When writing code on my n-th job I should pay something to the n-1 companies I've worked before as my skills were honed working on their proprietary code?
If I ever hear that Oracle is searching for executives I'll point them out to you, sure you'll get along just fine
Stable Attribution
191–200 of 365 posts
Re: Stable Attribution
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 l…
I think you're right. However an implied yet crucial belief is that the loss of manual artists (vs creative directors) will not rob us of potential advances in art.
Put another way, it is the belief that the 2020s are the peak of manual human art.
Imagine if we'd felt that way a thousand years ago, or even a hundred. Is it worth being wrong?
Re: Stable Attribution
#193Earlier 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…
Sure, it's disruptive and that's fine. The problem is that there's no mechanism to compensate the people who enable your new disruptive machine. As I said, humans learn but the phase humans do it still allows for people be compensated. I'm not anti-AI at all, I think its great and I think the artist who can leverage it can hugely benefit from it but it is not fair to just take something from people away.
[deleted]
Re: Stable Attribution
#194Rather than retroactively tell the community to self police, maybe we could ask our lawmakers to implement attribution legislation
Re: Stable Attribution
#195[deleted]
Re: Stable Attribution
#196This 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…
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…
Won't this be self-correcting as all artists start to add visible and invisible fingerprints to their work with a license that says, in effect, "this image may only be viewed with human eyeballs. Any other consumption is forbidden. "
Re: Stable Attribution
#197This site don’t even provide actual attribution to the original artists? And yet they encourage you to share those same images without attribution. Wild.
Re: Stable Attribution
#198To actually accomplish something like this purports to be (the linked tool only searches for similar images and doesn't tell you anything about how information ended up inside the model), you could try removing individual images or sets of images from the same artist from the training dataset to see what outputs the resulting model would lose the ability to create. It would be expensive to do that for more than a few…
Are these models actually "stable" (heh)? Or would changing anything in the dataset result in a butterfly effect so to speak, thus a completely different output for the same prompt?
It's an open challenge, this preprint proposes a solution for robust data valuation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.15466
However, I'm not aware of anyone actively trying to adapt these techniques for large generative AI models (though would be great to see).
Re: Stable Attribution
#199Earlier 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…
Won't this be self-correcting as all artists start to add visible and invisible fingerprints to their work with a license that says, in effect, "this image may only be viewed with human eyeballs. Any other consumption is forbidden. "
Copyright doesn't let you forbid consumption. It only lets you forbid redistribution of copies and derivative works.
Re: Stable Attribution
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 l…
I think you're right. However an implied yet crucial belief is that the loss of manual artists (vs creative directors) will not rob us of potential advances in art. Put another way, it is the belief that the 2020s are the peak of manual human art. Imagine if we'd felt that way a thousand years ago, or even a hundred. Is it worth being wrong?
I agree it makes it less likely that people will create novel manual art techniques. By analogy -- when cameras were invented, artists stopped focusing as much on realism. But I don't think that was any great loss. Also, there are some artists today who still make photorealistic paintings, despite the existence of cameras; so I don't think Stable Diffusion will make it impossible to have advances in manual art techniques.
Also, I think we have to weigh that tradeoff against all the new things that will be created if art becomes accessible to 100x as many people. On net, I think Stable Diffusion opens many more doors for art than it closes.