Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

haveibeentrained.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 187 posts

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#161

Post by claudiawerner »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #150
quantified wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Etymology is "writing about prostitutes" [ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography ]. So you got me there. In the realm of visual depictions, it's just as much art as cave art. Art is a broad classifier. Still lifes are art. Landscapes are art. Audubon's drawings of birds are art. Porn is film, photography and drawing, with a specific subject matter. If Iron Man comics are art, it is too. "Noble" is no…

> Art is a broad classifier. "everything I say is art is art", you basically. Well anything I say isn't art isn't art. Especially pornography in general, which sole purpose is sexual gratification of the audience through sexual exploitation, rape via human trafficking. There is nothing snob is saying that. There something egregious and dehumanizing in saying what you say on the other hand and trying to normalize the…

>which sole purpose is sexual gratification

Not necessarily; plenty of pornography contains serious artistic contents and merit beyond the simple aim of sexual gratification, and they raise interesting questions on their own. This is why some have attempted to make another classifier of 'erotica', which IMO isn't needed.

>through sexual exploitation, rape via human trafficking.

Even if this were true for all porn (and it isn't), that dosen't make it any less art; it may make it 'lesser art' from a moralist perspecitve on the value of art, but this by no means of widely accepted relevance to aesthetic value nor to the property of being 'art'.

>the very definition of vulgarity.

A rude gesture or crass words seems vulgar. A video of a penis being sucked doesn't. "Vulgar" is the sort of word you might hear a shrill, paternal sitcom character use to describe a minor inconvenience or faux pas, and it's just as hilarious when people use it as an argument in real life.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#162

Post by quantified »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #150
quantified wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Etymology is "writing about prostitutes" [ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography ]. So you got me there. In the realm of visual depictions, it's just as much art as cave art. Art is a broad classifier. Still lifes are art. Landscapes are art. Audubon's drawings of birds are art. Porn is film, photography and drawing, with a specific subject matter. If Iron Man comics are art, it is too. "Noble" is no…

> Art is a broad classifier. "everything I say is art is art", you basically. Well anything I say isn't art isn't art. Especially pornography in general, which sole purpose is sexual gratification of the audience through sexual exploitation, rape via human trafficking. There is nothing snob is saying that. There something egregious and dehumanizing in saying what you say on the other hand and trying to normalize the…

Hmmm. Define art for us then? I don't see your views reflected in [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art] for example.

Only some people define porn as degrading and rape-ful. Galleries are full of paintings of slaughter, is art about snuffing out life? Is all erotica porn? Where do you draw that line?

You sound anti-sex in dismissing sexual stimulation as non-artistic. I could stimulate rage and sadness in you with a painting of two girls stabbing a kitten in the eyes, why is that painting less art than a painting of two women making love to each other? Sex is a good thing, even outside of marriage imho.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#163

Post by simandl »

kernelsanderz wrote: post #115
0xrisk wrote: post #4

I'm one of the people building this. Hi HN, AMA :)

This sounds like a great initiative. I can't find anything on the site about a privacy policy, how the email addresses you're collecting will be used. If you're creating this for the AI community, then how will this data be made available to others?

These are important questions. We aren't storing any of the images used to search, and the email addresses are going to mailchimp lists for opt in and opt out. As we role out the next set of tools, which let users flag images and create lists from them, we'll email the mailchimp lists with more info.

When we enable sign-in, we'll also add a privacy policy, because at that point, we will store some images, on request, to use them to make finding other works by the same artists easier.

Opt-out image URL lists will be made available to the dataset owners for removal. Opt-in image lists will be public.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#164

Post by yunwal »

NicoleJO wrote: post #88
hammyhavoc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signed up! Very interested in this.

This person isn't being upfront with you. Your photographs' data has already been assimilated. That's not a joke.

This person doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or is withholding information. Yes, your photos have been used to train early iterations of the stable diffusion models. Those iterations are hardly usable in most applications, and will be phased out in A few weeks.

If Spawning is able to have your images removed from the training set by version 1.7 or whatever, you will be removed from any models actually in use for real commercial applications.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#165

Post by throw_m239339 »

claudiawerner wrote: post #161
throw_m239339 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Art is a broad classifier. "everything I say is art is art", you basically. Well anything I say isn't art isn't art. Especially pornography in general, which sole purpose is sexual gratification of the audience through sexual exploitation, rape via human trafficking. There is nothing snob is saying that. There something egregious and dehumanizing in saying what you say on the other hand and trying to normalize the…

>which sole purpose is sexual gratification Not necessarily; plenty of pornography contains serious artistic contents and merit beyond the simple aim of sexual gratification, and they raise interesting questions on their own. This is why some have attempted to make another classifier of 'erotica', which IMO isn't needed. >through sexual exploitation, rape via human trafficking. Even if this were true for all porn (an…

> A rude gesture or crass words seems vulgar. A video of a penis being sucked doesn't. "Vulgar" is the sort of word you might hear a shrill, paternal sitcom character use to describe a minor inconvenience or faux pas, and it's just as hilarious when people use it as an argument in real life.

