Stable Diffusion is a big deal • Hacker News Board

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#41

Post by Natsu » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:53 AM UTC

LewisVerstappen wrote: post #5

imgabe wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair use is a defense. You can still be sued for fair use, you have to go to court and prove to a judge or jury that your work constitutes fair use.

Yes but we have a common law system and there's already tons of precedent that training AI systems is transformative. It's also quite obvious just by looking at the generated images that it's clearly transformative. The images generated are unique and you can't trace the original copyrighted image from what's generated. You really don't need a judge to see that Fair Use covers Stable Diffusion.

You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.

Federal lawsuits are not cheap and the default is that you pay your own costs, you have to win the argument that you should get court costs & attorney's fees.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#42

Post by LewisVerstappen » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:53 AM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #35

nilsbunger wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be hard to tell whether an image was created by a “human creative process” or AI. Will the same image be legal if a human made it but not if it was created by Stable Diffusion? How will someone even know, short of a legal discovery process?

The watermark.

It's extremely trivial to remove the watermark.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#43

Post by petra » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:54 AM UTC

Fordec wrote: post #11

michaelchisari wrote: post #6

After using SD heavily for a week, I half agree with this. It is incredibly disruptive, and it's wild how much it accelerates the creative process. I'll give you that. But two things I've noticed: First, artists will still have a massive advantage over non-artists with this tool. A photographer who intimately knows the different lenses and cameras and industry terms will get to a representation of their idea much fas…

For every tool, a better output will always be created by people who specialize in a craft. Just as photoshop revolutionized photography, to this day you can tell the difference easily between and bad 'shops. In video games upon release everyone is bad and its an even playing field. But as people practice and gain experience they improve their usage, refine their approaches. You eventually see metas develop and best…

Have we seen similar behavior in the usage of older GPT-3 based tools, for example in copywriting or using Copilot?

How's the story there?

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#44

Post by zzo38computer » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:54 AM UTC

Having seen some of the pictures of AI art (I don't know if they use the same or different programs or models), my opinion is that the pictures are not good enough, although sometimes they are almost good enough. (I think there might still be a use for it, despite this. Some other comments mention some possible ideas, although there may also be others.)

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#45

Post by simonw » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 4:57 AM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #35

nilsbunger wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be hard to tell whether an image was created by a “human creative process” or AI. Will the same image be legal if a human made it but not if it was created by Stable Diffusion? How will someone even know, short of a legal discovery process?

The watermark.

What watermark?

The model is open source and free for people to make their own modifications. I don't see how any watermark can survive in those conditions.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#46

Post by m12k » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:03 AM UTC

michaelchisari wrote: post #6

After using SD heavily for a week, I half agree with this. It is incredibly disruptive, and it's wild how much it accelerates the creative process. I'll give you that. But two things I've noticed: First, artists will still have a massive advantage over non-artists with this tool. A photographer who intimately knows the different lenses and cameras and industry terms will get to a representation of their idea much fas…

I think this can be seen a bit like the invention of an "index fund" for art. Active investors are still needed to generate the market signals that an ETF can aggregate, but for the majority of people an ETF is preferable to the cost of hiring an active investor yourself. And similarly SD needs artists to generate the signal that it aggregates, but for the majority of people it might be (or might soon be) preferable to use SD to get a "generic"/"average" result instead of hiring an artist yourself.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#47

Post by Gigachad » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:03 AM UTC

zzo38computer wrote: post #44

Having seen some of the pictures of AI art (I don't know if they use the same or different programs or models), my opinion is that the pictures are not good enough, although sometimes they are almost good enough. (I think there might still be a use for it, despite this. Some other comments mention some possible ideas, although there may also be others.)

It's rapidly getting good enough for things like stock images for blog posts. Where you just need an image vaguely related and don't want to pay for an actual stock image.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#48

Post by simonw » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:04 AM UTC

Ono-Sendai wrote: post #40

Why did they call it diffusion? It's not diffusion. It's addition of noise (noising)

Here's a good explanation: https://www.assemblyai.com/blog/diffusion-models-for-machine...

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#49

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:08 AM UTC

michaelchisari wrote: post #9

canjobear wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Second, we need the ability to persist a design. I See yesterday's Stable Diffusion article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32643564

I haven't had a chance to try it yet, I'm optimistic but skeptical that it can have true persistence like I'm referring to. Especially since it requires training your own model which requires multiple images of the same asset/character/object/etc.

[deleted]

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#50

Post by seibelj » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 5:08 AM UTC

I am a contrarian by nature. Wearing my investor hat, I continue to be unimpressed with AI tools, including the latest image generation enhancements. I do find stable diffusion interesting, but I don't see the disruption. Similarly, I don't see the disruption from Github Copilot considering I run a company full of highly paid and extremely skilled developers and not one of them uses copilot.

How often have you wanted to hire a conceptual artist? I have never done so in my life. While I have visited many art museums and appreciated it, this has not affected my commercial endeavors.

I think if I was a creative writer or professional artist, the current generation of AI tools could be useful for inspiration. But the bar for quality is just so, so high in the creative industries, I am not concerned that AI will replace them.

It's September 2022 - where is my self driving car?