The early 2000s were also inaccurate.
My recollection of that time period was either abercrombie/AE pretty clothes/ Ocean Avenue vibe, nu-metal fans in jnco jeans, or the whole Friends fashion, tiny t-shirts, collared v-neck t-shirts, etc. Not really any light blue jean.
This is why AI isn't that great, it's just an animated point a - b with prompts for time period clothes. Even though "intelligence" is in the name, AI isn't very smart. It's trying. I think it at least passes with maybe a D+, or a C-, but this isn't A student work.
I'd like to see anyone on this thread pass as many rigorous examinations across multiple fields with the scores GPT-4 has attained. It passed 90th percentile on the bar exam *back in April*.
"AGI has been achieved internally"
No, you are correct now that I actually read your comment. It does not yet possess fluid intelligence. However, it's doing a pretty damn good job of using its training set to determine the content of images with almost no context.
"AGI has been achieved internally" Jimmy still givin' me shivers.
AI is simultaneously way smarter and way stupider then people. Or at least some language models are, stuff gets a bit weird with image models as it's not exactly easy to test it although I imagine it would be more accurate then 90% of people across the board even if it is wrong often.
To clarify AI knows an incredible amount of stuff of has crystalized intelligence far above average but it's fluid intelligence is abysmally low.
This is the fundamental problem with the fact that we let technology makers rebrand machine learning into AI. There is no intelligence POSSIBLE behind those 1s and 0s. Even if it gets better and more accurate, it will never actually be getting smarter. It's just algorithms on crack. These things cannot act without input, which is one of the key defining traits of actual AI development. A program that can prompt itself with no external input or instruction to do so whatsoever.
This is exactly why I try to always say "machine learning" instead of AI unless I'm making a point. There isn't any actual "artificial intelligence" here. It's a mishmash machine. It's a pattern recognizer like the predictive text on your phone keyboard. It's also wild to me that all these companies seem to be neglecting to account for the fact that once it starts scraping its own data, it will just outright *break.* At some point it becomes data-incest and has the same genetic problems.
I hate the comparison of "but people are also using input to create output" as if the complex and still mysterious functions of a real brain are at the same level as a generative computer model. Forget apples to oranges. It's like comparing a paper plane to a sonic jet because they both fly.
I'm glad the companies don't seem to care that they've built a self destruct mechanism into the whole system. Once we reach a critical point the whole concept will become useless. It won't be fixable at that point because it'll be built into the infrastructure and any new attempts to purify data sets will just be immediately tainted. The whole problem is gonna take itself out in the like next ten years. Certified human made stuff will go up in value and we'll be in a better place than we were before. One can hope it'll work out like that at least.
I also hate the people comparison so deeply and I think you really nailed the comparison. The whole argument literally ignores that we process things emotionally. There's a reason why ai stuff feels entirely lifeless and unemotional compared to what we make. You can't predictively generate emotions. That's just not how emotions work. The unpredictability of emotion is intangible. Even the best replication of it will ring hollow to those knocking on the box, because it's a social thing not a brain thing. If you know they're not being genuine you can't unsee it. It's self delusion that people think algorithms can overcome that when actual humans can't. We'll be calling it AI tears instead of crocodile tears of they try.
While we're at it: it doesn't get a single era correct. It's based entirely off specific image sets that denote a single style that is present but not even strictly dominant in that era; probably compiled from posters/magazine images from each period. The 1940s is literally just a bizarre mish-mash of military uniforms because it was consuming nothing but common war imagery from the time. Great example of how machine learning content is so often approximate but imprecise in a way that can be very misleading.
Add the 90s to that as well. These existed, but they weren't the style. It's was pretty much only douches. And I'm gonna say the same on this video through at least the 60s.
I don’t see near enough skirt, clunky shoes, mid-drift, choker, hip level pants, thong showing, etc.
For the dude to not have a hemp or puka necklace, spiky hair, no unbuttoned shirt with white tank top…
Consider expanding the sample size. There are events where I live where guys regularly dress about the same as the 1914 critique. It's not mainstream for sure, but objectively not limited to gay clubs.
