Readit News logoReadit News
Posted by u/peteralaoui 3 years ago
Show HN: Get a Professional Headshot in Minutes with AIvirtualface.app...
After playing with AI Avatars (like many of us I guess around here), I started to wonder if we could instead bring real value to people by producing affordable professional head-shots using a combination of Dreambooth and ControlNet.

Obviously it's only the beginning and there are still many imperfections, but the foundational tech behind this (Dreambooth and ControlNet) are only respectively 6 months and 1.5 month old, and already delivers pretty amazing results.

I came up with this little service "Virtual Face" and I'm looking for feedback if some of you are willing to try it (you can use the HUNTER50 coupon to get 50% off, can't make it free to try yet since the running costs are still non-negligible).

Cheers, Pierre

hn_throwaway_99 · 3 years ago
I usually hate dumping on Show HNs, but given the societal impacts of this, I feel the need to be blunt. Call me old fashioned, call me a luddite, whatever, but I hate this.

So now even our profile pictures aren't really us, but just some pseudo-reality version of who we think we are. And I know I know, people will argue that makeup/airbrushing/photoshop/facetune has been going on forever, but at some point I feel like we cross the line where it's no longer "reality with some touchups", but instead it's "complete fantasy made to mimic reality".

I just feel like AI is shooting us head first down this state where reality and fantasy are evermore difficult to differentiate, and I don't like the implications.

barrell · 3 years ago
I get the concern here, and emotionally I share it. Half of my contacts now have very strange AI avatars as their profile pictures and I still recoil a little every time I see them (the avatars). I think it's a slippery slope and I don't like where it seems to be going.

However, rationally, it's not like humanity has had picture perfect representations of themselves for very long. For most of our evolution, we relied on paintings & sculptures, which it was up to the artist (or the commissioner) to decide on how 'real' they were, and they were almost always "complete fantasy made to mimic reality".

From this lens, the use of unedited real photos of you was the strange period of time, not this AI age we seem to be headed into.

Maybe that helps put your mind a little at ease, maybe it just confuses you more (definitely the latter for me)

hn_throwaway_99 · 3 years ago
My primary point is that I think it's fine to use an obviously generated "cartoon image" as an avatar, but what I think is dangerous is when reality and fantasy blur so much that people (including, especially, the subjects themselves!) get lost with respect to which is which.

It's a similar concern to the updated TikTok "makeup filter" that made the rounds recently, which basically is extremely difficult to detect as a filter. I thought especially poignant was a photographer who was saying she gets these beautiful women in to do portraits, and then when they look behind the camera to view their untouched portraits, they're aghast at how "ugly" they are, because the "filtered" version of themselves has started competing with the real version in their own head.

This shit just fucks with everyone's brain long term, in an unhelpful way, in my opinion.

dTal · 3 years ago
> For most of our evolution, we relied on paintings & sculptures

For most of our evolution we relied on a little thing known as "real life". The idea of the masses routinely representing their identity through imagery is firmly an artifact of the internet age. The UK didn't even have photos on driver's licenses until 1998.

shtack · 3 years ago
Professional headshots have been both taken under unrealistic conditions and heavily edited for a long time. This is true for most selfies nowadays too. This doesn’t seem significantly different to me.
peteralaoui · 3 years ago
It's not the first time that I hear that, thanks for your radical candor :) and to be frank too, I was also sharing that feeling of a fantasy made to mimic reality when I started this project.

It all started when we started to argue with my family members on which avatars looked more like me. It made me realize that we were much more sensitive than I thought about our self-image. Me and my partner would pick different pictures in a set of 10 samples ^^ as if we had two slightly different perceptions of reality.

