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

We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

stablediffusionlitigation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 473 posts

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#11

Post by scheeseman486 »

So what is the end goal of this? For copyright to transfer every step? That precedent happens, then what? Licensing schemes get set up and any piece of media that is put into these systems will result in the artist getting some kind of payment in return. Cool, that sound great. Except... who's paying?

The conglomerates who already have a bunch of IP they can feed into those systems, who can afford to purchase or through brute force (ie cheaply employed artists) create new works using their already massive amounts of capital. These are the entities that will have complete and total control over the best versions of the tools that artists say will bring about their doom. You better fucking believe they'll have their own licensing system too.

Copyright is a prison built for artists by big business, successfully marketed to artists as being a home.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#12

Post by razemio »

There are only 2 possible outcomes, right?

1. They win, and big companies are training AI on their portfolio and new artwork which they paid for resulting in the same problem, that artists will even be paid less than today. Also resulting in incredible difficult to judge laws. Has an artist created it himself, or has he used copyrighted works to train his custom model?

2. They lose

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#13

Post by supriyo-biswas »

Sometimes I have to wonder about the hypocrisy you can see on HN threads. When its software development, many here seem to understand the merits of a similar lawsuit against Copilot[1], but as soon as its a different group such as artists, then it's "no, that's not how a NN works" or "the NN model works just the same way as a human would understand art and style."

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34274326

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#15

Post by realusername »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #3

You are literally modern day luddites. If you succeed, you will undo decades of technological progress.

> If you succeed, you will undo decades of technological progress.

There's never been since the industrial revolution a technology which has been "uninvented" so I'm going to guess that won't happen here either. The cat is out of the bag.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#16

Post by fruit2020 »

realusername wrote: post #10

> Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion relies on a math­e­mat­i­cal process called dif­fu­sion to store com­pressed copies of these train­ing images, which in turn are recom­bined to derive other images. It is, in short, a 21st-cen­tury col­lage tool. Just no, that's not how any of that works. I guess that lie is convenient to legitimate the lawsuit.

How does it work then? :)

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#17

Post by idle_zealot »

realusername wrote: post #10

> Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion relies on a math­e­mat­i­cal process called dif­fu­sion to store com­pressed copies of these train­ing images, which in turn are recom­bined to derive other images. It is, in short, a 21st-cen­tury col­lage tool. Just no, that's not how any of that works. I guess that lie is convenient to legitimate the lawsuit.

It's a pretty funny assertion. The whole point of ML models is to take training data and learn something general from it, the common threads, such that it can identify/generate more things like the training examples. If the model were, as they assert, just compressing and reproducing/collaging training images then that would just indicate that the engineers of the model failed to prevent overfitting. So basically they're calling StabilityAI's engineers bad at their job.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#19

Post by realusername »

fruit2020 wrote: post #16
realusername wrote: post #10

> Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion relies on a math­e­mat­i­cal process called dif­fu­sion to store com­pressed copies of these train­ing images, which in turn are recom­bined to derive other images. It is, in short, a 21st-cen­tury col­lage tool. Just no, that's not how any of that works. I guess that lie is convenient to legitimate the lawsuit.

How does it work then? :)

The opposite way, the training images are there to support the model to generalize features.

Reproducing parts of existing images in the dataset is called overfitting and is considered a failure of the model.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#20

Post by akjetma »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #2

“Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion con­tains unau­tho­rized copies of mil­lions—and pos­si­bly bil­lions—of copy­righted images.” That’s going to be hard to argue. Where are the copies? “Hav­ing copied the five bil­lion images—with­out the con­sent of the orig­i­nal artists—Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion relies on a math­e­mat­i­cal process called dif­fu­sion to store com­pressed copies of these train­ing images, which in turn are recom­bine…

I don't think you have to reproduce an entire original work to demonstrate copyright violation. Think about sampling in hip hop for example. A 2 second sample, distorted, re-pitched, etc. can be grounds for a copyright violation.
Post reply on HN