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

Stable Attribution

stableattribution.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 365 posts

Re: Stable Attribution

#161

Post by ForestCritter »

mrtksn wrote: post #113
astrange wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism isn't when you pay for things, it's when there's capital you can sell.

The capital of the artists is their intellectual property, that's the point.

Actually, you are wrong. The capital of the artist is to physically create art. AI has to be fed physically created art and the told by humans what it is being fed. AI is not 'inspired', it is statistically driven by a human written progam, using mapping of human made work, labeled, tagged and defined by more humans to render a shopping list input by another human. Humans are using programming technology, written by humans to exploit other humans physical work.

Re: Stable Attribution

#162

Post by 0xrisk »

we built https://haveibeentrained.com that does the same CLIP retrieval process, and arranged for artists to be able to opt out of future trainings with Stability and LAION.

If this is just CLIP retrieval, that raises some ethical problems with the pretense of this site. It could make artists look silly for depending on an overstated claim of provenance, or worse still have artists pursue AI artists because an image looked kind of like their own artwork, with nothing more behind it.

Re: Stable Attribution

#163

Post by tveita »

josephg wrote: post #65
mrtksn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The discussion over novelty is useless, all these legal structures like copyrights patents royalties and licenses are about creating business structures to allow artist or inventors be compensated. They were already imperfect in it and now suddenly a new technology drags their work into the wilderness with no stuctures for compensation. The images created by the AI are indeed novel but they feed on the work of people…

The core of your concern (& argument) seems to be the problem of existing business models becoming disrupted by this technology. But the point of good law isn’t to protect an established business model. If that were the case, we would have outlawed the loom because it displaced weavers, and the camera (sorry portrait painters) and the iPhone. (How many telegraph operators are left? None!) When an artist learns to dra…

"business model" feels like a very narrow lens to view this through. This isn't weavers or telegraph operators, this is coming for all human art forms.

We are potentially creating an all-seeing instant plagiarism machine that saps away not just monetary compensation but even credit and recognition.

Spend 2 years writing your novel? You'll barely sell a single copy, but people will happily pay 2 cents to hear GPTx's paraphrase of it.

Spend 5 months in the jungle with wild animals to snap that perfect picture? The magazine covers will be Dalle 5 rendering "nature photograph of orangutan cradling its new born baby in the style of X", your royalties won't cover buying a single lens.

Re: Stable Attribution

#164

Post by UncleEntity »

mrtksn wrote: post #66
gitfan86 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is no different than professional calligraphers losing their jobs because of the printing press and then later due to customizable fonts on printers. I have a ton of respect for calligraphers and believe they are artists, but at the same time I don't think that the millions of people who create custom fonts or use custom fonts are doing a bad thing.

Artist function is not limited to the act of producing the creation. Their value comes from creating the methods of exploring ideas or feelings and not from the output itself. Guernica is not invaluable because no one else can draw it and Picasso is not infamous because drew the best lines. Just to be clear, I think art made with AI also can have value because it's a tool after all. My concern is, it breaks the busin…

Ironically… Picasso was notorious for idea theft and other artists banned him from their studios.

Re: Stable Attribution

#165

Post by cataphract »

mrtksn wrote: post #103
codetrotter wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> free food and housing for the artistic types Food and housing should be a human right, and it is only because of greed and fear that society allows someone to become homeless. Not only should we provide housing and food for the artists. We should do it for everyone. And then they can spend time doing what they want, and earn more money that way but never have to worry about housing or basic food for survival.

I guess you first should do your revolution, establish your new order where food and housing is a given right and later go after the work of the artist.

If you want to reason under the current legal framework that makes the works they create "their" work for economic purposes... then you also need to accept that under that same framework they are not deemed to be the authors.

Re: Stable Attribution

#166

Post by timmaxw »

mLuby wrote: post #87
throwaway-blaze wrote: post #11

I was taught to paint by instructors, and then refined my abilities by studying paintings of the old masters, right down to their brushwork and core techniques visible in the paintings to all who see them. Now I go and create a painting called Sunflowers. Does Van Gogh's estate own some of my work?

Does your work eclipse the master you studied? That's too bad for that one master but often they share in your fame. And each artist eventually fades, passing the torch to the next generation. Have you studied all masters and eclipsed them, without acknowledging them so they can share in your fame? Will you use your untiring, undying skill to flood the market with your work so "artist" ceases to be a profession? That…

In a world where Stable Diffusion wins the copyright lawsuits, I don't think "artist" would cease to be a profession. Rather, I think the equilibrium would be artists using Stable Diffusion as a tool to automate the labor-intensive parts of making art (putting the brush strokes on the page) while the human artist provides high-level creative direction.

This would be bad for present-day artists who've invested their lives in developing the skills of putting brush strokes on the page; those skills would become worthless. But the flip side is that Stable Diffusion lets anyone make art easily, generating whatever image they can dream up, without having to spend years developing the skills first.