Now, I changed my mind slightly and tend to see these models as an another type of compression of information. Almost like a new censor of data.

xupybd · 3 years ago
I'd love a version of this tool that alters my face enough to avoid it being useful for facial recognition. I don't really want to publish my face on linked in and other sites as I'm not keen on it getting indexed in some future facial recognition tool.
dr_kiszonka · 3 years ago
I really like your point about compression. I have never thought about it this way. BTW, I am curious how much storage the "essence" of one's face take in relation to the ten images required by your service?
flippinburgers · 3 years ago
No doubt there is that ... and, oh yeah, the money.
braingenious · 3 years ago
I agree with all of this.

Further… I think this is much more akin to those silly “make an anime avatar of yourself” apps than anything remotely resembling a headshot taken by a photographer.

For example, there is an example of a woman with medium length brown hair and the example “headshots” are… not good. It looks like her eye color is different in every picture, the black and white example looks kind of rotoscoped, and the example in the rotation immediately after the black and white has incredibly messed up eyes. One of her irises is all wonky and non-human looking. It’s a great example of why it’s important for a human to supervise and correct SD generated things like faces.

dwringer · 3 years ago
I've been using an AI generated profile image which looks maybe 90% like me for quite a while in some places. I can't think of any obvious negative impacts. I've been totally upfront about it with my friends, but nobody's ever even mentioned it otherwise.

People have made their profile pictures a "pseudo-reality version" of who they think they are since the dawn of profile pictures IMHO.

grugagag · 3 years ago
The negative impact is the shock and horror on people’s faces when seeing the subject in person after having interacted with the avatar for some time. Some people may call that positive impact though
xnorswap · 3 years ago
There's a negative externality of "punishing" anyone not engaging in this AI faux-reality and as with fashion magazines, altering the perception of what people should look like, leading to psychological damage when we don't live up to the expectation.
op00to · 3 years ago
If I am forced to use a picture, I use one from 20 years ago. :)
000ooo000 · 3 years ago
Another step closer to The Great Logging Off.
hn_throwaway_99 · 3 years ago
Amen. I've been having a growing sense of an existential crisis over the past few months, and while a lot of it is due to the general fear of "will AI put me out of a job in the next 5 years", more of it has to do with fact that I'm just uneasy about where tech is headed. I spent my entire career diving head first into technology, and for the first half of it I was supremely optimistic about it. Things have obviously soured over the past decade as I've seen the negative impacts the internet has on our public discourse, mental health (including my own), etc.

But now, seeing what AI has on the horizon, I'm honestly just like "I need to go for a fucking walk, upon which I will throw my phone into the river."

jamesdhutton · 3 years ago
I do understand the sentiment. I think it might be better if it was framed more as a touch-up service, like this: take a headshot of your own, against a neutral background. We will touch it up so that the lighting looks good, the background is good, etc. But it's just a touch up -- we won't fundamentally alter the shot.
sdwr · 3 years ago
It turns into a "noob trap", where people (at first) see a bunch of perfect profiles and get discouraged, only finding the cracks in the facade if they stick around.
peteralaoui · 3 years ago
What if the cracks were imperceptible in the next iteration or two? Would you still say it's a noob trap? _Genuinely interested in your feedback_
kadoban · 3 years ago
Nothing is really us. We're wearing masks all day, every day. This stuff just lets us have more control and more fun with the masks we get for online use.

Who cares if it's fantasy? We crossed that line _long_ ago with the examples you already brought up. The only difference is that this is new.

Nadya · 3 years ago
My profile picture has never once been me. When I see other people's profile pictures - the time it is them it is often a heavily edited photograph - either professional or through the use of app filters or digital editing software. The pictures that people present of themselves so rarely are representative of what they look like in normal situations and day-to-day life. I am completely unphased by this. Then again, my profile picture for the longest time was a picture of three pairs of thigh high socks. So maybe I don't give the same weight to someone's profile picture or chosen avatar as other people seem to do.
tekbog · 3 years ago
I have similar thoughts, and wrote an article called "death of reality"[0] (a bit dramatic I know). More and more of our identity is on the cyber space however all the tools allow more and more fakeness so we just make our own "digital persona", I don't think people are talking about this or noticing it enough. The last straw was with Samsung, unbelievable.

