you see in magazines is just as unreal, the work of Photoshop, Gimp, whatever, makeup artists, hair stylists, and lots of doctoring..... not to mention the plastic surgery.

      Ok, if there's an ear in the wrong place, it's horrifying. Otherwise, it's just new CGI for the next LOTR episodes.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    12. Re:Should I be concerned? by Capsaicin · · Score: 2

      are these images 'copyrighted' as that they are generated

      That's an interesting legal-theoretical question and it might make a good topic for a law school essay.

      As a matter of mere practice, however, given that no two runs of the program should produce identical faces, it seems unlikely that anyone would even think to look for a watermark (assuming there is one) or other identifying feature connecting the image to the the putative copyright holder. TLDR: You're unlikely to be caught.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    13. Re:Should I be concerned? by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

      I also looked at about 30. I noticed that in almost every case the left eye was larger then the right. Also, the center two upper incisors were very different sizes in about half of the images.

      So... that was weird. I guess.

    14. Re:Should I be concerned? by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      I've seen two that where off out of a whole tonne of them. One was a small girl who had what looked like a bullet hole in her forehead. Or some sort of obvious puncture wound. Weird.

      The other was a woman on a side profile and one of her eyes was distorted and blured out in a strange way, and her nose was wrong. But it was the only one I saw with a side profile so presumably the algorithm is less well trained on those.

      God knows where the bullet hole girl came from though.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    15. Re:Should I be concerned? by Bandraginus · · Score: 1

      All the pictures I got had a "blotch" at the top. Probably not an official "watermark", but seems reasonably unique enough for them to argue the picture is theirs.

      Ahh, scratch that. Got some without the blotch.

    16. Re:Should I be concerned? by silentbozo · · Score: 1

      There's a generated sample set of images on the same site as the paper. I'm assuming the guy who set up the site is serving up those sample images.

      Here's what the NVIDIA github repo has to say about the datasets:

      "All material, excluding the Flickr-Faces-HQ dataset, is made available under Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0 license by NVIDIA Corporation. You can use, redistribute, and adapt the material for non-commercial purposes, as long as you give appropriate credit by citing our paper and indicating any changes that you've made."

    17. Re:Should I be concerned? by silentbozo · · Score: 1

      Damn, nevermind, apparently the website is using the canned generative model for generating faces and is dynamically creating new ones on the fly. I have no idea how you would license the output...

    18. Re:Should I be concerned? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      The quality isn't that great.

      Many of the pictures I saw had lopsided faces, and many others had "blotchy" looks, like someone had a skin graft from a donor whose skin wasn't quite the same color.

      All in all, I don't think it's ready for prime time.

    19. Re:Should I be concerned? by scottrocket · · Score: 1

      Yeah I refreshed over & over, and got a unique face each time; imo, only one face looked slightly creepy-ish to me.

    20. Re:Should I be concerned? by Memnos · · Score: 1

      A screwdriver is just a drill that lacks ambition.

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
    21. Re:Should I be concerned? by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      their algorithm isn't always combining pictures taken from exactly the same angle.

      I was wondering how often it made weird images. The first one I opened was really messed up. The left side of the person's face seemed at least half an inch wider.... and also the head on that side was higher up and a different shape. The left jaw looked really unnatural. Then the next 3-4 images seemed fine.... only to be followed by what looked like a 18-20 year old guy with really big white ear hair. And then what looked like a 5 year old's face on a young woman's head.

  2. Let the Slashdotting Commence by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Bet you've not heard that term in a while!

    The site for me is loading the image slower than an 80's fax-modem set to highest resolution.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Let the Slashdotting Commence by technix4beos · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Fond memories of my first real computer purchase as a kid: https://goo.gl/images/XsGTEh

      --
      user@host$ diff /dev/urandom /dev/uspto
  3. The Technology Is Already Being Used Negatively by dryriver · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A friend who lives in a repressive country where over 90% of the media is pro-government propaganda told me that the when he does a reverse image-search of the little "author image" next to the opinion pieces lauding the government's actions, neither Google nor Tineye can find the person online. It seems that the opinion pieces are authored by supposed "journalists" who's face can only be found next to the opinion piece - and nowhere else online. The authors names and their face images are fictional, even though their faces appear to belong to a real person. It seems like this tech was around before Nvidia supposedly "pioneered" it.