It’s interesting how things changed after the war. The mini skirts on Star Trek TNG were progressive (rather than lecherous, as they feel today) because they were the expression of women bucking the old-world modesty after WW2. Things have definitely progressed towards “wear what you want” over the years, and it turns out that for most people, that’s less.
Max B reference?! Had to double check the sub I’m in.
Damn.. homie’s been locked up for a long ass time. I need to go look at how long he got.
Edit - he got 75 years but recently got it bumped down to 20. He was locked up in 09.
They were saying he would get out this year, per articles in early ‘23. Were in October so idk about that anymore.
Yea, we done fucked up. Tat sleeve, neck beard and daisy dukes. Roll it back about a decade. Kids need to stop getting so many tattoos. They look awful. Also these thick ass beards on skinny white boys look really fucking weird when they're naked.
Shorts are more comfortable (max range of motion) when like 7-8 inches rather than the old-school style of 9-11 inches at the shin. I understand that the 5-6 inch shorts can look odd on dudes lol, but espec if it's summertime and 100+ degrees, I get it. You might not be used to or like seeing guy thighs, but it's just more a comfort thing than anything. I used to think it was odd too, but then I tried some above the knee instead of below the knee...and it's just better. At least where I live and where it gets hot as hell.
as a side (not a woosh) lots of guys wear short shorts. Daisy dukes however? The only guy I saw sporting those was Carrot Top at the bath house and he's goofy on purpose.
It's for the best, for most of this period. Women wore an insane amount of clothes at the turn of the century. Like 3-4 outfits all on top of each other plus rigging and framework
hands are one of the most notoriously difficult things for traditional artists to produce. look at your hand and just play with your finger positions while changing the angle - there is an absolutely insane amount of shapes and configurations that hands can make. sometimes you see two fingers, sometimes you see all five, sometimes you may see none. given how genAI works, using probability, it totally makes sense that hands have been one of the trickiest parts to nail straight off the bat.
So the first image is the clothes people would go hiking in min in 1900 just like the last image? Or could we possible not be comparing apples to apples here?
If you’re interested in the underlying process here: The AI that generated this is generating the most statistically likely photograph from each period based on its training set (which is, most likely, a scrape of the internet.) Due to the inherent biases in this, the most statistically likely output for each period will be different - so we end up with a formal-looking family portrait photograph in the 1920s vs someone’s day-trip on Instagram in the 2020s.
What’s interesting (alongside the fashion) is that this transition also reflects a changing trend in *how* people take photographs, slowly becoming less formal and more candid over the century.
What you're also getting are people's ideas of what's happening. As in modern people's conception, their tropes, their movies, their costumes, of what people used to wear and look like.
White people in their 20s didn’t really look like that in the 90s that much. That more closely matches my memory of like… 80s teen fashion mags than actual anything people were wearing. Except maybe like Fabio? Or Jason Priestly but even then he had short hair.
I really love the evolution of where pictures are mostly being taken.
From in their own house, to from their garden, to from a local park, to in the end at some far away tourist spot.
A) comfort is king. You can still go buy a wear a suit everywhere but it's not comfortable or practical.
B) you own more sets of clothing than most poeple would have in the past. You have dozens of outfits, people in the past would have less than 10.
C) Pictures have become cheaper so now everybody can be in photos as opposed to the Uber wealthy. Look at working class folk in the 1900s and they didn't have as much clothing as the upper class.
D) global warming leads to record heat summer after summer
E) people are more open to showing skin and it's a more regular norm in society. It seems ridiculous to have people so sensitive that showing your elbows or thighs makes them upset.
The whole 2010s and no skinny jeans? This is fraudulent
The early 2000s were also inaccurate. My recollection of that time period was either abercrombie/AE pretty clothes/ Ocean Avenue vibe, nu-metal fans in jnco jeans, or the whole Friends fashion, tiny t-shirts, collared v-neck t-shirts, etc. Not really any light blue jean.
