It really bums me out that they didn’t name it GANnamStyle.
Nvidia releases Alias-Free GAN code and pre-trained models, naming it StyleGAN3
31–40 of 63 posts
Re: Nvidia releases Alias-Free GAN code and pre-trained models, naming it StyleGAN3
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used, or maybe misused, the term open source. You used “free”. The license & project used neither, and made no claim to align with opensource.org’s philosophy or definition. Whatever you call it, the source code has been released for anyone to read and “evaluate”, that’s what I meant by ‘open’. You didn’t answer the question - how is this sneaky, and how does it prevent using previous projects?
The Open Source Initiative coined the term to begin with. Using it incorrectly is harmful, and is how we've ended up with "literally" meaning "figuratively" in modern English. By insisting on the correct definition, I'm trying to prevent the same from happening to open source. It's pretty offensive to act like it's not a big deal to use something so essential to computing freedom in a cavalier way to intentionally le…
OSI was not the first to use the phrase "open source". This phraseology was in commonplace use to refer to other types of publicly available material for decades prior to 1998, when OSI decided to use the term to describe software licenses.
One example from 1971: https://www.google.com/books/edition/United_States_Code/3j2P...
There are also other (quite valid) authorities on software licensing other than OSI which have differing opinions on which licenses specifically qualify.
For example: most people would probably agree that BSD was open source, despite OSI's lack of approval on its original license. And I hardly think thats 'harmful' in any way.
Re: Nvidia releases Alias-Free GAN code and pre-trained models, naming it StyleGAN3
#33It really bums me out that they didn’t name it GANnamStyle.
And it fits pretty good too. GAN Nvidia Alias-free Models Style
Re: Nvidia releases Alias-Free GAN code and pre-trained models, naming it StyleGAN3
#34This produces a kind of artefact I haven't seen before, involving little chains of circles and diamonds, e.g. https://nvlabs-fi-cdn.nvidia.com/stylegan3/images/stylegan3-..., https://nvlabs-fi-cdn.nvidia.com/stylegan3/images/stylegan3-... (hair). I think they follow those glowing coordinate-ish lines from the internal representation.
It also seems to have given some faces contact lenses! https://nvlabs-fi-cdn.nvidia.com/stylegan3/images/stylegan3-..., https://nvlabs-fi-cdn.nvidia.com/stylegan3/images/stylegan3-...
Re: Nvidia releases Alias-Free GAN code and pre-trained models, naming it StyleGAN3
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is patent violation a crime? My understanding it is a civil issue like you kick me out of your property, and I'll kick you out too.
It is a civil issue rather than a criminal one, albeit still violation of law, which is why I used "crime" in the same way that the US government calls piracy and copyright infringement a crime despite it generally being a civil offense.
[deleted]
Re: Nvidia releases Alias-Free GAN code and pre-trained models, naming it StyleGAN3
#36Everyone is nitpicking the licenses involved in this thread. Is this the right thing to do?
Re: Nvidia releases Alias-Free GAN code and pre-trained models, naming it StyleGAN3
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Open Source Initiative coined the term to begin with. Using it incorrectly is harmful, and is how we've ended up with "literally" meaning "figuratively" in modern English. By insisting on the correct definition, I'm trying to prevent the same from happening to open source. It's pretty offensive to act like it's not a big deal to use something so essential to computing freedom in a cavalier way to intentionally le…
I agree with you, but I don't think anyone from Nvidia called it "open source" (I agree that 'dahart incorrectly did so). It's a shame that GitHub allows non-open-source code, but it does, and nothing else about it implies that it's open-source.
Fwiw, Dave (dahart) currently works for NVIDIA :).
Re: Nvidia releases Alias-Free GAN code and pre-trained models, naming it StyleGAN3
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody will be able to tell if you stick it in a tiny thumbnail and give it enough jpeg artifacts.
Computer-generated artifacts are non-copyrightable. This is not the problem. (That said, as the law is written, no binary should be, but we already threw that baby out with the bathwater.) The problem is that the software is not free software, but encourages you to stop using its free predecessors and competition sneakily.
Just use the code to build a source-code auto-completion model, then wire the model up to your text editor and write new source code.
Re: Nvidia releases Alias-Free GAN code and pre-trained models, naming it StyleGAN3
#39> This material is based upon work supported by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under Contracts No.R00112030005, HR001120C0123, HR001120C0124 and FA8750-20-2-1004 and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) under Contract No. FA8750-20-2-1004.
This is why AI is just a marketing term with no real future.
There isn't room for corporations to profit from it out of the gate + into the future indefinitely. No one is going to pay an AWS tax to use their models on every single API hit forever. No one is going to pay nVidia a license fee to use their image recognition tools forever. If the creators of HTML, CSS, and Javascript wanted license fees we wouldn't be using them right now either.
There are two groups of people, off the top of my head, who care about all of this:
1) The US Military, because the budget for their murder robots is theoretically infinite.
2) Google and Facebook because the budget for their spyware is theoretically infinite.
To everyone else, it's much ado about nothing.
Re: Nvidia releases Alias-Free GAN code and pre-trained models, naming it StyleGAN3
#40> This material is based upon work supported by the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under Contracts No.R00112030005, HR001120C0123, HR001120C0124 and FA8750-20-2-1004 and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) under Contract No. FA8750-20-2-1004. This is why AI is just a marketing term with no real future. There isn't room for corporations to profit from it out of the gate + into the future ind…
Nvidia makes most of their money selling GPUs as computational accelerators-- both generic CUDA and neural network applications.
They don't _need_ to profit off their ML models. It's a value added service. Ensuring their hardware has marketshare at the leading edge of the ecosystem is the main point.