Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

haveibeentrained.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 187 posts

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#171

Post by throw_m239339 »

quantified wrote: post #170
throw_m239339 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You sound anti-sex in dismissing sexual stimulation as non-artistic. Pornography isn't sex, it's a gross caricature of sex, usually shot from the perspective of male subjects involving the degradation of women, other men or children, purely for commercial purposes in order to give a false sense of sexual gratification. This isn't art, this is akin to butchery, with human bodies as meat ready to be consumed by incel…

Art has nothing to do with merit, does it? Sex with another person is difficult to come by for many, and only comes sporadically for many more. You don't sound like you've been married for 20 years and bound by oath to not have sex with anyone other than someone who's physically lost all libido. I recommend some empathy.

> Sex with another person is difficult to come by for many, and only comes sporadically for many more. You don't sound like you've been married for 20 years and bound by oath to not have sex with anyone other than someone who's physically lost all libido. I recommend some empathy.

You keep on making assumptions about your interlocutor, stick to the matter discussed.

I'd recommend you stop trying making things personal and have some empathy yourself for the victims of the porn trade and sex trafficking instead of trying defend pornography by labeling its critics "anti-sex". Porn is not sex and whoever gets off watching porn isn't having sex at first place. The fact that people have a non-existing libido is the least of my concerns.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#172

Post by throw_m239339 »

quantified wrote: post #169
throw_m239339 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A rude gesture or crass words seems vulgar. A video of a penis being sucked doesn't. "Vulgar" is the sort of word you might hear a shrill, paternal sitcom character use to describe a minor inconvenience or faux pas, and it's just as hilarious when people use it as an argument in real life. In the mean time you can spare people gratuitous, graphic descriptions of explicit sex acts, AKA pornography, and keep your dep…

My fantasies aren't depraved in any way, but they are well-represented in pornography.

> My fantasies aren't depraved in any way, but they are well-represented in pornography.

Your certainly qualify as a vulgar individual given the fact that you feel the need to depict pornography here trying to make a point about god knows what.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#173

Post by simandl »

behnamoh wrote: post #158

On Brave I get "malicious site ahead" warning.

We think this is because the images are all links and the browser itself is pulling them in from across the web. With chrome it happened once during our testing, and we've had one user also experience it, but it's intermittent. Thank you for pointing to brave, which we haven't tested yet! That might help us repeat the errors.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#174

Post by BLSstudio »

It would be great to have some simple text from the artist connected to the artist’s images. Things like, artist’s name, title, subject matter… Many of my images (drawings and paintings) aren’t associated with my name and instead are associated with different drugs and psychology and other things. It would be better to have the opportunity to somehow to enhance that. To influence the future prompt results. I feel like it would make Ai more intelligent.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#175

Post by MacsHeadroom »

bdowling wrote: post #82
MacsHeadroom wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming you're referring to Stable Diffusion, the training set photos are not used commercially. Using them in training is non-commercial. If they were to share the training set, that would be commercial. However, the final product (the neural weights) does not include any of the training data and so there is no commercial use of your photos occuring. It's the same as if I were to look at your photos and then take m…

Commercial use isn't required for copyright infringement.

Regardless, there is no copyright infringement occurring when I use my memory of having seen someone else's copyrighted materials to produce my own wholly new but similar looking works.

Likewise there is no copyright infringement occurring when an ML model is trained on copyrighted works.

Stable Diffusion is a 5GB matrix of floating-point numbers trained on 240TB of data. It does not, and cannot, contain infringing data from the training set. It is physically impossible for it to contain such data. There is not, and cannot be, any infringement occurring.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#176

Post by claudiawerner »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #165
claudiawerner wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>which sole purpose is sexual gratification Not necessarily; plenty of pornography contains serious artistic contents and merit beyond the simple aim of sexual gratification, and they raise interesting questions on their own. This is why some have attempted to make another classifier of 'erotica', which IMO isn't needed. >through sexual exploitation, rape via human trafficking. Even if this were true for all porn (an…

