This is complete and utter bullshit.
Stable Attribution
201–210 of 365 posts
Re: Stable Attribution
#202If the training data set is truly open, the raw inputs (or URLs to the sources) should be available. Isn't a direct image lookup on the source data a better way to do attribution? (For example: using methods similar to a Google Image Search)
At least from a legal perspective, protection (i.e., indemnification) should be offered to those who are clearly attributing their sources (which means they shouldn't be violating copyrights in the first place) and if they don't use clear attribution of sources, they should hold the burden of proof to show that they are not violating copyrights.
Re: Stable Attribution
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My concern is, it breaks the business for the people that feeds on and that's not OK. Why not? This is a website that's filled with programmers, almost all of our wealth is built on the skulls of jobs that once existed, and those programs were built without the consent of the people whose jobs were automated away, often through observing and rewriting the processes they used to do. The standard, this has been going…
We automate people's jobs, not taking their intellectual properties and build machines that can churn endless versions of it. The people put out of work by computers no longer work and they were paid in full for the work they did, unlike the people who developed intellectual property on their own dime hoping to be compensated later only to find out that their work was copied and distributed by the computer people.
What do you guys think Excel spreadsheets did? Back in the day people had pages with lots of boxes and did the calculations manually. The processes, terms, techniques, were all human inventions and shamelessly replicated by machines.
Almost everything computers do was once done by a person, and the people who did those jobs laid the framework for which the processes were automated through.
This has happened dozens of times. My entire job is writing software that was written in the 80s, which replaced customer service reps who are needed in the '70s, and the computer does what they used to do. It took what they invented, their processes, and made the computer do it.
This is what automation is. It's always built on top of, and replaced, human beings who used to do those jobs.
Re: Stable Attribution
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the exclusive right exactly. This usage of works for _training_ is not part of that exclusive right, as far as i can tell. Otherwise, it would be a copyright violation for a human to read and learn off an existing works.
>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…
Exactly.
This technology was clearly not one anticipated when the Constitution or the first Copyright Act was written. Or any of the later ones.
This will not fit in existing laws, so we have to go back to the purpose, "promote the progress of science and useful arts" via "securing for limited times to authors and inventors" particular rights.
What specific rights we'll need to secure here are going to take a while to work out. But new technologies have forced updates to copyright laws many times, and I' sure this won't be the last time.
Re: Stable Attribution
#205basically an advert for chroma, the vector db company, since this is essentially running a semantic similarity search.
wouldn't be surprised if they're running something like clip-interrogator or just clip itself and then an approximate vector similarity search over the database of image, vector pairs in their dataset.
Re: Stable Attribution
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Training method and recall are of no consequences because copyright law doesn't deal with technology for the most part. There is a test to wether the image is stored or not which is interesting here for the topic at hand, but it's always in the context of distribution. The worst is that weight may be considered storage, but the point is... Law already covers that. Because it doesn't concern with technology, but with…
> law is technology agnostic, just adding a layer of redirection doesn't matter, because tm it cares about the input and the output not what happens in between.
What makes you think that?
The law cares about whatever lawyers decide to care about. There was a case a few years ago where (if memory serves) a black woman sued an insurance company for discrimination after the insurance company refused to provide her cover. The company was using a neural net to decide whether to cover someone. The court demanded they explain the neural networks' decision - and of course, they couldn't. The insurance company lost the case.
In the aftermath they moved from a neural net to a decision tree based ML system. The decision tree made slightly worse decisions, but they figured if it lowered their legal exposure, it was worth it. With a decision tree, they can print out the decision tree if they were ever sued again and hand it to a judge.
> law is technology agnostic
Clearly not in this case.
There's plenty of other examples if you go looking. In criminal law, they care a great deal about the technology used in forensic analysis - both in its strengths and weaknesses.
If you don't know much about law, being humble and wrong will serve you better than being confident and wrong.
Re: Stable Attribution
#207I gave it a photo I had Stable Diffusion 1.4 generate from the prompt "avatar for saurik". If you dig through the CLIP database, you will find that the model was trained on a ridiculously large number of copies of my Twitter profile photo due to it being included when people screenshot popular tweets I've posted (which, notably, also means that it is rather low resolution). https://www.stableattribution.com/?image=e8…
Are you the guy who made Cydia for jailbroken iPhones all those years ago? Had no idea you were on HN!
Re: Stable Attribution
#208Earlier 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.
Available for free online is not a valid justification for copying under copyright law, though, right? You can’t distribute something just because you can see it. True for museums and magazines as it is for online content. > They don’t have the right to not allow people to learn from it, that’s just never been a part of copyright. Yeah this is true. Stable Diffusion and other neural networks are not “learning” from i…
>> Why do people think they need to be compensated for something they put up online for free?
> Available for free online is not a valid justification for copying under copyright law, though, right?
Legal and attribution and licensed are all terms that are usually involved, but the core assertion is more or less correct. eg Images on billboards are protected by copyright in a similar manner. Something displayed on a website does not invalidate the copyright of the author or indemnify the owner of the site (or downstream users) from licensing conditions.
Re: Stable Attribution
#209So now we have to address the issue of whether or not all art is derivative. If I go to art school, and learn from the masters, do I need to be giving attribution to all the artists whose work I studied before creating my own masterpieces?
Underlying this whole push to give attribution via AIs, there seems to be the general understanding that these AIs like SD are doing something very different to "creating" art, but are merely "combining art". I agree with this view, but it doesn't seem to be explicitly said very much.
Re: Stable Attribution
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is, the net contribution of most artists to these systems is next to zero. It's greater than zero, otherwise the AI wouldn't exist, but these AI are trained off of 5 billion plus examples. Examples that required work to collect and sort through. Examples that required millions of dollars worth of compute time to make into something useful. What is there to compensate them for? These machines are not actua…
I agree, the situation is not ideal. These machines should't been trained on their work in first place. Currently compensating the artists would be like the Pirate Bay compensating the studios for their production costs through the gambling ads they run. No new move would have been ever made if that was the case.
The tech is out there. This whole discussion is a waste of energy, it will never, ever be undone. Focus on what's next, not what you've lost.