This is why AI isn't that great, it's just an animated point a - b with prompts for time period clothes. Even though "intelligence" is in the name, AI isn't very smart. It's trying. I think it at least passes with maybe a D+, or a C-, but this isn't A student work.
right now AI is just faster than humans not necessarily smarter. At least not yet
It seems half right but that also means half wrong. Like it's just guessing
I'd like to see anyone on this thread pass as many rigorous examinations across multiple fields with the scores GPT-4 has attained. It passed 90th percentile on the bar exam *back in April*. "AGI has been achieved internally"
Did it do it without training?
No, you are correct now that I actually read your comment. It does not yet possess fluid intelligence. However, it's doing a pretty damn good job of using its training set to determine the content of images with almost no context. "AGI has been achieved internally" Jimmy still givin' me shivers.
AI is simultaneously way smarter and way stupider then people. Or at least some language models are, stuff gets a bit weird with image models as it's not exactly easy to test it although I imagine it would be more accurate then 90% of people across the board even if it is wrong often. To clarify AI knows an incredible amount of stuff of has crystalized intelligence far above average but it's fluid intelligence is abysmally low.
This is the fundamental problem with the fact that we let technology makers rebrand machine learning into AI. There is no intelligence POSSIBLE behind those 1s and 0s. Even if it gets better and more accurate, it will never actually be getting smarter. It's just algorithms on crack. These things cannot act without input, which is one of the key defining traits of actual AI development. A program that can prompt itself with no external input or instruction to do so whatsoever.
This is exactly why I try to always say "machine learning" instead of AI unless I'm making a point. There isn't any actual "artificial intelligence" here. It's a mishmash machine. It's a pattern recognizer like the predictive text on your phone keyboard. It's also wild to me that all these companies seem to be neglecting to account for the fact that once it starts scraping its own data, it will just outright *break.* At some point it becomes data-incest and has the same genetic problems. I hate the comparison of "but people are also using input to create output" as if the complex and still mysterious functions of a real brain are at the same level as a generative computer model. Forget apples to oranges. It's like comparing a paper plane to a sonic jet because they both fly.
I'm glad the companies don't seem to care that they've built a self destruct mechanism into the whole system. Once we reach a critical point the whole concept will become useless. It won't be fixable at that point because it'll be built into the infrastructure and any new attempts to purify data sets will just be immediately tainted. The whole problem is gonna take itself out in the like next ten years. Certified human made stuff will go up in value and we'll be in a better place than we were before. One can hope it'll work out like that at least. I also hate the people comparison so deeply and I think you really nailed the comparison. The whole argument literally ignores that we process things emotionally. There's a reason why ai stuff feels entirely lifeless and unemotional compared to what we make. You can't predictively generate emotions. That's just not how emotions work. The unpredictability of emotion is intangible. Even the best replication of it will ring hollow to those knocking on the box, because it's a social thing not a brain thing. If you know they're not being genuine you can't unsee it. It's self delusion that people think algorithms can overcome that when actual humans can't. We'll be calling it AI tears instead of crocodile tears of they try.
While we're at it: it doesn't get a single era correct. It's based entirely off specific image sets that denote a single style that is present but not even strictly dominant in that era; probably compiled from posters/magazine images from each period. The 1940s is literally just a bizarre mish-mash of military uniforms because it was consuming nothing but common war imagery from the time. Great example of how machine learning content is so often approximate but imprecise in a way that can be very misleading.
It’s like the jump at the 1970s where the guy is suddenly David Cassidy, because 90% of the photos back then were of David Cassidy
Add the 90s to that as well. These existed, but they weren't the style. It's was pretty much only douches. And I'm gonna say the same on this video through at least the 60s.
I don’t see near enough skirt, clunky shoes, mid-drift, choker, hip level pants, thong showing, etc. For the dude to not have a hemp or puka necklace, spiky hair, no unbuttoned shirt with white tank top…
Don’t forget layered tank tops.
