231–240 of 488 posts
Are there any standards/frameworks emerging on how to write texts/prompts?
Not sure what you mean by "standards/frameworks". It's an art rather than a science. Some of the tips passed around smack somewhat of cargo-culting, some genuinely make a difference. Everyone has their own approach and some techniques work for one topic but not others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but art school just turned into a one-semester course.
Now let's have a real oil on canvas hard copy painting of that digitally generated image please? SD is limited to only digital art first of all, so let's not get too over-excited and hyped around this tool just yet.
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!
In my opinion it’s just a technical side of ethics, which has much less value than the main side: what it does to an author. If they suffer from these copies (morally, financially, spiritually, etc) without a way to offset it, then it is not ethical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only good at prompts that ask it to do a non-photorealistic artistic style. All the photorealistic attempts are bad.
> All the photorealistic attempts are bad. I wish people would stop exaggerating or making statements without some insight behind them. I've seen hundreds, if not thousands of photorealistic result that range from acceptable to remarkably good. One example it took seconds to find: https://lexica.art/prompt/3fbc30ee-ca0f-42f6-8ea5-6890d469ab...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would assume that the point is that you had to pay - in one way or another - for access to this material, which is the intention when it is published and shared. You bought your books, your toys, your TV shows (through ads). SD, by scraping the web, gets all the benefits of prior work without necessarily having adequately compensated the work's creators.
Besides the point that these are freely viewable images anyways, this is also clearly not people's real objection. If you were making a novel-writing ai, it would not placate anybody if you bought a single copy of each book before incorporating it into the model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do people keep bringing up copyright anyway? It seems pretty clear that the images being generated by StableDiffusion are transformative so it's protected under Fair Use. Am I missing something here?
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.
Still looks like crap, in the same way that a CGI sequence in a movie jumps out to someone who is a gamer. (In my very modest modest opinion).
When witnessing a huge leap forward in human technological achievement, doesn't it feel a little strange to respond with "looks like crap"? Even on your own terms, you're engaging in hyperbole. I've looked though thousands of these images and the harshest I can come up with is "assuming the result isn't obviously broken (i.e. some generated anatomy) then the results are sometimes a little bit uncanny or 'off'")
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've tried too, and honestly I'll hire artists again (I did several times). It's easy to come up with nonsense, so in the end I think this is a tool in the hands of artists more than anything else. For threatening artists it should be much better. Maybe it's not the model, maybe it's the interface human-computer that fails, but in the end it's what we have. Maybe someone with a lot of time in their hands can iterate…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what you mean by "standards/frameworks". It's an art rather than a science. Some of the tips passed around smack somewhat of cargo-culting, some genuinely make a difference. Everyone has their own approach and some techniques work for one topic but not others.
I meant like some sort of functions which would provide you ability to reuse a character per se, in future prompts.