Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

1oldguy1950 t1_j93kma4 wrote

As cool as this seems, sending face photos online using your login might have consequences.

225

Grohw-Z t1_j93ynjd wrote

"free"

118

deepkick120 t1_j93yy10 wrote

“If you aren’t paying for a product, you are the product.”

83

SnowTinHat t1_j94vqfv wrote

Often you’re the product even if you’re paying, but definitely if you’re not paying.

6

DrinkHumblyDumbly t1_j94yjpn wrote

The lack of information/usage policy on the site scares me even more. Either it’s a hobby project, which doesn’t inspire much confidence in their being responsible with data, or something more nefarious.

19

datahoarderx2018 t1_j95bjjd wrote

True.

Although to be fair sometimes these start out as small hobby projects and then get more professional. I don’t think https://Palette.fm had a full privacy policy in the beginning but now the guy that runs it does the thing full time It seems (and was a Google engineer previously).

10

DrinkHumblyDumbly t1_j962fbh wrote

Thank you for pointing that out.

I want to amend and clarify what I said. I didn’t mean that hobby projects necessarily mean they’re irresponsible, many things do start out as such and I didn’t mean to discourage that.

It’s more that hobby projects that don’t have basic information like source code, how to contact them for feedback, could be dangerous.

Esp now when the entry level to these is much lower, which is great but I think both hobbyists, developers and users should be encouraged to think more about what they putting out and/or utilizing.

For example, the training datasets could be labeled by outsourced severely underpaid/compensated workers from developing countries. When there are more hobby projects like this popping up and starting to turn into a business, it may encourage more of such controversial activities.

2

datahoarderx2018 t1_j9899n0 wrote

I understand and share your cautioning. I literally reach out to these small projects devs and ask them about what & how they store it.

1

JMzzr t1_j952nqe wrote

You don't need to login to use it

5

Frexeptabel t1_j961fns wrote

It’s actually open source and you can see what’s happening!

3

DrinkHumblyDumbly t1_j9636sz wrote

where did you find the source code? I’m on mobile and couldn’t find any buttons to click to lead to more documentation of the site/app

1

Frexeptabel t1_j963cpi wrote

https://github.com/Nutlope/restorePhotos

It’s a actually a friend of mine, will Tell hin to add a link

EDIT: It’s actually NOT the source code. It’s highly influenced and probably forked off it. Wouldn’t recommend uploading images there because nobody knows what happens to them

6

DrinkHumblyDumbly t1_j964eo4 wrote

Thanks! Why are there 2 versions of this site tho?

1

Frexeptabel t1_j965red wrote

Damn, I just noticed that this is probably a rip-off. Will have a look at it

1

DrinkHumblyDumbly t1_j96jexn wrote

Yeah it seems very influential. But do u know whether there’s a privacy notice somewhere of how data are handled? I scrolled to the end of your friend’s site and skimmed through the repo/issue but couldn’t find it.

Plus, an issue was raised about license and I didn’t see any. Without a proper license and sufficiently clear usage/restrictions, these knock off sites might happen more often without anyone to take responsibility if something bad happens.

On a side note, thanks to this now I’m aware of Replicate to deploy ML tools.

1

jonlang t1_j9t0ebx wrote

Would the friend of yours be willing to have some sort of contact information on the page? There’s no way to tell who’s behind it today. Also I‘d have some improvement ideas, like leaving metadata intact or not converting my JPG to a bloated PNG…

1

mudokin t1_j93yv4s wrote

I am on mobile and I can't seem to find anything about the license of this service. Do they retain the usave rights of the restored images? How long do they store the images?

They need to make money somehow and if I don't pay with money, with what do I pay then.

219

FEWebDeveloper t1_j93zbg5 wrote

AFAIK it’s using some AI model for restoration and no images are stored within the model or for training. Once the restoration is complete all data related to the image is forgotten.

66

banaslee t1_j9505ge wrote

What makes you say that images are not stored?