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:The Technology Is Already Being Used Negatively by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This actually sounds a bit like the bulk news outlet services which a lot of small newspapers use nowadays - I believe it was covered in an NPR story a few years back. The news items are collected and aggregated overseas, sometimes rewritten slightly to "localize", and then released using a made up "generic white American" name (and sometimes a stock photo) for the byline.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:The Technology Is Already Being Used Negatively by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or ... someone could have spent 30 seconds in Photoshop with half a dozen normal face shots of different people, and produced exactly what you're talking about while setting up some fake journo profiles. That's been done for years. And is not the same as an AI-ish thing synthesizing faces.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:The Technology Is Already Being Used Negatively by Vanyle · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't they just leave the images out? I go on several news sites where it is difficult to find the article's author's image

    4. Re:The Technology Is Already Being Used Negatively by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The bulk news outlets are Reuters, AP (Associated Press), and less frequently UPI (United Press International). They hire reporters to travel the world writing up stories, then sell the stories to smaller news services which cannot afford to send one of their own reporters overseas for every single international story. When properly attributed, their stories start with an (AP) or (Reuters) or (UPI) tag at the beginning of the text. When unattributed, they're easy to pick out since a google search of a snippet of text from the article will turn up lots of identical properly-attributed articles. I'm guessing you could then report the paper or news website to Reuters or AP or UPI for a copyright violation.

    5. Re:The Technology Is Already Being Used Negatively by Moridineas · · Score: 1
  4. This landscape did not exist by g01d4 · · Score: 1

    I can remember dabbling with fractals as a basis for creating artificial landscapes back in the 80's. (And no, it wasn't my lawn which you can kindly depart from.)

    It's interesting to see the level of detail, and the types of asymmetries and other 'imperfections' . It'd also be interesting to determine statistical probabilities of a reasonably close match to an actual person.

  5. LOL "403 Forbidden" by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    Slashdotted again!

    1. Re:LOL "403 Forbidden" by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Unlike MongoDB, Nginx apparently isn't web scale.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  6. Not 100% by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not 100% realistic yet. The faces look good, but with the hair and body there are a lot of issues. I pulled up one picture and the face is a significantly lighter tone than the neck/chest area which leads to issue number 2, the woman does not appear to have a neck. The ears are just close enough to realistic to notice they aren't right, and the hair coming down over the body isn't correct either. But the facial features are really good.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:Not 100% by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Got one that seemed to have an earring embedded in her cheek...

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Not 100% by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I've seen a few examples where there's a weird stretching of the mouth or, in one, fingers coming out of the person's chin. My guess is that it's sampled a huge number of images and is stitching these together in some complicated fashion to create a "does not exist" person. In the event that the image contains an odd object (microphone near mouth, fingers by chin), the AI chokes and the image gets weird.

      Still, it's very impressive. Now enhance this so it's a video and have the AI create a realistic (but not based on any one person) voice and we'll get into really scary territory.

      Actually, I just want realistic sounding AI voices so I can plug my book into it and get a good audio-book out of it without needing to pay hundreds of dollars.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Not 100% by willaien · · Score: 1

      https://imgur.com/YpLzccg

      This is the stuff of nightmares.

    4. Re:Not 100% by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 1

      I think this one was taken on the factory floor, the unfinished product to the left is pretty creepy.

      https://i.imgur.com/RQSlx58.jp...

    5. Re:Not 100% by sad_ · · Score: 1

      depending on the usage it's damn near perfect.
      as the example given in the summary, if this tech would be used in games for example, you would barely notice these defects nor would they matter that much.

      --
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  7. Re:403 Forbidden --- nginx/1.14.0 (Ubuntu) by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    It was probably running the GAN on a single GeForce GTX 1080 and we burnt it out. Hope it didn't burn anything else with it!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  8. Do something useful with it by Comboman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Someone should write a bot to post each new photo to Facebook (along with a randomly generated name) to salt their facial recognition algorithm.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:Do something useful with it by PKFC · · Score: 1

      If I had one of these photos, I wouldn't have been banned from Facebook. That and had a name that wasn't "Jus D'Orange"

  9. Horrifying maybe for the wrong reason by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some of the pics have noticeable artifacts that give the appearance of a severe scar... or possibly gills in some cases.

    --
    Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    1. Re:Horrifying maybe for the wrong reason by Trogre · · Score: 1

      One of the ones I saw looked like Paul McCartney in drag was having a stroke.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    2. Re:Horrifying maybe for the wrong reason by clovis · · Score: 1

      One of the ones I saw looked like Paul McCartney in drag was having a stroke.

      You can find some more like that on this web site:
      https://www.paulmccartney.com/...

    3. Re:Horrifying maybe for the wrong reason by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Vicious :)

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  10. Re:Horrifying ?! Horrifyingly bad headline writer by fat+man's+underwear · · Score: 1

    Thank you. I was thinking someone snuck decaf into my cup.

