Should human artists also strive to attribute every other artist they have been inspired by when publishing an image? No.
Stable Attribution
281–290 of 365 posts
Re: Stable Attribution
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is expected of any professional artist to have an online portfolio if they are serious about generating work. Scraping my portfolio that I put out because I want to generate revenue is a shitty thing to do. Also 'trained' is a complete misnomer. AI is fed images made by humans, labelled and tagged by humans, categorized by styles defined by humans, then plotted, copied, traced by a program written by humans. Along…
> Art is made with physical motor skills, time and effort Apparently it isn't. Now a computer can do it. > that requires no effort of aquiring the physical skill needed to make the art. So what? This doesn't matter. > If you want to physically copy my art, go for it This is the same thing as if a computer does it.
> Apparently it isn't. Now a computer can do it.
Why do we need farmers when you can just buy a burger at McDonald's?
Re: Stable Attribution
#283Earlier 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…
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 oth…
> 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
Yeah, software "doesn't seem too complicated" to non-programmers too.
No offense, but if you aren't a lawyer then your opinion on legal matters has about as much veracity as a dentist explaining how software is made.
I have a certain amount of scorn for non-engineers telling me how their app idea is a weekend job and I should do it for free. I'm sure lawyers feel the same way about us when we claim there are easy answers around stable diffusion and copyright law.
The AI was trained without permission on copyrighted data. If it was as cut and dry as you claim then why do both parties think its worth going to court?
I don't know much about the law, but I know enough to recognise when its a job for the lawyers to figure out.
Re: Stable Attribution
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don’t need to, as clip-retrieval is licensed under the MIT license.
The MIT license disagrees: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Besides, even if you don't interpret this as "attribution", it's still ironic coming from this particular project.
It is ironic, but MIT license definitely does not require attribution from websites using the code on the backend (otherwise you'd see a rather large attribution list at the bottom of Google.com or any website...)
Re: Stable Attribution
#285I 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…
This was my suspicion. It just seems like a glorified image similarity search instead of a real reversal of the stable diffusion process.
Re: Stable Attribution
#286Earlier 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…
> so somehow the arts is above the telegraph operators or weavers?
Yes, obviously. We haven't found 40,000 year old telegraph stations in caves. No one thinks weaving is an intrinsic part of being human.
The cat is out of the bag, but we should think very carefully about what we're leaving behind before we embrace an artless society.
> Just because something is difficult to do, doesn't automatically mean that people need to be paying for it to allow it to continue to exist. If it isn't profitable, stop doing it, rather than demand the world be changed to allow for it to continue.
This I find positively pro-dystopian. Who cares about reality when we can get regurgitated fakes generated much cheaper? Just write "crying woman bleeds from head in front of ruined building, warzone (pulitzer) [trending on Flickr]" in the little text box, click generate, ship it, and go for coffee.
Re: Stable Attribution
#287Earlier 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.
It is expected of any professional artist to have an online portfolio if they are serious about generating work. Scraping my portfolio that I put out because I want to generate revenue is a shitty thing to do. Also 'trained' is a complete misnomer. AI is fed images made by humans, labelled and tagged by humans, categorized by styles defined by humans, then plotted, copied, traced by a program written by humans. Along…
> Art is made with physical motor skills, time and effort.
Hasn’t been about the motor skills time and effort for a long long time. Art has been about the idea rather than a fetishization of how much time and skill something takes to build.
Re: Stable Attribution
#288Hip hop, rap, and dj mixes are derivatives of art. Each is legally allowed without attribution. AI will be legally permitted to do the same.
Re: Stable Attribution
#289Calling the nearest neighbors of the CLIP embeddings of an image "attribution" feels really misleading, the model has been influenced by the entire dataset it was trained on, just by finding the most semantically similar images does not mean the AI is just using that speficific group of images as references, they probably have almost no influence compared to the entire size of the dataset. P.S. I'm having fun uploadi…
Yeah this needs to be higher up, very misleading!
To be fair though, they do point it out in their FAQ: "Version 1 of Stable Attribution’s algorithm decodes an image generated by an AI model into the most similar examples from the data that the model was trained with."
To me it actually seems like this language intentionally obscures that they are 'only' using similarity search.
Imo this does a huge disservice to AI communication, providing fake explanations where even cutting edge research has poor insight into these models.
Re: Stable Attribution
#290Here's a fixed point of Cliff Click's Twitter picture: https://www.stableattribution.com/?image=1e52d4cc-6ad4-4ac2-...
Download the first input picture, search for it, and somehow the picture is AI generated ripping off itself, and somehow influenced by other images despite the first input and the output being bit-identical.