Live data from Hacker News

Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

waxy.org

251–260 of 356 posts

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not be storing all of the images, but it's clearly storing copies of some of the source images. A few weeks before OpenAI made DALL-E 2 open, I went through a series of prompts using well known artists as a basis. Vermeer was one of them. It generated some pretty amazing works that were 'inspired' but not direct copies of Vermeer's works. I started feeding the same prompts into StableDiffiusion (the HuggingF…

Do you have the exact prompt that essentially generated Vemeer's works? Omitted in the parent, but I also noted that while it is hard to reconcile the idea of human-directed transformative use with ML models, it might be actually easier to verify the models' plagarism---which is not equivalent to copyright infringement but can be a problem by its own---once you have a right prompt as they are decidable.

I just typed in 'girl with a pearl earring vermeer' and got this:

https://drop.qoid.us/vermeer.png

And, for a slightly different scenario, here's what I got for 'pikachu':

https://drop.qoid.us/pikachu.png

But I think this sort of thing is the exception rather than the rule (similar to Copilot regurgitating the text of software licenses). Girl with a Pearl Earring is so famous that there are countless copies of it on the internet. I don't know what kind of deduplication process was used for Stable Diffusion, but if you consider multiple photos of the same painting, plus images distorted by compression, or cropped, or embedded in other images, plus attempts to redraw it or even parody it, I can easily imagine that the training set contained thousands of images or more that are essentially the same work. And so the model memorized it, albeit at low resolution.

Similarly, it's seen countless different images of Pikachu.

However, this seems to only apply to the very peak of popularity. I tested some other Pokemon: it does a decent job with Charizard, but with Bulbasaur and Squirtle and Jigglypuff its output only somewhat resembles the character design, and for less popular Pokemon there's no resemblance at all.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a good argument, because this type of AI is basically exactly a compression algorithm - it’s the most efficient way we know to compress 2 billion image/text pairs down such that it can recreate the average of all the inputs retaining as much layered knowledge as it can. It’s a very very fancy compression algorithm, but it still is one.

There is an important distinction between lossy compression and lossless compression. My information-theoretic argument shows that models couldn't have been losslessly compressed, and the juice analogy implies (but does not show) that there is no obvious way to "decompress" the original data set. I intended that, if both arguments are true, those models can't be a photocopier because they don't contain copiable works…

The law as far as I know is concerned with derivation not exact copy.

It’s easy for these models to produce very close images to the source material with the right short input.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sign makers were put out of business en masse at a certain point, and there were quite a few, and it is high-skill, high-commitment work. Some kinds of print arts related to magazines for example, were next. There is a chapter in the Stanford AI Index (2021) that opens with "The rise of AI will inevitable raise questions of how much these technologies will impact business, labor and the economy in general .. " there…

> In the 1930s America there was mass unemployment Sure, but these are temporary disruptions. Now it's true that the pace of change feels immensely faster than ever before, and I believe that's an observable fact. But we adapt. The incentives to do so are, sometimes, life or death. When faced with that kind of situation, some small % will sink into depression, perhaps never to climb out. I'm sure that some online mag…

> But we adapt. The incentives to do so are, sometimes, life or death...

> But I assert that it will always be a tiny percentage of the whole

US/Uk life expectancy is falling, and more people are in precarious work than ever before.

You can't just wish away these problens and pretend they don't exist

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#254
post #29

I have a degree in Studio Arts in addition to being a software developer (and recently I've started making a lot of creative work with AI). Back when I was in school, there was already plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art. Others were more purists – life painters, etc – and felt that, no, technique is art. Duchamp poked the art…

>Back when I was in school, there was already plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art. Others were more purists – life painters, etc – and felt that, no, technique is art.

Of course people practising it would say that it is an art.

And of course they would discount stuff that is beneath them as not art. "I'm creative, I don't just copy stuff I see!", just to feel better about themselves.

So someone might say code is not an art, it's same as any other engineering. But code can clearly create art pieces, whether directly (say a shader generating pretty picture) or indirectly (AI training and generating pictures based on that).

So, what, do we just say "art is any product that you can experience and have feelings about?". Nah, can't discriminate this and that based on that vague expression! We might even accidentally call blacksmith an artist if we go too far! /s

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#255
post #215
post #29

I have a degree in Studio Arts in addition to being a software developer (and recently I've started making a lot of creative work with AI). Back when I was in school, there was already plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art. Others were more purists – life painters, etc – and felt that, no, technique is art. Duchamp poked the art…

Many of the discussions today sound similar to the ones I read about during the advent of earlier creative leaps – which I think merely serves to highlight the importance of this advancement. However, I do still remember plenty of the discussions around DTP and the computerisation of various creative industries. The themes are similar, while some benefits are lost and many are gained - some people are fixated on what…

>Like most discussions that are centred in conservatism/purism, there's always a thread of hypocrisy, because this type of person will use themselves as the golden benchmark to what is acceptable.

