Stable Diffusion is a big deal • Hacker News Board

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#101

Post by elevaet » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:37 AM UTC

betwixthewires wrote: post #27

One day, images generated with these AIs will become ubiquitous online, and new AIs training on data will wind up with feedback problems because they got trained on photos that are AI generated, possibly even ones they themselves generated! This tech is a huge deal. Huge. Ubiquitous unique, beautiful art. Entire movies made by machines. Too many to even watch them all. Actor models that aren't real people owned by th…

Expect hit actors from today to become digitized and immortalized on the screen. Eventually there will be a cannon of standard "actors" (customized per movie of course) that will never change once they settle in on the appropriate archetypes.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#102

Post by solumunus » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:38 AM UTC

throwaway1851 wrote: post #21

klipt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Defendant built an algorithm that memorized features of Plaintiff’s IP. Defendant’s algorithm recombines parts of those features in order to produce works in the same domain that compete with Plaintiff’s work, all without Plaintiff’s consent.” The fun part is, this is how human artists learn too.

They absolutely do. What they don’t do is mechanistically clone compressed mathematical representations of input data. The human part of the creative process could very well be a distinguishing feature, legally.

I fail to see how the brain isn't doing a very similar thing?

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#103

Post by stocknoob » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:38 AM UTC

abhisuri97 wrote: post #67

I’m more trying to see what the utility of stable diffusion (or just the text to image problem) in the long term. Right now people can play around with making weird art pieces and maybe it will be integrated into design tools...but then what? Eg with other AI problems out there I can see a potential application to medicine, self driving cars etc, but I just don’t see what the bigger goal of this is going to be.

Magazine illustrator, concept artist, stock photography, video game art asset creation, logo generation, interior design, fashion design, costume design, political cartoonist, caricature artist, website layout templates, font design, pixel art, book covers, children’s toy plush design, new car concept prototype…?

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#104

Post by thirdlamp » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:39 AM UTC

Is anyone training networks to detect deep fakes? As in you feed it an image and it gives you if it’s a real image or a deep fake

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#105

Post by fragmede » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:41 AM UTC

usgroup wrote: post #97

I've been trying to get it to draw a picture of a man trapped inside of a light bulb. Can anyone think of a prompt that works? It draws all sorts of freaky things featuring men and light bulbs but none with the former inside the latter.

Best I got was https://imgur.com/a/g9XcB2a

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#106

Post by solumunus » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:42 AM UTC

trention wrote: post #80

t-3 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's absolutely logically consistent to allow humans to do it while forbidding AI to do it. Why would you, though? If art is for the sake of art, then all art is valuable regardless of origin. If art is for the sake of providing human employment, AI being better in no way stops performative make-work from existing. If art is for the sake of copyright trolls to troll harder, then fuck art, feed it to the AI!

Art is for the sake of humans producing said art. I don't give a flying f*ck about "art" (it's not art) generated by a neural net using statistical patterns.

This is such a strange position to hold. At some point in the future may be confronted with an image that is emotionally stimulating, and you will have no idea whether a human or AI created it. Are you suddenly going to dismiss and discard it just because you subsequently learn it was AI generated? You must see how silly that is.

Your "logic" for making AI art illegal is basically "don't like it". Your personal and subjective opinion is that it's not art by definition.. This is like refusing to eat artificially grown meat because you have some strange idea about what food "should" be. Even if the meat was made MORE delicious you would still claim it wasn't food and turn it away. There's no logical consistency to your position, it's purely reactionary.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#107

Post by fragmede » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:45 AM UTC

usgroup wrote: post #99

usgroup wrote: post #97

I've been trying to get it to draw a picture of a man trapped inside of a light bulb. Can anyone think of a prompt that works? It draws all sorts of freaky things featuring men and light bulbs but none with the former inside the latter.

Try "a green field with sheep on it" versus "a green field with robots on it". From a human position that feels like it should be a simple juxtaposition of objects onto a background. Clearly not so for this model.

Managed https://imgur.com/a/WwybhaI without too much fuss.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#108

Post by numpad0 » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:45 AM UTC

senectus1 wrote: post #37

I'm no artist.. though I'll admit i dabble, but is it just me or does everything that is generated in this seem to lack emotion ? I have seen some very impressive pictures but nothing that seems to "emote"

Yep it’s missing intent, just like machine translation. There somehow seems to be less information than there is in the input. I think more people will start to notice it as time goes by.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#109

Post by numpad0 » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:49 AM UTC

trention wrote: post #59

thewanderer1983 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artist today use the exact same method of learning from other peoples artwork to generate new artwork and styles. These models are learning just like any artist learns and then producing new content.

Even if that's true (which it isn't), it doesn't matter. It's absolutely logically consistent to allow humans to do it while forbidding AI to do it.

Human artists can copy an art using transparent tracing paper on a lightbox just like that, and that will be plagiarism. No reasons AI output shouldn’t be.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#110

Post by madiator » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 6:50 AM UTC

Regarding the ethics. Thought experiment: I look at a copyrighted image, get inspiration, and then draw a new image (which is not the same as the copyrighted image). Is that ethical? But if I do this millions of times, after looking at millions of copyrighted images, is it still ethical (as long as I don't recreated copyrighted images)? Tough questions!