Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday May 05 2017, @06:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the next-up-is-character-assassination dept.

University of Edinburgh have used machine learning to animate human characters:

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh have developed a novel learning framework called a Phase-Functioned Neural Network (PFNN) that uses machine learning for character animation and other applications. Daniel Holden, a researcher at Ubisoft Montreal and lead researcher on this project, described PFNN as:

A learning framework that is suitable for generating cyclic behavior such as human locomotion. We also design the input and output parameters of the network for real-time data-driven character control in complex environments with detailed user interaction. Despite its compact structure, the network can learn from a large, high dimensional dataset thanks to a phase function that varies smoothly over time to produce a large variation of network configurations. We also propose a framework to produce additional data for training the PFNN where the human locomotion and the environmental geometry are coupled. Once trained our system is fast, requires little memory, and produces high quality motion without exhibiting any of the common artefacts found in existing methods.

Holden went on to say that, once trained, PFNN is extremely fast and compact, requiring only milliseconds of execution time and a few megabytes of memory, even when trained on gigabytes of motion data.

If this software can allow fewer people to create more complicated animations with less resources, it could be another step away from Hollywood. A single person with a computer could animate dead actors using software and source material (and create a soundtrack while they're at it). "Sets" can be created virtually. Personality rights laws can be circumvented by distributing amateur/fan films using the same avenues used for piracy (streaming, torrents, sneakernet, etc.), leading to a loss of control over the portrayal of living and dead actors.

Additional coverage can be found on ArsTechnica.

Related:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/computer-scientists-have-created-most-accurate-digital-model-human-face-here-s-what-it


Original Submission

Related Stories

Google's "Magenta" Machine Learning Project Creates Music 27 comments

Google is demonstrating music created using machine learning techniques. It has previously made psychedelic art:

It's a long way to Carnegie Hall, but we bet that Google researchers are already thinking of the day when they can send a robot or AI to play an interesting, improvised piano performance in a major venue.

While that's not the stated end goal of Magenta, a new project from the Google Brain team, it's certainly a possibility. The entire premise of Magenta is built around two simple questions: Can machines make art? And can machines make music? And, dare we say it, there's also an unstated third question: Can machines make either art or music that's any good?

We'll let you judge the last one. Here's the first piece of music from Google's machine-learning system. It's only 90 seconds long, but it's at least an early demonstration of Magenta's capabilities.


Original Submission

Disney to Stop Using CGI for Carrie Fisher, aka Princess Leia Organa 54 comments

Disney has issued a statement regarding the rumors of CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery) being used to continue Carrie Fisher's roles in any upcoming movies:

We want to assure our fans that Lucasfilm has no plans to digitally recreate Carrie Fisher's performance as Princess or General Leia Organa.

Of course that would be after they already recreated her as young Princess Leia in Rogue One. I'm kinda torn because I found nothing funnier than her CGI face in that movie. Moff Tarkin was done quite well, but Leia looked like she had several strong psychedelic edibles and a glorious bowel movement just 2 minutes before.

Assuming that they could do it better, who is for recreating our favorite characters with CGI?


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @06:39AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @06:39AM (#504712)

    Every actor now out of work! Desperate actors turned content creators crash YouTube! Panic grips Twitter! Angry mobs picket Mountain View! California under Martial Law!

    • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday May 08 2017, @09:23PM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Monday May 08 2017, @09:23PM (#506594) Journal

      Remember that old episode of Super Friends, "Professor Goodfellow's G.E.E.C." (Goodfellows Effort Eliminating Computer) from Season 1? The plotof the episode was a computer which was able to fully automate all aspects of life including the elimination of actors as everything was done by the computer. Of course the computer freaks out and the Super Friends shut it down returning life to normal.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @07:58AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @07:58AM (#504725)

    As many technologies [curiousmatic.com], I would venture a bet that the porn industry will be the first to adapt it, e.g. to cater to special tastes not legally to be realized otherwise or to provide movies with characters specifically similar to celebrities

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @08:53AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05 2017, @08:53AM (#504738)

      I can see it now... just like those porn sites you go to right now, and someone will do things for you on webcam as you pay by the minute.

      Imagine your own fantasy character... your ideal sexmate ... created to your own specifications down to the last detail - doing whatever you want. No human other than you involved in the whole act.

      Could it be called "bestiality" if no animal was involved? Could it be called "child porn" if no children were involved? All computer generated images. Pixel dust.

      Oughta be good for advertising too. Your highly polished sales "representative" will say whatever you want it to say - with a straight face, no less!

      Kinda like that cartoon face I saw on a tire hose once that showed a smiling cartoon face of a well dressed man using the product. I knew good and well upon seeing how the product was to be used, it would not transfer the air from the spare to the flat; instead , it was rather obvious once the product was used the way they showed to use it, the customer would now have TWO tires with insufficient pressure to drive on - and now in one helluva pickle. I am quite sure the expression on the actual user's face 5 seconds after using the product would in no way look like that smiling caricature shown on the product.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Friday May 05 2017, @01:46PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday May 05 2017, @01:46PM (#504838) Journal

        (see other reply) Highly realistic "simulated child pornography" would fail due to the PROTECT Act of 2003. Celebrity porn would fail because personality rights laws could protect celebrities so long as we allow the Miller test [wikipedia.org] to exist and continue to consider pornography to be obscene and not First Amendment protected speech.

        To be clear, the laws would not stop this kind of content from being created, but removing the ability to easily monetize or share it will slow its creation/adoption by a few years and hurt the volume of content.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Friday May 05 2017, @01:38PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday May 05 2017, @01:38PM (#504834) Journal

      I think the industry would run into a couple of problems, mainly with the Miller test. If you're referring to child pornography, there is this [wikipedia.org]:

      In the United States, the PROTECT Act of 2003 made significant changes to the law regarding virtual child pornography.[3][4][5] Any realistic appearing computer generated depiction that is indistinguishable from a depiction of an actual minor in sexual situations or engaging in sexual acts is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. Drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings of minors in sexual situations that do not pass the Miller test were made illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A.

      As for celebrities, they may be able to win in court against the pornography industry but not the broader film industry or amateurs making non-pornographic films, etc. Basically, if personality rights laws could be invalidated in the case of First Amendment protected non-porn films, but upheld for porn since porn is considered obscene and not First Amendment protected speech. So personality rights laws could morph into "don't make a CGI porno with my likeness copied and pasted into it" laws.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday May 05 2017, @03:44PM

      by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Friday May 05 2017, @03:44PM (#504934)

      In my jurisdiction, drawings are just as illegal as child rape images.

  • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday May 05 2017, @05:38PM (1 child)

    by mhajicek (51) on Friday May 05 2017, @05:38PM (#505029)

    I'm wondering if this could be used to help robots walk.

    --
    The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(1)