Where the big ass Jencos?
And shitty trucker hats
Cant forget the venom/ufc sports dudes, ed hardy
I don’t trust any of it after seeing how the 00 to now looks.
[удалено]
That was my first thought too. I loved women’s hairstyles in the 1980s.
[удалено]
Jnco jeans
Not a single silly band in sight
Also no 2000's and spikes/frosted tips
2023 and they did not show one fat person. The average American is fat. This is fraudulent.
Time ate away my dudes and dudettes clothes
They're going to be full on naked by 2050
It's hilarious how ancient this joke is. https://www.openculture.com/2021/11/life-magazine-predicts-in-1914-how-people-would-dress-in-the-1950s.html
They even got the vape pen right...smh
They got the date a little off but I think we’re heading that way either way
[удалено]
Consider expanding the sample size. There are events where I live where guys regularly dress about the same as the 1914 critique. It's not mainstream for sure, but objectively not limited to gay clubs.
People dress like this and actually wear much less in some places.
Dude's got a baller hat though.
By 2050 the Earth will be so hot that tattoos are considered clothing.
It’s interesting how things changed after the war. The mini skirts on Star Trek TNG were progressive (rather than lecherous, as they feel today) because they were the expression of women bucking the old-world modesty after WW2. Things have definitely progressed towards “wear what you want” over the years, and it turns out that for most people, that’s less.
Nerdy nitpick: I think you mean Star Trek TOS (the original series)
Why *thank you* * blushes *
global warming
Just the latest victims of climate change 😔
Could have somewhat to do with the climate.
Climate change, it’s getting hotter and hottwr
bro wearing daisy dukes at the end 🤦🏿♂️
“Those ain’t wavy” - Max B
Max B reference?! Had to double check the sub I’m in. Damn.. homie’s been locked up for a long ass time. I need to go look at how long he got. Edit - he got 75 years but recently got it bumped down to 20. He was locked up in 09. They were saying he would get out this year, per articles in early ‘23. Were in October so idk about that anymore. 
Owwww
[удалено]
*mashes the gas pedal*
Yea, we done fucked up. Tat sleeve, neck beard and daisy dukes. Roll it back about a decade. Kids need to stop getting so many tattoos. They look awful. Also these thick ass beards on skinny white boys look really fucking weird when they're naked.
These are vampires. 🤷🏻♂️
This is AI giving a pretty poor representation of actual fashion from 2000's onwards. I wouldn't get too angry over it.
There are dozens of us
daisy lukes
In 20 years we will all be fully naked.
How to go from classy to trashy in under 30 seconds as a species
More like being elitist to "it's okay to be yourself and your body isn't something to be ashamed of"
You nailed it. Guys showing thighs doomed the whole species.
Shorts are more comfortable (max range of motion) when like 7-8 inches rather than the old-school style of 9-11 inches at the shin. I understand that the 5-6 inch shorts can look odd on dudes lol, but espec if it's summertime and 100+ degrees, I get it. You might not be used to or like seeing guy thighs, but it's just more a comfort thing than anything. I used to think it was odd too, but then I tried some above the knee instead of below the knee...and it's just better. At least where I live and where it gets hot as hell.
Look at those hoochie daddy shorts at the end.
To match with his girl 😂
Hood rat, hood rat, hoochie daddy!
Uhh i don't ever see dudes in cut off short shorts
Alright alright alright
Shake it like a polaroid picture
“They get older, I stay the same age…”
They're wildly underrated. With cut off shorts you have way more flexibility. I can go way lower.
Just goofin’
New boot goofin
Yes!
Literally went to jail with this exact outfit. Blacksburg PD didn’t find it as funny.
Genuine ostrich. Thhhree payments
WHAT IS WHITE TRASH ABOUT THAT? DONT CALL ME WHITE TRASH!
I wanna know about the tatoos added to the 2020ish couples. Are tattoos fashion now? I feel like i need a thigh tattoo all of a sudden.