In the mean time you can spare people gratuitous, graphic descriptions of explicit sex acts, AKA pornography, and keep your depraved fantasies for yourself.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#166

Post by jabits »

hammyhavoc wrote: post #77
dQw4w9WgXcQ wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, the only "mental gymnastics" here is the BS you're trying to pass us that your personal neural network has absorbed exactly zero input or observation from other creators/creations that influences (consciously or otherwise) it's ability to create and profit from works.

Strange ad hominem. I capture what I see, more as a frame of reference for myself with location scouting and game dev. I take quite literally hundreds of thousands of photographs. It's 1 in every thousand that's worth sharing. I have zero interest in other photographers, I can't even name one. Whatever other people do, neat. I don't even consider myself to be a "photographer", but I guess with hotels and airports buy…

More than one person can come up with the same riff, right?

If someone is worried about an original image, why not watermark all uploaded versions?

If I walk about my neighborhood scattering paper copies of an image, and someone else picks one up to hang on their wall, did anyone break any laws (besides me littering)?

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#167

Post by throw_m239339 »

quantified wrote: post #162
throw_m239339 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Art is a broad classifier. "everything I say is art is art", you basically. Well anything I say isn't art isn't art. Especially pornography in general, which sole purpose is sexual gratification of the audience through sexual exploitation, rape via human trafficking. There is nothing snob is saying that. There something egregious and dehumanizing in saying what you say on the other hand and trying to normalize the…

Hmmm. Define art for us then? I don't see your views reflected in [ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art ] for example. Only some people define porn as degrading and rape-ful. Galleries are full of paintings of slaughter, is art about snuffing out life? Is all erotica porn? Where do you draw that line? You sound anti-sex in dismissing sexual stimulation as non-artistic. I could stimulate rage and sadness in…

> You sound anti-sex in dismissing sexual stimulation as non-artistic.

Pornography isn't sex, it's a gross caricature of sex, usually shot from the perspective of male subjects involving the degradation of women, other men or children, purely for commercial purposes in order to give a false sense of sexual gratification. This isn't art, this is akin to butchery, with human bodies as meat ready to be consumed by incels and all kind of other frustrated males and depraved individual.

The former certainly like claiming pornography has any artistic merit as a way to justify their consumption of depraved content and their lack of any actual sex life.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#168

Post by hammyhavoc »

jabits wrote: post #166
hammyhavoc wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strange ad hominem. I capture what I see, more as a frame of reference for myself with location scouting and game dev. I take quite literally hundreds of thousands of photographs. It's 1 in every thousand that's worth sharing. I have zero interest in other photographers, I can't even name one. Whatever other people do, neat. I don't even consider myself to be a "photographer", but I guess with hotels and airports buy…

More than one person can come up with the same riff, right? If someone is worried about an original image, why not watermark all uploaded versions? If I walk about my neighborhood scattering paper copies of an image, and someone else picks one up to hang on their wall, did anyone break any laws (besides me littering)?

Who says they aren't watermarked? These watermarks are showing up in AI generated art, that's a documented fact.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#169

Post by quantified »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #165
claudiawerner wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>which sole purpose is sexual gratification Not necessarily; plenty of pornography contains serious artistic contents and merit beyond the simple aim of sexual gratification, and they raise interesting questions on their own. This is why some have attempted to make another classifier of 'erotica', which IMO isn't needed. >through sexual exploitation, rape via human trafficking. Even if this were true for all porn (an…

> A rude gesture or crass words seems vulgar. A video of a penis being sucked doesn't. "Vulgar" is the sort of word you might hear a shrill, paternal sitcom character use to describe a minor inconvenience or faux pas, and it's just as hilarious when people use it as an argument in real life. In the mean time you can spare people gratuitous, graphic descriptions of explicit sex acts, AKA pornography, and keep your dep…

My fantasies aren't depraved in any way, but they are well-represented in pornography.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#170

Post by quantified »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #167
quantified wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm. Define art for us then? I don't see your views reflected in [ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art ] for example. Only some people define porn as degrading and rape-ful. Galleries are full of paintings of slaughter, is art about snuffing out life? Is all erotica porn? Where do you draw that line? You sound anti-sex in dismissing sexual stimulation as non-artistic. I could stimulate rage and sadness in…

> You sound anti-sex in dismissing sexual stimulation as non-artistic. Pornography isn't sex, it's a gross caricature of sex, usually shot from the perspective of male subjects involving the degradation of women, other men or children, purely for commercial purposes in order to give a false sense of sexual gratification. This isn't art, this is akin to butchery, with human bodies as meat ready to be consumed by incel…

Art has nothing to do with merit, does it?

Sex with another person is difficult to come by for many, and only comes sporadically for many more. You don't sound like you've been married for 20 years and bound by oath to not have sex with anyone other than someone who's physically lost all libido. I recommend some empathy.

Post reply on HN