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

171–180 of 365 posts

Re: Stable Attribution

#171

Post by chii »

wpietri wrote: post #151
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…

> But the point of good law isn’t to protect an established business model. Really? The Constitution specifically includes a bit about: "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". That was quickly followed by the first copyright act. As I understand it, the copyright portion of this was e…

> the exclusive right

exactly. This usage of works for _training_ is not part of that exclusive right, as far as i can tell. Otherwise, it would be a copyright violation for a human to read and learn off an existing works.

Re: Stable Attribution

#172

Post by astrange »

ForestCritter wrote: post #161
mrtksn wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The capital of the artist is to physically create art.

Surely that's their labor? Capital is the factor of production that isn't labor (or land if Georgist.)

Re: Stable Attribution

#173

Post by chii »

mrtksn wrote: post #134
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…

> This seems much more about the fear of competitions, than about violation of copyright Yep, it's all about being compensated and yes copyrights are already very problematic and creativity limiting concept. People in these industries happen to be the first to face AI revolution but it will come for as all, eventually. UBI might be something but I don't know, it seems like hard times are ahead of us.

> People in these industries happen to be the first to face AI revolution

as has many other industries that faced automation and become obsolete. The fact that it is AI derived doesn't make it different than Luddites before.

Re: Stable Attribution

#174

Post by avereveard »

josephg wrote: post #152
avereveard wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright already cover characters and stories. Just because an ai (or a human) comes out with a copyrighted character in a novel pose, it doesn't mean it's not copyrighted Style itself is not copyrighted, and that's a good thing. I can create copyrighted content privately. I cannot share it. Law doesn't forbid imagination, wether human or ai and that's a good thing. But I cannot distribute these private rendition al…

> Law seem pretty complete and well defined to me. I don't think lawyers would agree with you at all. > Just because an ai (or a human) comes out with a copyrighted character in a novel pose, it doesn't mean it's not copyrighted My understanding is that there isn't a legal consensus on whether or not thats true. Copyright law wasn't written with AI generated art in mind. For a work to be copyrightable, my understandi…

Training method and recall are of no consequences because copyright law doesn't deal with technology for the most part. There is a test to wether the image is stored or not which is interesting here for the topic at hand, but it's always in the context of distribution.

The worst is that weight may be considered storage, but the point is... Law already covers that. Because it doesn't concern with technology, but with results of actions.

That is the whole problem with the argumentation, law is technology agnostic, just adding a layer of redirection doesn't matter, because tm it cares about the input and the output not what happens in between.

Re: Stable Attribution

#175

Post by breck »

First, it's a beautiful site.

Second, a rant.

Look, if you are a photographer or artist or writer, your individual contributions to civilization are zero. I'm sorry I have to be the one to break the bad news to you. It's just the mathematical truth.

We are still in the childish (c)opywrong era of civilization where people born in privilege were brainwashed into thinking they were special snowflakes and their creative contributions to humanity are far more valuable than they actually are.

Your contributions, I don't care if you are a modern day Da Vinci, are but a grain of sand on a Mount Everest of human creation.

That photo you took? Far far far easier than the immense amount of effort it took to build that camera and get it into your hands. That book you wrote? Far far far easier than the thousands of years it took to evolve the letters and words you used to write it. That song you sang? Trivial compared to the collective efforts of hundreds of millions of people who pioneered music theory and instruments.

People who clamor for attribution ironically spend relatively little time digging into the details of all histories of all the ideas they are building upon.

I'm not saying go out and plagiarize. I'm not saying stop creating. I am saying to wake up and think from root principles about ideas and the absolute stupidity of the (c)opywrong regime. All these big AI models are ignoring (c)opywrong law, and you should too. Even better, contribute to the fight to pass and amendment to abolish (c)opywrong once and for all.

Re: Stable Attribution

#176

Post by romwell »

goldemerald wrote: post #8

This is a great website, but not in the way the authors intended. Based on some of the examples they explicitly provided, it is clear to me Stable Diffusion creates novel art. Here's a random example https://www.stableattribution.com/?image=a2666aee-0a1a-411b-... I will admit this is a nice tool for verifying the creations of SD aren't pure copies, so I think it will be useful for a time. But as AI-generated images s…

>Based on some of the examples they explicitly provided, it is clear to me Stable Diffusion creates novel art.

You seem to be taking their word that the examples they explicitly provided are truth.

That is, that they show you all the important sources for the AI, without which the output would be drastically different.

As other comments show, this is not the case.

Re: Stable Attribution

#177

Post by bioemerl »

mrtksn wrote: post #141
bioemerl wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, the net contribution of most artists to these systems is next to zero. It's greater than zero, otherwise the AI wouldn't exist, but these AI are trained off of 5 billion plus examples. Examples that required work to collect and sort through. Examples that required millions of dollars worth of compute time to make into something useful. What is there to compensate them for? These machines are not actua…

I agree, the situation is not ideal. These machines should't been trained on their work in first place. Currently compensating the artists would be like the Pirate Bay compensating the studios for their production costs through the gambling ads they run. No new move would have been ever made if that was the case.

Isn't this machine never being invented a net loss for society?

I want my computer to be able to summon images out of the ether if I ask it for a picture of anything I could imagine. I could not imagine a positive system that would value such a small group of individuals over the need of the whole in a situation like this.

Re: Stable Attribution

#178

Post by romwell »

chii wrote: post #171
wpietri wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the point of good law isn’t to protect an established business model. Really? The Constitution specifically includes a bit about: "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". That was quickly followed by the first copyright act. As I understand it, the copyright portion of this was e…

> the exclusive right exactly. This usage of works for _training_ is not part of that exclusive right, as far as i can tell. Otherwise, it would be a copyright violation for a human to read and learn off an existing works.

>This usage of works for _training_ is not part of that exclusive right, as far as I can tell.

Training the AI isn't the problem.

Publishing output generated by it (by making it available to anyone else other than yourself), however, is.

>Otherwise, it would be a copyright violation for a human to read and learn off an existing works

You have the right to read and memorize the entirety of the Harry Potter series.

You do not* have the right to start a podcast where you recite the entire book from memory.

Re: Stable Attribution

#180

Post by chii »

romwell wrote: post #178
chii wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the exclusive right exactly. This usage of works for _training_ is not part of that exclusive right, as far as i can tell. Otherwise, it would be a copyright violation for a human to read and learn off an existing works.

>This usage of works for _training_ is not part of that exclusive right, as far as I can tell. Training the AI isn't the problem. Publishing output generated by it (by making it available to anyone else other than yourself), however, is . >Otherwise, it would be a copyright violation for a human to read and learn off an existing works You have the right to read and memorize the entirety of the Harry Potter series. Yo…

> You do not* have the right to start a podcast where you recite the entire book from memory.

which is fine - this is public broadcasting of the works, which is part of the exclusive rights of the owner.

However, this is not what the AI is doing.

Post reply on HN