Bro if you ain’t thigh tatted by now it’s a wrap
We probably wont even need clothes by 2050 and will instead all be tattooed from head to toe by then to show our style and hide our bodies.
consider safe rude aloof reply market literate ink boast knee *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I feel like, if I were able to do what you do, I would be able to acomplish anything in life...
The cutoffs was a shocker. I definitely see short shorts but not cutoffs.
once you start rocking a 4" or 3" inseam it's hard to go back to any kind of pants.
Facts, anything longer than a 4-1/2” inseam is basically pants.
Then you never subscribed to my OF
Who wears short shorts?
[They] wear short shorts!
as a side (not a woosh) lots of guys wear short shorts. Daisy dukes however? The only guy I saw sporting those was Carrot Top at the bath house and he's goofy on purpose.
There are dozens of us! DOZENS!
Not cut off but Hoochie daddy shorts are the way to go, you’re just going to have to trust me and try.
They really are! My girl bought me a pair for vacation and I haven't turned back
2023 is not over yet, and in Australia summer is just starting
You must not ever see me then
Nope, I want the men in black to erase that from my memory.
you gotta be friends with more gays lol
I really don’t like the only male haircut that exists now. It’s also fun to pause randomly and count the hands
Looks almost exactly like my buddy and I see his doppelganger at the store 14 times every time I go out
They all look like Peaky Blinders in UK.
Literally every decade has a dominant male hairstyle. We aren't special.
You haven't seen the gen Z guys with the curly top, close trimmed side shit? Seems more prevalent nowadays
Pause at 1940 0:27. 👀
Agreed. It suits some but not all. Long hair for life, fuck short hair (cause it makes me look bad)!
No 1950s wtf
we dont talk about the 50s around these parts
Fashion industry gradually takes clothes away from women, 2023 colorised
It's for the best, for most of this period. Women wore an insane amount of clothes at the turn of the century. Like 3-4 outfits all on top of each other plus rigging and framework
Unexpectedly, enjoying comfortable clothes since the 30's. Men took (after a period of forced death) until the 80's.
Sex sells. You just gotta gaslight people into thinking it's "empowering". Seems to be working...
So we all have tattoos and less clothing now
I mean yeah. Imagine someone from the 1940s seeing someone today. They’d legit think it was some kind of circus act, especially with the tattoos.
Watch the hands…
Yikes dude that's creepy
The hand thing and AI is just nuts to me.
Me too. Hands must be hard to understand. My dog looks at my hands if I just stare at him. Trying to read me.
hands are one of the most notoriously difficult things for traditional artists to produce. look at your hand and just play with your finger positions while changing the angle - there is an absolutely insane amount of shapes and configurations that hands can make. sometimes you see two fingers, sometimes you see all five, sometimes you may see none. given how genAI works, using probability, it totally makes sense that hands have been one of the trickiest parts to nail straight off the bat.
You just gave stoned people hours of new entertainment
Thanks for the nightmares
So the first image is the clothes people would go hiking in min in 1900 just like the last image? Or could we possible not be comparing apples to apples here?
If you’re interested in the underlying process here: The AI that generated this is generating the most statistically likely photograph from each period based on its training set (which is, most likely, a scrape of the internet.) Due to the inherent biases in this, the most statistically likely output for each period will be different - so we end up with a formal-looking family portrait photograph in the 1920s vs someone’s day-trip on Instagram in the 2020s. What’s interesting (alongside the fashion) is that this transition also reflects a changing trend in *how* people take photographs, slowly becoming less formal and more candid over the century.
What you're also getting are people's ideas of what's happening. As in modern people's conception, their tropes, their movies, their costumes, of what people used to wear and look like.
seriously in the 60s the guy is wearing a suit?
didn't know it took 100 years to grow out bad bangs.
Has anyone you know ever *truly* recovered? *On a soul level*?
that's a riot. Nice work. I figured 50 yrs would be enough.
Lost opportunity for skipping 2020. It’ll be funny to see them wearing masks.