[0]https://bogdannovykov.substack.com/p/death-of-reality

solarkraft · 3 years ago
Photos are just some pseudo-reality version of who we think we are, even without filters. You choose the angle, the lighting, whatever, all with a specific goal in representing yourself.

Oh, you also add choosing the clothes, the hair style and your posture/facial expression to the mix.

It (the genre of image we're talking about)'s all unnatural and meant to portray people in a light somebody wants to portray them in. In fact that's most of "photography" is.

nativespecies · 3 years ago
Is it really that different from an avatar if we reach a point where we all recognize them as avatars? Seems like the danger is in not knowing where the line is between "real" and "tuned" - the more tuned, the easier that line is to see. I don't think this is really that different than people Photoshopping their photos - it's been a plague for dating apps for like, what, two decades?
hl00tb · 3 years ago
What is even reality, and how do you even define real? We wear special clothes on special occasions, is that fake? because we don't wear those clothes normally. Why waste time and money on "real" professional head-shots when we can get them done for much cheaper price.
jhanschoo · 3 years ago
For jobs for which your appearance has no bearing on your value, I don't think anyone should care.
tomjen3 · 3 years ago
Just so that we all understand what photoshop can do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lblzHvKhRc

It does look a little plastique, but it is also (deliberately an extreme case).

op00to · 3 years ago
I use a drawing of myself as my “head shot”. Doesn’t get more fantasy than that. It’s not really me, it’s a drawing. The Wall Street Journal has used “not-them” drawings as profile pictures forever.
cyrialize · 3 years ago
I feel this. I'm lucky I got a free professional headshot at a conference I went to a while back. I like it much more than the AI generated look.
tippytippytango · 3 years ago
As long as someone seeing only my AI headshot can still recognize me for a first time coffee meeting, then the photo passes the reality test for me.
seydor · 3 years ago
Relax, it will blow over. It started from twitter, soon these AI pics will look cringe (they already are imho) and people will be shunned for them
barking_biscuit · 3 years ago
Meh. You just run a genetic algorithm which adjusts the hyperparameters used to train the model, so that it's constantly being updated to pass as real.
BeFlatXIII · 3 years ago
My counterpoint is that people who make judgements about the professionalism of candidates based on their Linked In headshot deserve to be duped.
dolmen · 3 years ago
That's not more wrong than people who keep a 10 years old picture as their profile picture.
insanitybit · 3 years ago
Sounds great tbh, reality fucking sucks and maybe fantasy won't be such a fundamentally broken shit show. Here's hoping.
kube-system · 3 years ago
The idea that "reality sucks" implies a comparison to a fantasy world. If the fantasy world gets better, and reality stays the same, any relative perception that "reality sucks" will get worse.

If you compare reality today to reality at any other time, reality is pretty great.

naet · 3 years ago
Too expensive for something with no previews or samples. Interesting idea but I wish there was more to demonstrate the results before purchasing.

If I was dedicated I think there are some free solutions for training a model on your own face out there but you might have an edge in convenience. Ten dollars seems too steep for that though.

peteralaoui · 3 years ago
Thanks, interesting because I thought that the styles pictures (available after clicking on the call to action) would serve as samples but I guess I should put them on the homepage directly. I will try that tomorrow (European timezone ^^)
angry_moose · 3 years ago
My problem with it is you only show results for 2 people, for which a solid ~third of the "real life" ones look kinda bad (not even getting into the animated versions).

It reads to me like you cherrypicked the two best examples and even those aren't great, whether that's true or not.

Edit: Woof, I didn't realize you could get bigger versions of the examples. They were mostly fine as thumbnails but blown up to ~500x500 the the eyes and mouth are rough.

Deleted Comment

smortaz · 3 years ago
yes definitely home page. it’s the first thing i looked for, didn’t immediately see, hit the back button.

i would also consider a trial pic for free tied to email.

