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

181–190 of 365 posts

Re: Stable Attribution

#181

Post by bioemerl »

adriand wrote: post #160
grumbel wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Artists shouldn’t have to compete against themselves . If these AI companies didn’t use the work of artists, the output would suck! I’m sure many artists would be happy to compete against the artistic talents of software developers. But they’re not, they’re having to compete against their own work. I listened to an interview with an artist who referenced the “three C’s”: Consent Credit Compensation These seem reasona…

The request is to eliminate the technology. The training data set for stable diffusion has 5 billion images. Even if it was a single dollar per image, the data set as a whole would cost $5 billion.

Getting consent of all the authors within that 5 billion images, managing the infrastructure of paying them, would be a Herculean task, and the cost of that task would far outrun the 5 billion spend if you gave a dollar for each image.

That would kill any and all possibility of an open source AI model. The future where this happens would be a very dystopian one.

Re: Stable Attribution

#182

Post by romwell »

chii wrote: post #170
tveita wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"business model" feels like a very narrow lens to view this through. This isn't weavers or telegraph operators, this is coming for all human art forms. We are potentially creating an all-seeing instant plagiarism machine that saps away not just monetary compensation but even credit and recognition. Spend 2 years writing your novel? You'll barely sell a single copy, but people will happily pay 2 cents to hear GPTx's p…

> This isn't weavers or telegraph operators, this is coming for all human art forms. so somehow the arts is above the telegraph operators or weavers? > but people will happily pay 2 cents to hear GPTx's paraphrase of it. except if you can tell that the novel GPTx "paraphrased" is a derivative work from yours, rather than transformative, you can either sue for loyalties, or take action. If you cannot tell if GPTx is s…

>except if you can tell that the novel GPTx "paraphrased" is a derivative work from yours, rather than transformative, you can either sue for loyalties, or take action.

Respectfully, no.

The top comment in this thread is saurik asking Stable Diffisuion to generate "an avatar of saurik" and getting a veritable likeness of themselves back.

It would be laughable to think that this is feasible without the model having labeled photos of saurik, which are all posted by (go figure) saurik.

The AI also generated a "better" photo than the one saurik posted. The AI saurik has more hair.

That doesn't change the fact that without the source material, this output would not exist. Nor that it would be really hard for saurik to "take action" on that.

----

In the end, the experiment to do would be very simple. Exclude certain data from the training set, retrain the model, give it the same prompt, and see whether the output changes significantly.

If it does, then that data was indispensable for generating the output for that prompt.

Something tells me we won't see such experiments done by OpeanAI any time soon.

Re: Stable Attribution

#183

Post by romwell »

chii wrote: post #180
romwell wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This usage of works for _training_ is not part of that exclusive right, as far as I can tell. Training the AI isn't the problem. Publishing output generated by it (by making it available to anyone else other than yourself), however, is . >Otherwise, it would be a copyright violation for a human to read and learn off an existing works You have the right to read and memorize the entirety of the Harry Potter series. Yo…

> You do not* have the right to start a podcast where you recite the entire book from memory. which is fine - this is public broadcasting of the works, which is part of the exclusive rights of the owner. However, this is not what the AI is doing.

>However, this is not what the AI is doing.

Yes, this is what the people who use the AI are doing. As well as people who release the AI model or a product that uses it.

Re: Stable Attribution

#184

Post by jfoster »

This seems to be a similar image finder applied to the dataset used to train Stable Diffusion, I think? I uploaded a photo I took a few minutes earlier and it showed me similar photos.

My point is that it doesn't seem to prove that any of the images it finds are actually the source images.

Re: Stable Attribution

#185

Post by chii »

romwell wrote: post #183
chii wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You do not* have the right to start a podcast where you recite the entire book from memory. which is fine - this is public broadcasting of the works, which is part of the exclusive rights of the owner. However, this is not what the AI is doing.

>However, this is not what the AI is doing. Yes, this is what the people who use the AI are doing. As well as people who release the AI model or a product that uses it.

> the people who use the AI are doing

if the people are using the AI to replicate an exiting works, to try to loophole the copyright act, then they will just get sued.

> release the AI model or a product that uses it

I argue that the model itself cannot be construed as copyright violation. After all, the model is information. What if i released a table of all of the word frequencies from books, and published that table? The table of word frequencies does not violate the copyright of the books from which it was derived.

Just because you _could_ re-derive the original books from this dataset, doesn't mean the dataset violates copyright. It _could_, if the dataset cannot do anything else (e.g., i just zipped up the text of the books and released that). But the AI model does not _only_ output the original, but it could also generate new works.

Re: Stable Attribution

#187

Post by pkaye »

mrtksn wrote: post #46
goldemerald wrote: post #8

This 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…

I don't think style can be copyrighted.

Re: Stable Attribution

#188

Post by humanizersequel »

goldemerald wrote: post #8

This 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…

Does it even matter?

This is my hangup about luddite hand wringing with claims that the existence of Stable Diffusion and tools like it constitute some violation of the rights of the artists whose data was included in the training set. Existing laws on copyright infringement and whatnot don't persecute the paintbrushes, they go after the artist who published infringing material. Why should this be any different?

Re: Stable Attribution

#189

Post by brookst »

mrtksn wrote: post #46
goldemerald wrote: post #8

This 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…

> How is the artist supposed to be compensated for spending years of developing that style/method?

I’m not sure. How are they providing compensation to every other artist whose work they’ve seen? To all of the people who gave them feedback and criticism?

The arts have existed for far, far longer than IP law and copyright and royalties. This idea that artists have no influences and that human art is not derivative is just weird.

Re: Stable Attribution

#190

Post by sam345 »

josephg wrote: post #152
avereveard wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright already cover characters and stories. Just because an ai (or a human) comes out with a copyrighted character in a novel pose, it doesn't mean it's not copyrighted Style itself is not copyrighted, and that's a good thing. I can create copyrighted content privately. I cannot share it. Law doesn't forbid imagination, wether human or ai and that's a good thing. But I cannot distribute these private rendition al…

> Law seem pretty complete and well defined to me. I don't think lawyers would agree with you at all. > Just because an ai (or a human) comes out with a copyrighted character in a novel pose, it doesn't mean it's not copyrighted My understanding is that there isn't a legal consensus on whether or not thats true. Copyright law wasn't written with AI generated art in mind. For a work to be copyrightable, my understandi…

This doesn't seem too complicated to me. An AI trained on images that produces a new image even if in same style as the source database is not violating copyright. It sucks for artists but that's not an argument that current law bans it. If current law banned it, every artist who was inspired in their work by other styles or image would be violating copyright. E.g, all comic book artists study and are inspired by other comic book artists. I don't doubt there will be attempts by courts and/or legislatures hostile to AI to make up new law to impose some sort of penalty/license fee on AI generated images. One approach would be make an artists style a trademark (for all I know that is already established law but I doubt it). I doubt the effort will be successful as there will be a gazillion ways around it or it will result in a relatively small number of monopolies of protected styles which would seem even a worse outcome than a flood of AI generated art. Ultimately I think artists will need to be even more careful about branding and probably will insist on prominent displays of their signatures and promoting the idea that a premium should be placed on human generated art probably through some sort of "certified human art" label. It definitely will increase the supply of art and likely decrease the number of artists that can survive financially off their work.
Post reply on HN