> A rude gesture or crass words seems vulgar. A video of a penis being sucked doesn't. "Vulgar" is the sort of word you might hear a shrill, paternal sitcom character use to describe a minor inconvenience or faux pas, and it's just as hilarious when people use it as an argument in real life. In the mean time you can spare people gratuitous, graphic descriptions of explicit sex acts, AKA pornography, and keep your dep…

"gratuitous, graphic descriptions of explicit sex acts,"

If you think a blowjob being described in seven words to make a point about vulgarity is 'gratuitous', 'graphic', or 'explicit', your moral compass is severely out of whack.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#177

Post by quantified »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #172
quantified wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My fantasies aren't depraved in any way, but they are well-represented in pornography.

> My fantasies aren't depraved in any way, but they are well-represented in pornography. Your certainly qualify as a vulgar individual given the fact that you feel the need to depict pornography here trying to make a point about god knows what.

Depict? I've held off from the ASCII art here. Though I recall a 1975 Ascii art of a Playboy centerfold (in 1975, no vulva in Playboy at that time). Yes, I was in computing at that time, though as a prepubescent at that time not super into porn.

Point about god knows what? Pretty sure it's been clear all along, art encompasses things we like and things we don't.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#178

Post by simandl »

BLSstudio wrote: post #174

It would be great to have some simple text from the artist connected to the artist’s images. Things like, artist’s name, title, subject matter… Many of my images (drawings and paintings) aren’t associated with my name and instead are associated with different drugs and psychology and other things. It would be better to have the opportunity to somehow to enhance that. To influence the future prompt results. I feel lik…

Thank you for the feedback! That's what we're hoping our opt-in tools will help artists do. For the problems you've posed here, you might actually want to both opt-in and opt-out. You'd be able to flag the imageurl-caption pairs that don't accurately credit you or describe your work and we'll forward them to the dataset creators for removal. You could then add any works that you're comfortable being used for AI training, and caption them however you'd like. Those would go into the dataset and be used when training future models.

We'd love to have you sign up if you're interested! We expect to start the beta for those tools in 2 to 3 weeks.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#179

Post by quantified »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #171
quantified wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art has nothing to do with merit, does it? Sex with another person is difficult to come by for many, and only comes sporadically for many more. You don't sound like you've been married for 20 years and bound by oath to not have sex with anyone other than someone who's physically lost all libido. I recommend some empathy.

> Sex with another person is difficult to come by for many, and only comes sporadically for many more. You don't sound like you've been married for 20 years and bound by oath to not have sex with anyone other than someone who's physically lost all libido. I recommend some empathy. You keep on making assumptions about your interlocutor, stick to the matter discussed. I'd recommend you stop trying making things persona…

You conflate porn with sex trafficking. May as well conflate girl's gymnastics with sex abuse. Because there is certainly sex abuse in girl's gymnastics. Heck, in society as a whole. You have a very warped definition of pornography.

You talk about sexual stimulation for people that can't have sex with other humans as though it's a bad thing. That's just being a prude.

Re: Search 5.8B images used to train popular AI art models

#180

Post by throw_m239339 »

quantified wrote: post #177
throw_m239339 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My fantasies aren't depraved in any way, but they are well-represented in pornography. Your certainly qualify as a vulgar individual given the fact that you feel the need to depict pornography here trying to make a point about god knows what.

Depict? I've held off from the ASCII art here. Though I recall a 1975 Ascii art of a Playboy centerfold (in 1975, no vulva in Playboy at that time). Yes, I was in computing at that time, though as a prepubescent at that time not super into porn. Point about god knows what? Pretty sure it's been clear all along, art encompasses things we like and things we don't.

> Depict? I've held off from the ASCII art here. Though I recall a 1975 Ascii art of a Playboy centerfold (in 1975, no vulva in Playboy at that time). Yes, I was in computing at that time, though as a prepubescent at that time not super into porn.

to depict: to represent or characterize in words; describe.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/depict

Then you keep babbling about your life like anybody cares.

Post reply on HN