So even though Stable Diffusion is bad for present-day _artists_, I suspect it's actually good for _art_ in the long term. "Anyone can easily create an endless supply of art, based on any idea they can dream up" seems like a good thing to me.

Re: Stable Attribution

#167

Post by ForestCritter »

luxuryballs wrote: post #142
mrtksn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The discussion over novelty is useless, all these legal structures like copyrights patents royalties and licenses are about creating business structures to allow artist or inventors be compensated. They were already imperfect in it and now suddenly a new technology drags their work into the wilderness with no stuctures for compensation. The images created by the AI are indeed novel but they feed on the work of people…

Sounds like fair use to me, unless I’m mistaken… what could be wrong with replicating a style that someone else introduced? It’s entirely possible someone else came up with the same style hundreds of years before and it just never became well known. People copy various anime styles all the time, why can’t they use a computer program to help them do it? Clearly the argument can’t just be “because they should hire some…

If you have the skill to physically mimic my art, I see no problem. I am not a huge fan of copyright. AI does not have the physical skill to make art. It is entirely directed by human input and programming and relies on such to generate images that correlate to a human directed request. Computers are directed by code written for them by humans and rely on humans to input data. In this instance, programmers have written a program that feeds off of physically made art and generates statistical reiterations of the data that has been entered. Learning requires concious intellect. Actual physical art is being used, however much diluted, and capitalized on without the consent of the artist making the physical effort to create it.

Re: Stable Attribution

#168

Post by williamcotton »

adriand wrote: post #160
grumbel wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Google bot has been consuming their art for many years, even copying it verbatim into Google's site and yet they didn't complain. This seems much more about the fear of competitions, than about violation of copyright. And yes, that's scary, but unavoidable as tech progresses. I don't think anything good could come from trying to strickten copyright here. The AI is obviously not copying directly, at best it takes…

Artists shouldn’t have to compete against themselves . If these AI companies didn’t use the work of artists, the output would suck! I’m sure many artists would be happy to compete against the artistic talents of software developers. But they’re not, they’re having to compete against their own work. I listened to an interview with an artist who referenced the “three C’s”: Consent Credit Compensation These seem reasona…

Who do I credit when I use SD inpainting to remove power lines from the background of a personal vacation photo?

Re: Stable Attribution

#169

Post by ForestCritter »

mrtksn wrote: post #111
bioemerl wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My concern is, it breaks the business for the people that feeds on and that's not OK. Why not? This is a website that's filled with programmers, almost all of our wealth is built on the skulls of jobs that once existed, and those programs were built without the consent of the people whose jobs were automated away, often through observing and rewriting the processes they used to do. The standard, this has been going…

We automate people's jobs, not taking their intellectual properties and build machines that can churn endless versions of it. The people put out of work by computers no longer work and they were paid in full for the work they did, unlike the people who developed intellectual property on their own dime hoping to be compensated later only to find out that their work was copied and distributed by the computer people.

Automated jobs do the physical work. Here the computer is redistributing the physical work made by the artists, however much diluted. AI cannot make art on its own, it needs to be fed physical art and then be told what it is and what to do with it. It is not automation, it is simply a data manipulating tool.

Re: Stable Attribution

#170

Post by chii »

tveita wrote: post #163
josephg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core of your concern (& argument) seems to be the problem of existing business models becoming disrupted by this technology. But the point of good law isn’t to protect an established business model. If that were the case, we would have outlawed the loom because it displaced weavers, and the camera (sorry portrait painters) and the iPhone. (How many telegraph operators are left? None!) When an artist learns to dra…

"business model" feels like a very narrow lens to view this through. This isn't weavers or telegraph operators, this is coming for all human art forms. We are potentially creating an all-seeing instant plagiarism machine that saps away not just monetary compensation but even credit and recognition. Spend 2 years writing your novel? You'll barely sell a single copy, but people will happily pay 2 cents to hear GPTx's p…

> This isn't weavers or telegraph operators, this is coming for all human art forms.

so somehow the arts is above the telegraph operators or weavers?

> but people will happily pay 2 cents to hear GPTx's paraphrase of it.

except if you can tell that the novel GPTx "paraphrased" is a derivative work from yours, rather than transformative, you can either sue for loyalties, or take action. If you cannot tell if GPTx is sourcing from your works, even if it is, then there's no case to stand on. The AI wrote a better novel than the human.

> Spend 5 months in the jungle

and there's a lot of people doing "organic", "handcrafted" produce/foods. They tend to be very expensive compared to mass produced factory foods, and the market for it is relatively small. Just because something is difficult to do, doesn't automatically mean that people need to be paying for it to allow it to continue to exist. If it isn't profitable, stop doing it, rather than demand the world be changed to allow for it to continue.

Post reply on HN