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

231–240 of 365 posts

Re: Stable Attribution

#231

Post by ForestCritter »

sorry_outta_gas wrote: post #220
ForestCritter wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

to me it's less about the process and jobs lost and more about some feeling loss related to the excitement about removing expression and experience from a domain for honestly very little real benefit continuing to transform things which in part centered around exploration, discovery and experimentation into something cold and kind of dumb like we will make some interesting things but it's the general trend of modern…

That is also my feeling. There is nothing like having a pile of raw materials, or a set of new inks or water color pencils, etc. and to explore the boundaries of what you can do with them. Art being made from a menu seems rather sad.

Re: Stable Attribution

#232

Post by couchand »

bioemerl wrote: post #131
mrtksn wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Under capitalism artist would be unable to make a profit off of their art. Under communism artists would be barred from making art entirely, ordered by the state to work in a place where it is deemed to be productive.

You must be joking? It's obvious if you actually care to look that leftist governments value the arts much more than liberal ones.

Re: Stable Attribution

#233

Post by convexfunction »

convexfunction wrote: post #230

Yeah, it's bullshit, but digging into a specific point from their FAQ: > Usually, the image the model creates doesn’t exist in its training data - it’s new - but because of the training process, the most influential images are the most visually similar ones, especially in the details. Would be cool if this were true, but I don't think it is, because the prompt you used and the captions on the training images are bein…

Not to mention that the totality of all other images is in most cases probably more "influential" than the few most visually similar images! Consider the thought experiment:

1. Take the prompt you used, and use it with a model checkpoint that was trained identically to whatever model you're using, except that the top 21 images this website shows you are removed. In most cases, while your outputs won't be identical (I assume), you can probably get something pretty similar.

2. Now, take that same prompt, and use it with a model checkpoint that was only trained on the top 21 images this website shows you. (AFAIK you can't really do this because Stability hasn't released a "completely untrained" version of any of their models... though maybe they have and nobody cares because it's useless for most purposes.) I'm not completely sure what you'd get, but my bet would be that you get either nonsense or a memorized replica of one of the training images, not the same output image you got previously.

Re: Stable Attribution

#234

Post by astrange »

couchand wrote: post #232
bioemerl wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under capitalism artist would be unable to make a profit off of their art. Under communism artists would be barred from making art entirely, ordered by the state to work in a place where it is deemed to be productive.

You must be joking? It's obvious if you actually care to look that leftist governments value the arts much more than liberal ones.

Is there a study on this? (Serious question.)

It would seem that it opens you up to the problem of other people deciding whether you're an artist or not and if so whether you're a good artist.

The same of course happens with capitalism, where it's your customers doing it. (Or in the case of books, which are almost never profitable, the VC-like publishers deciding to give you advances.)

So of course the reason modern mixed economies are good is there's more than one set of people that you may be able to convince to fund you.

Re: Stable Attribution

#235

Post by couchand »

josephg wrote: post #116
wokwokwok wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are fundamentally not addressing the issue. Previously, someone was being paid to produce something. Now, they are no longer being paid and the business can get the same thing “for free”. You can argue the same issue about out sourcing programmers to south east Asia. Is it good or bad? “…but how do we compensate the programmers who lost their jobs?” It’s just economics right? …but saying that doesn’t address the…

> People. Out of jobs. > You think, maybe, it’s fair for the people being replaced to feel a bit upset about it? I think it makes all sorts of sense that people are upset about stable diffusion. And, people being upset isn't a good reason to change the law or outlaw the new technology. Today the word "luddite" is a slur. But luddites were real people who made the same argument you're making. In their case, they were…

The true story of the Luddites is just one more chapter in the long history of state repression of the working people any time they organize together to improve their lot.

The law shouldn't protect the status quo, it should protect human beings. Unfortunately, the law usually protects the wealthy first and only.

Re: Stable Attribution

#236

Post by dqpb »

can16358p wrote: post #223

How does it even work? AFAIK SD works in a "convoluted" latent space that is a result of all the training data, it's not like it takes a few images and smashes them together to create a new one.

It doesn't work. It's bullshit.

Re: Stable Attribution

#237

Post by puppycodes »

I think we need to rethink the concept of attribution and how we can collectivize participation rather than define absolute owners. It feels like theres a lot of old ideas that we force on new systems. Sometimes they really just dont work that way. When art or design is generated, copied, or remixed it gains new contexts that often are just as meaningful as the original. In my opinion at least, its what makes the internet beautiful.

Re: Stable Attribution

#238

Post by couchand »

codetrotter wrote: post #93
mrtksn wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> hey haven't been in the past and they shouldn't be So what's your suggestion, free food and housing for the artistic types or mercy killings?

> 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.

And medical care! Nobody should have to worry about food, housing, or medical care.

Our greatest failing as a society is viewing those three things as individual problems. It was not an accident, it is a very profitable social failure.

Re: Stable Attribution

#239

Post by convexfunction »

You ever feel like this specific propaganda war is actually unwinnable? Many people are extremely motivated to bullshit the public (usually sincerely though I kind of doubt it in this case), and from I've seen, the public are far more willing to believe the 3 extremely online artists who they've heard an opinion on the topic from than the 1 software engineer/data scientist who actually knows half a thing about machine learning they've heard an opinion on the topic from, let alone the growing cornucopia papers and high-production-value websites that seem to say "it's just a plagiarism machine" if you don't know anything about the subject vs the approximately one website I've ever seen that says "no, you are being lied to".

I'd like to believe this isn't one of those things where we can only move on by everyone who believes the various correlated falsities dying, but I don't think I can.

Re: Stable Attribution

#240

Post by couchand »

josephg wrote: post #206
avereveard wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. What makes you think that? The law cares about whatever lawyers decide to care about. There was a case a few years ago where (if memory serves) a black woman sued an insurance company for discrimination after the insurance company refused to provide her cover…

It's worth noting that "worse decisions" is from the point of view of the insurance company, which would prefer to act racist if only that pesky law didn't stop them, and will continue to do so to the extent they can get away with it.
Post reply on HN