  11. If it created my face, that would be horrifying. by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    As it is, the created faces just look like random people to me. There is nothing "horrifying" about it.

  12. Bodies by lazarus · · Score: 1

    Generate the rest of their bodies as well and we'll finally have a replacement for Tumblr!

    --
    I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
  13. Stock photography disruptor? by gachunt · · Score: 1

    I didn't know the industry needed up'ending, but this could forever change "Big Hero-shot".

  14. Obvious stock image input by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's obvious the neural network was trained on stock images, including lots of celebrities. I saw Angelina Jolie's eyes, Brad Pitt's jaw, Caitlin Jenner's hair.

    ...laura

    1. Re:Obvious stock image input by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      It's obvious the neural network was trained on stock images, including lots of celebrities.

      Probably more the latter than the former, since there are quite a lot of celebrity datasets, like Celeb-A, VGG's Celebrity in places, VGG's Celebrity Together dataset, VoxCeleb and so on.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Obvious stock image input by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I noticed that too. (btw hello, we have not talked in a while)

      Then it occurred to me, if I were not aware that I was looking at manufactured images, I would not have noticed on casual inspection.

      I went through a few dozen images. Amazing stuff. Still needs human caretaking to ensure a perfect final product.

      But yeah, "I saw Angelina Jolie's eyes, Brad Pitt's jaw, Caitlin Jenner's hair.", too. It was weird. Like I was seeing some aspect of what makes up a real human. I saw one photo that looked absolutely real, where I could feel the humanity behind the face. The rest didn't stir that sense of "intimacy".

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  15. Perfect teeth by SeeManRun · · Score: 1

    They all have nearly perfect teeth. And the shape of the two front teeth is really similar between all people that show their teeth. I don't think these are real people...

  16. Falling in Love With A Person Who Doesn't Exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What if you see one of the images and fall in love with the person in it? They don't exist, but you can't get the idea of them out of your mind and you are ruined. Forever.

    That would be a nightmare.

  17. YMMV by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Some of those faces can be instantly identified as fakes. Some have eyes that are beyond uncanny valley and down right hideous.

    Others... well I saw at least 2 images where I couldn't find a fault despite looking for many minutes.

  18. Re:1991 called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I appreciate the “it’s all been done before” sentiment, and I too remember when that Jackson morphing video came out.

    However, the technique used in the new article is really different. If you want to simplify it to simple concepts, the Jackson jethod is interpolation between two endpoints (in the space of all possible real faces), whereas the current method is to progressively generate images and refine them based on whether they are face-like.

  19. Scientology's going to love this! by winglem · · Score: 1

    They can make all the fake profiles they want. reference

  20. I had that book too as a kid by Trogre · · Score: 1

    That book with four separate sets of pages, so you could choose the hair, eyes, nose and mouth to make hilarious combinations.

    Good times.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  21. Re:1991 called... by ffkom · · Score: 1

    Ah, I remember the good old days of "Morph+" on the Amiga... when this was new & cool. But the effect dropped astonishingly quick out of fashion.

  22. Sorry. I call BS by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    I looked at some of the pics. Either the pictures are real, or they're composites of real people. There's too much background detail. The reflections in eyeglasses show content. Almost every pic had some easily identifiable artifact like a smudge, a paperclip growing out of the top of someone's head, or the temple from a pair of eyeglasses just hanging out without the rest of the glasses.

    For me to buy into this, just get the semi-fake person to start sending tweets with the AI-driven fake tweetbot.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  23. Can they do more than faces? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    There were several of the women I'd like to see more of, if you know what I mean.
    Strictly for research purposes of course!

  24. Re:1991 called... by clovis · · Score: 1

    You reminded me of one of my favorites youtubes
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  25. AI? Looks Only Like Better Blending Techniques by corezz · · Score: 1

    The real magic isnt that it is able to create new faces, but in fact, how it is able to more accurately blend the individual real-world body parts (ie, the eyes, hair, mouth, wrinkles all come from real-world examples) in the scene by understanding the correct lighting and textures. We have been able to randomly generate non-existent faces for decades, but doing so, so the parts blend well has always been the hard part. It's a Face-Time filter applying more passes. I still fail to understand why the buzzword: AI needs to be linked to this besides as a way to garner more interest and funding.

  26. Re: 'This Person Does Not Exist' Website by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Most of those are probably they same few of you who seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the guy. Seek professional help.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  27. Funky artifacts.. by Antony+T+Curtis · · Score: 1

    It seems to create weird artifacts around the edges of hair and ears.

    --
    No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
  28. Catfish profile pic generator by iTrawl · · Score: 1

    I got a better name for the service. I guess you can't trust anybody on the Internet (anymore).

    --
    "Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor