121–130 of 187 posts
I just uploaded a picture of my dog (Bichon Frise) and it showed me a bazillion nearly exact similar dogs. Why isn't this immediately being used as a missing persons (or pet) database service?
There is a lot of porn there
I'll get downvoted massively, but porn is by definition art (meant to be viewed and evoke reactions, just as advertising art is), and has been some of the most important creative outputs for as almost as long as humans have been creating art.
Things can be "artistic" or contain art within them, but it doesn't make them art.
I don't buy that something done/created for the purpose of being viewed and evoking (even strong or many) reactions is enough of a criteria.
Otherwise things from trolling to 9/11 are "performance art" (an already barely hanging-on category), the latter of which was very "successful" at meeting this minimal set of rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Again, where in the neural weights does your original work live? That's not the standard for copyright infringement. The standard is (1) access to the original work and (2) producing a work that is "substantial similar" to the original. If the user of an AI produces an output that is substantially similar to one of the AI's training images, then it could potentially infringe. That's the law. In an actual case, a ju…
> producing a work that is "substantial similar" to the original. So the question “where in the model is your original?” is a reasonable and relevant question to ask. If this person can induce the model to produce a work that is reasonably considered a copy of their original, then fair enough. All they have to do is give a prompt and a seed and they can prove copyright infringement very easily because anybody else wi…
It's surprising how poorly labeled these images are; who is curating this collection? Can't they crowd-source a proper labeling project - I wonder how much better things like Stable Diffusion would be if its training would include correct, complete labels for the images. I'm sure lots of folks would willingly spend a few minutes here and there to aid with the labeling if it means they get to enjoy the model for free.
They could use Wikimedia Commons to get a smaller collection of better labeled images. Currently it's images from Common Crawl extracted by Laion, not sure if it already includes Wikimedia Commons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll get downvoted massively, but porn is by definition art (meant to be viewed and evoke reactions, just as advertising art is), and has been some of the most important creative outputs for as almost as long as humans have been creating art.
It isn't art. But neither is decoration, nor craft. Things can be "artistic" or contain art within them, but it doesn't make them art. I don't buy that something done/created for the purpose of being viewed and evoking (even strong or many) reactions is enough of a criteria. Otherwise things from trolling to 9/11 are "performance art" (an already barely hanging-on category), the latter of which was very "successful"…
The corpus is of art, not Art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I compress an image with JPEG, I won't get the exact same pixels values in the original image after decompressing because the compression is lossy, but I'm sure you'll agree that the original image is "there". How are NN weights different from the DCT coefficients in a JPEG file?
The NN weights can't recreate anything without input values - specifically a 512x512 grid of random noise, and a transformed textual prompt. So there's almost a kilobyte of missing data, without which nothing is produced. Would a JPEG file with random noise in it be potentially any given original image? Of course not - even though the decompressor is perfectly capable of recreating one given suitable input data. The…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
part of our idea is that artists can help with labelling their own work
The same artists who have been pitching a fit about how the robots are coming for their jobs? Pretty sure they are trying to figure out a way their art can’t be used to train an AI and won’t be willingly participating in making it easier.
I'm one of the people building this. Hi HN, AMA :)
It would be a stunning twist of irony if this website uploaded images to a proprietary image dataset used for training AI models, pitching "uncorrelated data"
You can't really back an image out of a model, you can only retrain without that image.
Creative Commons should add a new license that prohibits the use of ones work to train AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> producing a work that is "substantial similar" to the original. So the question “where in the model is your original?” is a reasonable and relevant question to ask. If this person can induce the model to produce a work that is reasonably considered a copy of their original, then fair enough. All they have to do is give a prompt and a seed and they can prove copyright infringement very easily because anybody else wi…
If there was an actual case, the question would be whether the defendant had access to the original work. If the original work was used to train the AI model, then the answer is yes. It's not necessary for the model to contain a copy of the original work.
A copy must be made for there to be copyright infringement. Who has shown a copy has been made? If a copy has been observed to occur, it’s trivial to demonstrate copyright infringement. Who has done this?