Deleted Comment

naet · 3 years ago
I think if you showed a full example (including the 15 inputs and the outputs) it would be more clear what I might be able to expect.

Dead Comment

precompute · 3 years ago
This is hardly an "advanced algorithm", anyone can do this on a free colab instance. You need a few images of yourself for training on, and you can make a LORA for Stable Diffusion, and use it for anything you wish. The pricing is only for the ease of usage. People have made LORAs for anime characters, celebs, etc and they work pretty well. See Civitai, it has a large collection of models / LORAs / text embeddings.

These days you don't even need to suss out the negative prompts, you can use a negative text embedding (bad-hands, easynegative) to get good quality images.

Dreambooth is practically ancient now. You don't need to lug around huge converged models trained on a few images and a few tags. You can download a much smaller LORA and include it in your prompt and it just werks.

pc86 · 3 years ago
Peak HN comment right here.

Most programmers have never made a LORA and have never used Stable Diffusion. For 99.9% of people outside the programmer class, this is absolutely an "advanced algorithm."

Just because you understand what it's doing under the hood, and just because it can be abstracted into a handful of discrete steps, doesn't mean it isn't advanced.

freedomben · 3 years ago
If that comment is Peak HN, then this is a great example of why I love HN. Brutal technical analysis, combined with the hacker spirit of teaching others (thanks for the links in the sibling comment GP!)

GP isn't saying "this product would never work" (which is reminiscent of the classic Dropbox comment), GP is saying "this isn't 'advanced' and you can do it yourself" which is really helpful and exactly the sort of thing I love to see on HN.

precompute · 3 years ago
>Peak HN comment right here.

Where do you think we are?

>this is absolutely an "advanced algorithm."

When someone puts that on his product's page, it's assumed that he developed said algorithm, or at least had a hand in it. Instead, here the real product is the pipeline and not the "algorithm". The product would do better if it was honest about what it did.

And like I mentioned, Dreambooth is pretty "old" now. The service could probably be much cheaper if the OP moved to using LORAs, and it would give better results, because it wouldn't clash with the tokens in the underlying model, and could be used with any model.

Guide to LORA:

https://imgur.com/a/mrTteIt

https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/11vw5k3/lo...

sdwr · 3 years ago
Step 2: draw the rest of the fucking owl
noelbautista91 · 3 years ago
Reminds me of the dropbox comment many years ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
MasterScrat · 3 years ago
Getting LoRa/Dreambooth to work reliably without human intervention is HARD, and Dreambooth still works better than LoRa in most situations.

Sure it’s "easy" to do it by hand, on a few persons, tweaking the parameters. Doing it at scale at good quality is still a challenge.

op00to · 3 years ago
I see people spend HUNDREDS of dollars for a professional headshot. I would totally pay $9.95 if I was fairly confident the results would be worth the time.
IgorPartola · 3 years ago
I wonder how much AI is going to change online dating apps. “Hey Stable Diffusion, generate a photo of me shaking hands with Tom Hanks” and I have a cool profile photo.

Bots can do the same: “generate a photo of me holding my driver’s license, I need it for Tinder verification”.

snek_case · 3 years ago
On Tinder and other dating apps, I see lots of women using very obvious filters that just make them look sort of blurry and pale and I always swipe left. I just question why they would go for filters that are so obviously filters. Everyone knows that's not what you look like, and it doesn't even look good. But now TikTok has these new video filters that can add makeup and look very realistic [0]. Can make women go from ordinary looking to supermodel. Follows the person's movement flawlessly.

Unfortunately, when technology like that becomes more common, people are definitely going to be tricked, and feel tricked. It's going to be awkward going on a date and the person looks nothing like what you expected... Awkward on both ends.

At some point... The online reality might become so fake, with disinformation generated by bots, generated images and videos, fake dating profiles (that are actually also just bots)... I wonder if it's going to spur some kind of reactionary movement. A movement to disconnect from the internet completely, or at least so socialize more in real life. Maybe some bars and pubs where you have to check in your cellphone at the door. Offline cafes.