44

JMzzr t1_j952eln wrote

I think they are saying this because it says the same thing on the homepage of the website linked above

44

datahoarderx2018 t1_j95bfp8 wrote

Not about this services but https://palette.fm for example explicitly states they don’t store images after they’ve been processed and downloaded, and since that site is run by a former Google engineer with a reputation I don’t doubt it.

34

opmwolf t1_j943tgw wrote

AI has to train from something, it can't start from nothing. Nothing is free in this world, there are always strings attached.

13

FEWebDeveloper t1_j9444x9 wrote

A training set is different from a running dataset. If AI models just accepted anything in the training set then they would eventually spit garbage out. The models are fine tuned for a specific task on a specific dataset.

55

LogicalAnswerk t1_j94w6bm wrote

Its pretrained. This is probably a preview to a host of new products that will come with a price tag.

16

justanotherzee t1_j95104k wrote

It's not using other people's photos to make yours high res. There are a lot algorithms to duplicate and replicate pixels to make the images sharper.

13

lucellent t1_j94x2kh wrote

This is not how it works lol the model has already been created with other faces, you using it won't improve it or contribute to the model.

7

the0past t1_j95ad28 wrote

Nothing is free lol. Using it won't affect it lol.

−9

entertainman t1_j97v48n wrote

Upscaling compression is probably one of the easiest things to train, because you can run a lossy filter on high quality images you already have images. Same with colorizing.

1

ungodlyActingTALENT t1_j93hmn3 wrote

now I can really see if my grandparents were as good looking as they said they were.

90

SpinCharm t1_j944ry1 wrote

It’s interesting but it generates faces that aren’t faithful to the original. I tried an old photo of myself, sister, and four close friends when we were kids. It was grainy, blurry and black and white.

The result was that two of my friends looked correct, likely because they were the two that were clearest in the original. But everyone else was changed. It wasn’t me, my sister and my friends, it was four new faces that bore only slight resemblance to the original.

It’s using AI to construct approximate facial features, but in doing so, generates new faces. It isn’t enhancing existing ones, unless the existing ones are very clear to start with.

It’s still nowhere close to being able to fool the brain. We’re hard wired to recognize faces. We know instantly when there’s even the slightest difference, and this thing creates massively different faces when it has to.

66

miiMike t1_j95dsw9 wrote

Same here, I tried two pictures and it’s not myself anymore

10

vze33jng t1_j966yu9 wrote

Tried a photo of me swimming and wiping my face off. My hand covers my face in the photo. The "restored" version put eyes, nose and mouth on my hand anyway...

5

sweetalkersweetalker t1_j9780bo wrote

Are you SURE your hand didn't have eyes a nose and a mouth back then?

2

vze33jng t1_j9cglzi wrote

>Are you SURE your hand didn't have eyes a nose and a mouth back then?

Not anymore; There's photo EVIDENCE!

1

DamnAlreadyTaken t1_j99r1bo wrote

I tried with a couple of photos I took with very old phones (10+ years). It did exactly what I could have done with photoshop, blow up the resolution smooth the picture, the artifacts are the same. I felt really disappointed. Was expecting something magical

1

SpinCharm t1_j99rcn8 wrote

It actually only does anything of significance to faces. Bodies, backgrounds, sky etc are mostly just blurred or unsharpened. So it’s not looking to recognize a tree then improve it with a much clearer tree. But if it finds a face it can make assumptions about the eyes and replace them with supposedly exactly the same eyes that are much sharper.

Unfortunately the combination of “improving” the eyes, nose, ears, chin, and hair results in something that really isn’t the same person. But to a stranger, it would look like an improvement as they’d have no baseline expectations on what the person actually looks like.

2

nostradamefrus t1_j94ftqz wrote

Do we not remember the “how will you look when you’re 80” or whatever app from 2019 that was proven to be Russian facial recognition and collection software?

