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

251–260 of 473 posts

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#251

Post by XorNot »

ifdefdebug wrote: post #227
XorNot wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you're silently invoking additional data (the prompt + noise seed), which is not present in the training weights. You have the prompt + noise seed for any given output. An MPEG codec doesn't contain every movie in the world just because it could represent them if given the right file. The white light coming off a blank canvas also doesn't contain a copy of the Mona Lisa which will be revealed once someone obs…

OK so let me encrypt a movie and distribute that. Then you tell people they need to invoke additional data to watch the movie. Also give some hints (try the movie title lol).

If you distribute a random byte stream, and someone uses that as a one time pad to encrypt a movie, then are you distributing the movie?

The answer is of course not, and the same principle applies if someone uses Stable Diffusion to find a latent space encoding for a copyright image (the 231 byte number - had to go double check what the grid size actually is).

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#252

Post by streetcat1 »

TheDong wrote: post #21
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…

It doesn't matter if they exist as exact copies in my opinion. The law doesn't recognize a mathematical computer transformation as creating a new work with original copyright. If you give me an image, and I encrypt it with a randomly generated password, and then don't write down the password anywhere, the resulting file will be indistinguishable from random noise. No one can possibly derive the original image from it…

The only problem is that computers (I.e. most computers) cannot really generate random numbers.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#253

Post by streetcat1 »

chrischen wrote: post #22

“It is a par­a­site that, if allowed to pro­lif­er­ate, will make artists extinct.” This is the fundamentally flawed and misguided argument that can literally be applied to any technological progress to curtail advancement. Imagine if the medical tricorder (a device from Star Trek that does maybe 99% of what modern doctors do) is suddenly invented today. Doctors could use this argument to defend their livelihoods, bu…

But this is not correct. The AI exist because it was stole the work of the original artists (and combined them somehow). You argument is correct if the AI could come up with an original work which would compete with an artist. But the AI work is not original.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#254

Post by ghusto »

chrischen wrote: post #22

“It is a par­a­site that, if allowed to pro­lif­er­ate, will make artists extinct.” This is the fundamentally flawed and misguided argument that can literally be applied to any technological progress to curtail advancement. Imagine if the medical tricorder (a device from Star Trek that does maybe 99% of what modern doctors do) is suddenly invented today. Doctors could use this argument to defend their livelihoods, bu…

> This is the fundamentally flawed and misguided argument that can literally be applied to any technological progress to curtail advancement

Let's stop for a moment and define advancement (or "progress", as it's sometimes called). It's always tacit, and never explicitly defined, and I think it bears examination.

By advancement/progress, I'm taking the argument to mean "betterment". i.e. When we say "advances in science", we're usually referring to things getting better, as a result of more science.

However, science/technology are not good in themselves. They're just tooling. You need to stop and ask which direction you've taken this advancement in the tooling in, because whether you meant it or not, both advancement and progress have direction.

> Similarly, artists exist for their output for society. If these AI models can truly fulfill the needs of society that artists currently output (that is debatable), then that simply raises the bar for what artists are expected to output

I somewhat agree, and would say this is very much like when the camera was invented. Artists lamented that they no longer had a purpose, until they invented one for themselves with surrealism. Art shifted from visual reproduction to meaning and feeling.

Surrealism is then a good example of the direction that the advancement in science (of the creation of the camera) took. What is the direction that AI generated art is taking?

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#255

Post by Kim_Bruning »

8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #214
jaapbadlands wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every original image is copyrighted. You're suggesting making a digital copy of every image there is to check that AI isn't generating digital copies of every image there is.

Not a copy, a hash or fingerprint. Just enough data to measure if it's substantially similar. But yes, it may be infeasible to index and compare against every image ever uploaded.

If I understand correctly, wouldn't a hash database of be larger than the actual model? (in fact by 1 or 2 orders of magnitude?)

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#258

Post by realusername »

visarga wrote: post #172
realusername wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a side discussion, is there any research model which tries to do what they describe? Like overfitting to the maximum possible to create a way to compress data. It might be useful in different ways.

Yes, look at NeRF (neural radiance fields) and SIREN (Implicit Neural Representations with Periodic Activation Functions)

The papers I'm finding on those look truly amazing! Thanks a lot for the insights

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#259

Post by 0x_rs »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #3

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

You should read up on luddites more! This casual usage of the word along with the comical "literally" only disproves your own arguments, if there were any, and assumes bad faith.

Re: We’ve filed a law­suit chal­leng­ing Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion

#260

Post by Filligree »

groestl wrote: post #124
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…

> It is, in short, a 21st-cen­tury col­lage tool. Interesting that they mention collages. IANAL but it was my impression that collages are derivative work if they incorporate many different pieces and only small parts of the original. Their compression argument seems more convincing.

Compression down to two bytes per image?

You run into the pigeonhole argument. That level of compression can only work if there are less than seventy thousand different images in existence, total.

Certainly there’s a deep theoretical equivalent between intelligence and compression, but this scenario isn’t what anyone means by “compression” normally.

Post reply on HN