[0] The new TikTok makeup filters in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw2euJzOk60

somsak2 · 3 years ago
I don't really see how it's that bad. When meeting in-person, women spend the time to put on all that makeup -- it's not different, that's why it feels so "realistic." Why is it so bad that a filter can do that without all the work that is normally required?
bb123 · 3 years ago
In reality I don't believe that over-optimizing your online dating profile by lying is a major issue. If your objective is to use your profile to find dates, it's important to avoid misrepresenting yourself as it only delays the rejection from the online stage to the in-person stage, which is a more time-consuming and expensive process. Additionally there is limited benefit to exaggerating your profile because your matches will eventually meet the true version of yourself anyway. I think it's best to aim to present an authentic and positive portrayal of yourself in your profile. Ultimately honesty is key as it will lead to more genuine and compatible matches.
altcognito · 3 years ago
I'm confused by why so many people are worried about disinformation at this level. Sure, it's going to be difficult to have authority and trust at the state level and that's a governmental issue, but at a personal level, all this means is that the face to face conversation is going to carry more weight. I don't really make much of people's social media profiles, it's all just nonsense.
jamesdhutton · 3 years ago
I like the idea. I am surprised by the negative comments. Getting a professional headshot is both time-consuming and expensive, so if this service works as promised it definitely will be useful, and I would be willing to pay for it. So why haven't I already signed up? A few things made me nervous:

1. The "contact us" link is broken, which doesn't inspire confidence.

2. It's important to me that you don't leak or retain my data, and while I know you say you don't retain it, I will just have to take that on faith and I'm not sure I'm willing to do that.

3. Your examples include novelty shots like "pharaoh" and "superman" etc. This branding is confusing. If you're targeting people who want professional shots for their LinkedIn etc then why would you offer jokey picture styles?

If you can solve these issues then you can count me in as a customer.

carrolldunham · 3 years ago
The examples look like cartoons, have artefacts and are quite obviously the output of AI to anyone who has ever seen it, which at this point is a lot of people. Even someone who never saw stable diffusion generations is going to be wondering about why you have weird blobs in your eyes.
mikepurvis · 3 years ago
Refresh a few times— there are several examples and some are better than others. I expect that part of the point of giving you a selection to choose from is that not all of them will be winners; as the final human in the loop, you can pick which ones you feel truly look like you.
peteralaoui · 3 years ago
Could probably add GFPGan to my pipeline to remove these eyes artifacts. Thanks for the candid feedback :) I will double down on that
tennisflyi · 3 years ago
It's entirely good enough for a small-ass avatar. Also, what blob? The catch-light?
mhitza · 3 years ago
Hey Pierre, there's no information about who's behind the website (not a single name), and your terms page has not yet filled in the placeholders

> Questions about these Terms should be sent to the Company at [insert company email or contact information].

clnq · 3 years ago
I liked the app but wouldn't use it for professional profile pictures since it generally gets facial features (particularly eyes) wrong. However, it helped me discover interesting dress styles that work with my face, which could be another potential use for this technology. I think exploring 250 or so clothing styles in a few minutes would be very interesting.

I'd appreciate it if the app allowed users to input height/weight for accuracy, didn't generate very high contrast images for some styles (like the hacker), and let users add training data to their profile over time. Finally, producing 20 images of each style in one go might not be very cost-effective on your side. I think the Dall-E and Midjourney approach where they generate one image and let you generate more variations could make this more economical for you.

akarsh-gopal · 3 years ago
This might not fully address what you describe here, but I built https://www.try-it-on.com to do something similar, would love for you to check it out!
justsomehnguy · 3 years ago
> However, it helped me discover interesting dress styles that work with my face, which could be another potential use for this technology

There are many caveats with that usage (not everyone built same) but I would agree this is an interesting idea and definetly should be explored.