> To use an example: a purist painter of earlier times might shun the modern purist painter for the simple act of purchasing pre-made paints. They might bemoan that they didn't make their own pigments and mix up their own paints.

That I think is pretty much why this stupid discussion is still going - people considering their work (or just stuff they enjoy) "art" want other things to not be it to feel better.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#256
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have the exact prompt that essentially generated Vemeer's works? Omitted in the parent, but I also noted that while it is hard to reconcile the idea of human-directed transformative use with ML models, it might be actually easier to verify the models' plagarism---which is not equivalent to copyright infringement but can be a problem by its own---once you have a right prompt as they are decidable.

I just typed in 'girl with a pearl earring vermeer' and got this: https://drop.qoid.us/vermeer.png And, for a slightly different scenario, here's what I got for 'pikachu': https://drop.qoid.us/pikachu.png But I think this sort of thing is the exception rather than the rule (similar to Copilot regurgitating the text of software licenses). Girl with a Pearl Earring is so famous that there are countless copies of it on…

> the exception rather than the rule [...] . Girl with a Pearl Earring is so famous that there are countless copies of it on the internet

I think that's part of the point, though.

Even if it's working like some kind of feature detection - "this is what 'nose' looks like [nose1,nose2,...,nose9999]" and "this is what 'girl with a pearl earring vermeer' looks like [vermeer1,vermeer2,...,]"

Clearly it is storing copies of those images internally, and constant re-enforcement of it finding noses and vermeer paintings in the sources pushes the priority of those features up so that it stores them.

We can't trust these models, as they exist right now, to reliably generate new works, rather than spit out something that already exists.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many clearly think it's a photocopier. As if StableDiffusion is hiding copies of all these works inside. In my latest series of tweets [1] I tried to argue that this is not the case in a less technical way, not sure if I was successful though. For anyone not fluent in Korean, my argument was as follows: Stable Diffusion was trained with a data set composed of about 2.32 billion text-image pairs. The model itself by…

Another discovery that something thought to be uniquely human really isn't that hard.

Can't help but think about the obvious: maybe we should just skip all the drudgery of the natural convulsive progress and ruthless competition, push "accelerate" and get to the mature AGI civilization regime as soon as possible?

And there we should just ask our new creative oracle machines the obvious: "devise an understandable minimally invasive method of uplifting our own cognition and extending our biological lifespan". Surely at least some gene/cell/whatever therapy which does what we need is theoretically possible - the human beings aren't special enough for this not to be the case.

At least that's the zeitgeist I perceive among others who understand the significance of the unfolding progress.

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#258
post #13

I agree that images only through AI should be removed from art sites. The issue with AI art is that the only human contribution in those pieces is the creation of the prompt and the curation of the final image. Without sensory and experiential inputs of its own, AI can only interpolate between real images and styles. So an AI generated image doesn't add much artistic value since its not expressing any new deep truth…

> The issue with AI art is that the only human contribution in those pieces is the creation of the prompt and the curation of the final image. Without sensory and experiential inputs of its own, AI can only interpolate between real images and styles. So an AI generated image doesn't add much artistic value since its not expressing any new deep truth or factual understanding of the real world.

That kind of reasoning would throw entirety of Realism into "not art", because it is also not trying to express any artistic value. And there were arguments back then too

I guess whole debate about Realism could be just copy-pasted to discussion about AI arts...

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#259
post #7

Art takes effort. Training models and feeding them information takes effort. AI is not magic. Art is just getting another toolset.

Building a motorbike from scratch by hand also takes effort, but we've universally agreed that that doesn't let you enter it into the Tour de France.

Sure you can, you will just have to push it

Re: Online art communities begin banning AI-generated images

#260
post #29

I have a degree in Studio Arts in addition to being a software developer (and recently I've started making a lot of creative work with AI). Back when I was in school, there was already plenty of debate about 'what is "Art"'? It's always been hotly contested. Most of my teachers felt that 'technique' was not Art. Others were more purists – life painters, etc – and felt that, no, technique is art. Duchamp poked the art…

"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" was published in 1935, almost a century ago, and yet not much has changed.
Post reply on HN