DON’T UPLOAD YOUR FACE TO RANDOM FREE SERVICES

41

acoolrocket t1_j95v2xc wrote

True, tbh I'd only use these free online services for memes/random photos of people.

Personal photos would definitely make use of some locally/offline run A.I. upscaler/enhancer like Topaz's stuff. Only downside is that you can't convince everyone to get a nice GPU with +6GB of VRAM so its this unfortunate grey zone that people that want to try this but only have phones/tablets would have to wager what online services to use.

4

DrinkHumblyDumbly t1_j96460q wrote

I don’t know much about it, but maybe this is one of the places where encrypted computation in AI is important, which I heard there’s still quite some ongoing research and certain operations cannot be done. Tho it goes back to issues of trust, especially with black box models even if it’s open source to some extent

3

euchrebot t1_j93zgp4 wrote

I assume some server in China is harvesting old blurry nudes of my exes.

27

SyntheticOne t1_j93zeyo wrote

I'm running a test photo of some enemies of mine just to see how it goes.

15

VertexBV t1_j93v95c wrote

Just tried this with an old scanned photo, the results are like a starting point for a /r/nosleep story.

14

DrinkHumblyDumbly t1_j94x7wa wrote

Sites like this, even as cool it it might sound, need to have very straightforward privacy policy and terms of service. Plus, who are the creators, where are the servers, … for transparency and accountability purposes.

Who’s to say this isn’t one of ClearView AI honeypot?

I’ve been seeing quite many promotions of AI sites on this subreddit and honestly, the internet can be both beautiful and dangerous at the same time. I hope the mods can help to caution people.

13

brendonap t1_j93it10 wrote

I know what I’m getting my parents for Christmas 😂

8

competetowin t1_j93qdf7 wrote

Dude it’s February and this service is free. What are you waiting 10 months for?

10

UncommonBagOfLoot t1_j93v1hk wrote

For it to become paid service. Will increase the gift value.

16

matlynar t1_j93zes9 wrote

GFPGAN (Which this website seems to use based on the results I got) is open source so even if it becomes paid you'll be able to find something similar elsewhere (and probably with better results because DAMN is AI evolving FAST)

6

velvetrevolting t1_j94vm5e wrote

😜 so illustrative and hilarious thanks// 🤦 ...and that Sir is what makes the economic system(s) work like so. (Rational actors you say; tell me more.)

3

jawshoeaw t1_j94wu1p wrote

Tried it on a blurry photo of my wife taken in bad lighting. Her teeth were originally a pixelated messy blur. AI somehow drew in her teeth. Everything else was very realistic and didn’t look AI’d to me . Then I realized I had uploaded a “live “ photo from an iPhone. The website showed the before picture as a blurry image when the best frame of the live image was exactly sharp and well defined. So it kind of faked the before and after. That was disappointing. So I turned off Live Photos and picked a blurry frame as the default. This time the AI was able to sharpen it up. But it didn’t look anywhere near as good as the best frame of the Live Photo

4

WonderfulConcept3155 t1_j952tiw wrote

That’s quite impressive actually, not many apps and websites support Live Photos from iPhone.

5

astro_plane t1_j962hlr wrote

My picture came out looking worse lol

2

bbudda87 t1_j96hv7l wrote

Used it on an old, blurry photo of myself when I was 4, I'm astonished!

2

doinjax t1_j95o67f wrote

Doesn't fix discoloration problems

1

jerflash t1_j96mhks wrote

I mean it’s not really free per say… you are willfully feeding its algorithm with your data so it gets better

1

skoltroll t1_j9b6063 wrote

/uploads childhood photos for restoration

Program: No, your 70's childhood really was that beige and brown color.

1

MuggyFuzzball t1_j9hz157 wrote

I tried it out. Didn't do a very good job

1

artwrangler t1_j942d5x wrote

They’re taking ma jobbbb

0

Dentikit t1_j97a25z wrote

If the service is free you’re the product

0