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

21–30 of 365 posts

Re: Stable Attribution

#21

Post by Swizec »

jxf wrote: post #17
throwaway-blaze wrote: post #11

I was taught to paint by instructors, and then refined my abilities by studying paintings of the old masters, right down to their brushwork and core techniques visible in the paintings to all who see them. Now I go and create a painting called Sunflowers. Does Van Gogh's estate own some of my work?

No one is necessarily saying that you owe Van Gogh a cut. What they _are_ saying is not to claim that you didn't train on Van Gogh or to pretend that you don't know what you practiced on.

As an author, often I don't even remember where I got some fragment of an idea. The good stuff just gets embedded in my subconsciousness and turns into the way I think.

Should every HN comment I write include a full list of everything I've ever read? What about a commercial work like a book, should that include a list of everything I've read or heard in the past 35 years of my life? That's a lot of attribution to keep track of ...

edit: I guess my question is where does derivativity end and creativity begin?

Re: Stable Attribution

#22

Post by whatshisface »

version_five wrote: post #15
whatshisface wrote: post #12

To actually accomplish something like this purports to be (the linked tool only searches for similar images and doesn't tell you anything about how information ended up inside the model), you could try removing individual images or sets of images from the same artist from the training dataset to see what outputs the resulting model would lose the ability to create. It would be expensive to do that for more than a few…

Your idea is the gold standard in explaining the influence of training data. People may be interested in this paper and more modern variations: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04730 It attempts to do as you suggest in a tractable way, to understand which training data is most influential.

Has the output of this tool been measured against the gold standard so that we can tell whether or not it is working?

Re: Stable Attribution

#23

Post by FL410 »

throwaway69123 wrote: post #4

I just tried this with an image I took with my phone and it gave me 10-15 images that the "ai" used to generate my image, proving this is an absolute fraud of a concept.

TBH I think misrepresenting this as identifying the "actual" source training material to make an image is way worse than what SD is doing. That's just a blatant lie.

Re: Stable Attribution

#24

Post by sieabahlpark »

tantalor wrote: post #19
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…

[flagged]

[dead]

Re: Stable Attribution

#25

Post by armchairhacker »

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 argue I deserve recognition. Regardless of whether or not the popular design was inspired by or derived from the original; having a model like this match the popular design with original, see that the original was created earlier, and give it recognition would be vindicating.

In fact, what if we create a neural network like this one to trace out huge DAGs linking every media with its similar-but-earlier and similar-but-later counterparts? It would show the evolution of culture on a large scale, how various memes and pieces of culture get created, where "artistic geniuses" likely get their inspirations from; and it would function as a great recommendation engine.

As for copyright and royalties - the site's intro never mentioned them, just "attribution" and "people's identities". And honestly, I don't think people deserve a cut from art generated from AI using their art unless the art is extremely similar. Because most of the time they are not that similar: the AI takes one artist's work (which would not be enough training data on its own) and mixes it with many others, like humans do, and I don't believe the two are different in a way that makes the AI mixer preserve copyright.

Re: Stable Attribution

#26

Post by [deleted] »

Swizec wrote: post #21
jxf wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is necessarily saying that you owe Van Gogh a cut. What they _are_ saying is not to claim that you didn't train on Van Gogh or to pretend that you don't know what you practiced on.

As an author, often I don't even remember where I got some fragment of an idea. The good stuff just gets embedded in my subconsciousness and turns into the way I think. Should every HN comment I write include a full list of everything I've ever read? What about a commercial work like a book, should that include a list of everything I've read or heard in the past 35 years of my life? That's a lot of attribution to kee…

[deleted]

Re: Stable Attribution

#27

Post by fortyseven »

version_five wrote: post #2

This appears to be just looking for the nearest neighbors of the image in embedding space and calling those the source data. This by definition would find similar looking images, but it's not strictly correct to call it attribution. To some extent all of the training data is responsible for the result - as an example, the model is also learning from negative examples. The result here may feel satisfying, but it's ove…

I fed it several very different images and yeah, that was my experience as well. There were many, many details that weren't present in the 'evidence' it provided.

Re: Stable Attribution

#28

Post by version_five »

whatshisface wrote: post #22
version_five wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your idea is the gold standard in explaining the influence of training data. People may be interested in this paper and more modern variations: https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04730 It attempts to do as you suggest in a tractable way, to understand which training data is most influential.

Has the output of this tool been measured against the gold standard so that we can tell whether or not it is working?

No, this tool (Stable Attribution) doesn't actually do training sample attribution. See my other comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34670483

Re: Stable Attribution

#30

Post by th3h4mm3r »

tantalor wrote: post #19
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…

[flagged]

A little bit luddist imho
Post reply on HN