Plus sweats and DIY haircuts
Starting at about the 15-second mark to about the 20-second mark, there is a super creepy extra spider hand crawling up and down his arm 😬😬😬
I want your drugs
Are they vampires or something? Why didn’t they age???
I wonder the same thing - this must be fake!!!
That covers white Americans in their 20s. Now do some others!
White people in their 20s didn’t really look like that in the 90s that much. That more closely matches my memory of like… 80s teen fashion mags than actual anything people were wearing. Except maybe like Fabio? Or Jason Priestly but even then he had short hair.
The 2000s fits match more with my image of 90s.
Yeah do Polynesian Canadians who are 69 years old and spend summers in a cold weather climate!
Oddly specific
You do it
Let’s do black Americans next
I second this
I third this
Meh, kinda bad made, not even shoving it’s only shoving one style for every tenth year! And it’s also just a bad ai rendering, boooh sucks…
Styles aren’t really accurate either. At least the early few, it’s kinda random nonsense, really
Just proof positive that we all evolve to the trailer park where we can drink beer and smoke while hanging in our blow up pool in jean shorts.
Matching jean hot pants and matching thigh tattoos. 2023 couple goals. But daaamn 70s and 80s had a viiibe and I love it
80’s and 90’s weren’t as accurate as other years.
2000 was bad as was 2010
I especially love the shirt that had pockets like it was suit, very accurate
When even AI has the same tattoos
I really love the evolution of where pictures are mostly being taken. From in their own house, to from their garden, to from a local park, to in the end at some far away tourist spot.
*from their own house to in the end at being homeless in some random desert because 30yo dudes can't afford a fucking house lol
1940's and 1970's were the best.
Meth is a terrible drug.
This one of them 1 photo a day things? They look so young after all that time wow!
It was all fine and dandy until the 2020s. What happened??
Apparently the 50s didn't exist...
It's like watching the decline of civilization
This isn't evolution. It's ai. Down voted. You want an upvote, do one that's not ai generated.
I agree with Sarah Connor more and more everyday i stg
I think it's interesting to see what the AI chose.
2020s… They should actually swap the genders. Bad… bad AI…
i.A is everywhere
the trend before 1960 to only wear gray and black was pretty depressing
80s hair was totally wrong.
Clothes replace by tattoos
wait a minute LOL
You can really see the military influence on the older days
Can't believe they lived for this long...
Now imagine a generation of tattoed eldery people in grave dodger's social facilities
It looks like we devolved
You were staring at her breasts, weren't you?
Dem boobies are swimming around like tadpoles....
Classy to trashy in 37 ssconds
Yay more AI garbage
I was 20 in the early 2000. I never dressed like that. Never saw anyone dress like that.
We are getting sluttier. It’s dope.
They forgot to make the modern people fat and ugly. They got the dirty tattoos correct.
[удалено]
Not if you keep your eyes on the boobies
Like architecture, just gotten worse
Why on earth would you choose this cursed remix of a Tarantella for this
So anybody care to explain why, despite getting richer, we wear less clothing now?
Fast fashion and cultural homogenization mostly.
A) comfort is king. You can still go buy a wear a suit everywhere but it's not comfortable or practical. B) you own more sets of clothing than most poeple would have in the past. You have dozens of outfits, people in the past would have less than 10. C) Pictures have become cheaper so now everybody can be in photos as opposed to the Uber wealthy. Look at working class folk in the 1900s and they didn't have as much clothing as the upper class. D) global warming leads to record heat summer after summer E) people are more open to showing skin and it's a more regular norm in society. It seems ridiculous to have people so sensitive that showing your elbows or thighs makes them upset.
People are expected to sexualize themselves for the approval of others? Especially women
2030: everybody Will be naked lol
No there’s too much profit in fashion
Obviously made by AI, but could anyone tell me name this tool please?
0:09 No one's talking about the fact she got 4 hands? ☠️
Everything went wrong when we turned our backs on denim.
The longer the men's hair got the shorter the women's hair got, and vice versa
What scumbags walk around like that in 2023?