Stable Attribution • Hacker News Board

Re: Stable Attribution

#121

Post by bioemerl » Mon, Feb 06, 2023, 1:05 AM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #101

bioemerl wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get the assumption that there should be. The machine was trained on publicly available hard that was already free. Why do people think they need to be compensated for something they put up online for free? They don't have the right to not allow people to learn from it, that's just never been a part of copyright.

They put it online for free for human consumption. Because the tech is very new, old concepts and laws don't cover it and that's not the point. The assumption that there must be compensation comes from the capitalist society that we live in. Switching to Communism or something else can be a solution to not directly pay people who do works and still have them around.

I think what we are seeing here is a proxy argument.

Artists do not care about the copyright of people being able to learn from their art and reproduce it.

It is not been an issue for decades, because it is a long established standard of copyright. You can't copy a work directly, you can learn from it and reproduce your own sort of stuff.

What's different now is that this is a tool which artists can be replaced by. They not angry that their art has been learned from. Artists are angry that there is a tool which can replace them. And artists are looking for a way to make sure that tool is hampered as much as physically possible.

If it were not learning copyright it would be something else, and whatever that's something else is it would also probably be something with proxy for that core issue.

Imagine we had created an AI which was perfect, it could take your exact description of anything you asked it for and drew that thing.

And then I went and asked it for a picture of Mickey mouse in the style of Disney. Because it's a perfect AI perfectly reproduces it.

Who is in the wrong? I think it's absurd to think the creators of the AI would begin the wrong, because they did their job perfectly. It's a perfect app, it is a tool capable of literally anything.

At the end of the day, it's the person using the tool to violate copyright who is in the wrong, assuming they distribute those images.

And I don't believe the answer here is communism, I believe the answer is the same answer we've had for decades for the same situation. People need to find new jobs and learn new skills and do new things.

And as programmers, it's probably going to happen to us too, about as soon as it happens to artists. Time to consider to start to learn to weld or build homes or something like that.

Re: Stable Attribution

#122

Post by astrange » Mon, Feb 06, 2023, 1:08 AM UTC

simonw wrote: post #51

Upload a photo you took to prove to yourself that this tool is misleading (if not straight up fraudulent), then downvote and move on. You can already run exactly this kind of image similarity search against the Stable Diffusion training set using existing tools - https://rom1504.github.io/clip-retrieval/?back=https%3A%2F%2... for example

But you can't downvote stories.

Re: Stable Attribution

#123

Post by yosame » Mon, Feb 06, 2023, 1:10 AM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #78

stonith wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So let's say, if an artist developed a particular style and someone wants to hire them for a business project like a game they can't feasibly just learn that style and use it so they hire the artist. Later other people catch on this style and develop over it. It only works because monetising through copying the style is not very feasible. I don't think copying an art style is that hard. Professional artists in your…

> 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?

Or they can do a different job?

Re: Stable Attribution

#124

Post by pixl97 » Mon, Feb 06, 2023, 1:10 AM UTC

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.

So if I look at everything you created with an omniscient view how many violations will I find in your artwork?

These days it's both publishers and artists attempting to create RMS's world of a right to read.

Re: Stable Attribution

#125

Post by astrange » Mon, Feb 06, 2023, 1:10 AM UTC

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.

"Capitalism" is selling the right itself to someone else, not earning royalties from it. IP rights are government creations; it's not like you signed a contract with each royalty payer.

Re: Stable Attribution

#126

Post by pixl97 » Mon, Feb 06, 2023, 1:11 AM UTC

wokwokwok wrote: post #98

social_quotient wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the parent post to yours said he’s taking piano lessons. Let’s suppose he becomes great. And let’s suppose he writes his own music. How is Taylor Swift supposed to get paid by him from his early lessons which have undoubtedly played a key role in not only his love for music but the song he writes today?

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…

Neoluddism isn't solved by smashing the machines...

Re: Stable Attribution

#127

Post by yosame » Mon, Feb 06, 2023, 1:11 AM UTC

bioemerl wrote: post #99

hansihe wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have no idea if images by Stable Diffusion violates copyright, there is no legal precedent.

Technically we do have examples of stable diffusion violating copyright, it will generate some exact clone images if you give it the right prompt and that image exists a few hundred times in the training data.

Just because stable diffusion can be used to violate copyright doesn't mean it only does.

Re: Stable Attribution

#128

Post by benatkin » Mon, Feb 06, 2023, 1:12 AM UTC

armchairhacker wrote: post #25

This is a really great approach and much better than "ban all AI-generated content because we can't find out who made what it was derived from". Even if it only finds similar matches and not true attribution, I actually think that is better. Say I come up with a neat design but I'm not very famous, and later someone more famous comes up with the same design on their own. I don't deserve attribution , but I would argu…

It isn't nearly a viable solution to the problem. It's a cool app with a manifesto on the front page.

Re: Stable Attribution

#129

Post by mrtksn » Mon, Feb 06, 2023, 1:14 AM UTC

bioemerl wrote: post #121

mrtksn wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They put it online for free for human consumption. Because the tech is very new, old concepts and laws don't cover it and that's not the point. The assumption that there must be compensation comes from the capitalist society that we live in. Switching to Communism or something else can be a solution to not directly pay people who do works and still have them around.

I think what we are seeing here is a proxy argument. Artists do not care about the copyright of people being able to learn from their art and reproduce it. It is not been an issue for decades, because it is a long established standard of copyright. You can't copy a work directly, you can learn from it and reproduce your own sort of stuff. What's different now is that this is a tool which artists can be replaced by. T…

I don't think we can look into this from copyright standpoint. It was already not working very well in the digital age, now it's completely useless.

I don't object that people should learn new skills and find new jobs, my concern is that people who actually put huge effort to produce that "training data" are now left dry. They should be compensated and move on, I'm completely against hampering the abilities of AI in order to preserve the current business structures.

Re: Stable Attribution

#130

Post by grumbel » Mon, Feb 06, 2023, 1:14 AM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #101

bioemerl wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get the assumption that there should be. The machine was trained on publicly available hard that was already free. Why do people think they need to be compensated for something they put up online for free? They don't have the right to not allow people to learn from it, that's just never been a part of copyright.

They put it online for free for human consumption. Because the tech is very new, old concepts and laws don't cover it and that's not the point. The assumption that there must be compensation comes from the capitalist society that we live in. Switching to Communism or something else can be a solution to not directly pay people who do works and still have them around.

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 a bit of inspiration from other works, something artists themselves do plenty themselves.

Something like UBI might help with the monetary needs eventually. Though the fear part might start getting really interesting in the near future. What do you do with your life when AI is better at it than you? When everything you can create, can be created by the AI faster and better?