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

311–320 of 365 posts

Re: Stable Attribution

#311

Post by wilimitis »

vintermann wrote: post #257
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…

So it is the opposite of attribution. It just makes up a plausible-looking story of attribution and passes it off as the truth. If you passed it a hand-painted image from 1850 which was not in SD's training dataset, it can happily declare that it was inspired by someone's piece from 2019. There's no actual causal inference going on. It has more in common with using an AI language model as a "bullshit generator" than…

Why do you close the space for people who are pro-ai AND pro-attribution? The entire ai space wreaks of this divisiveness, and is likely why it will continue to die out as another "art-fad". There is seemingly little willingness to integrate into the existing art world in good faith.

Re: Stable Attribution

#313

Post by wilimitis »

timmaxw wrote: post #72
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.

> No one is necessarily saying that you owe Van Gogh a cut. But the controversy over Stable Diffusion is whether they owe the human artists a cut or not, right? > What they _are_ saying is not to claim that you didn't train on Van Gogh Stable Diffusion is definitely not claiming that it didn't train on human artists.

> But the controversy over Stable Diffusion is whether they owe the human artists a cut or not, right?

The controversy of Stable Diffusion is attribution. I could not care less about receiving a cut. Rather, I want my life's work in pushing particular style further than anyone has before to be recognized primarily so the next artist can trace the lineage and improve upon it.

> Stable Diffusion is definitely not claiming that it didn't train on human artists.

Stable diffusion claims that attribution is not important because "all artists copy each other".

Re: Stable Attribution

#314

Post by achr2 »

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?

I think the issue is around intent, and it is not an easy issue to resolve, either morally or legally. There are many legal precedents in music - for instance Tom Waits won a case against an ad agency who, after he refused their request to use his song in an ad spot, used a "sound-alike" song in their ad. When an AI is being used to knowingly circumvent paying a creator for their work, that does seem problematic - but likely unenforceable except in clear-cut extremes.

Re: Stable Attribution

#315

Post by mrtksn »

luxuryballs wrote: post #310
mrtksn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO the current laws and concepts don't work anymore, at all. Copyright laws were already very problematic and caused all kinds of troubles but what's happening now is well beyond all that. I also think that the use of AI is a fair game, the problem is that the thing itself is made possible by the hard work of thousands of people. By hard work, I mean years or even decades of development. They didn't learn to draw p…

I never learned a ton of math but I use computer chips that were designed by people with years of experience in engineering to do math for me.

True, also they all got a salary and royalties for their work. They were well compensated and they continue being compensated. Have you heard of ARM Holdings? Its the British CPU design firm that designed all the CPUs in your phone and now in your macbooks. Apple and others continue paying them for their work they did in the 80s.

Re: Stable Attribution

#316

Post by [deleted] »

timmaxw wrote: post #200
mLuby wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right. However an implied yet crucial belief is that the loss of manual artists (vs creative directors) will not rob us of potential advances in art. Put another way, it is the belief that the 2020s are the peak of manual human art. Imagine if we'd felt that way a thousand years ago, or even a hundred. Is it worth being wrong?

I agree it makes it less likely that people will create novel manual art techniques. By analogy -- when cameras were invented, artists stopped focusing as much on realism. But I don't think that was any great loss. Also, there are some artists today who still make photorealistic paintings, despite the existence of cameras; so I don't think Stable Diffusion will make it impossible to have advances in manual art techni…

[deleted]

Re: Stable Attribution

#317

Post by chaostheory »

louison11 wrote: post #226
saurik wrote: post #35

I 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. They probably simply used an “image similarity” algorithm, of which many are readily available and do not require much computing power. The credit at the bottom of the website for “Chroma”, a startup with no live product and hiring, suggests this could be a growth hack. Like “let’s ride the buzz of the moment with a barely useful tool quick to develop, hit front page of HN, and get some visibility.” Good for th…

It’s not for nothing. Like Twitter, the idea is so obvious, but only when someone introduces it to the masses.

This just needs to be done at the source. Ie whatever AI service is generating the image should generate attribution as part of the result

I was surprised that they even had a prototype. I thought this was just a really good CTA

Re: Stable Attribution

#318

Post by jxf »

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…

I think you're applying the wrong standard. If you think your work has been clearly influenced by something, you might call that out in the acknowledgements of your work, for example.

What Stable Diffusion does is effectively say "it doesn't matter how this was made" for every single artifact it creates, providing neither attribution nor acknowledgement. This happens even when it's clearly been influenced by, and in some cases is directly copying, elements or a whole of a very small set of highly influential inputs.

If a human author did that, people would probably be upset, if not outright accuse them of plagiarism.

Re: Stable Attribution

#319

Post by Ajedi32 »

onionisafruit wrote: post #304
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that no one seems to have these concerns with ChatGPT. When DALL-E came out it was touted as end of artists since now everyone could "just make their own art", but most people just see ChatGPT as a toy. This is not circular reasoning, more observation of what people value. Since everyone can "Google and gather information" ChatGPT isn't valued enough, but since most people don't know how to draw DALL-E a…

It’s interesting to read your perspective. I feel like I’ve seen more doom-saying about co-pilot and ChatGPT than I have about DALL-E and friends. But that may be selection bias.

I think there's plenty of doom saying with both. LLMs and diffusion models are both highly disruptive technologies, and I think it's fair to speculate on what the impact of that will be.

The difference is I don't see book authors and news writers trying to sue OpenAI for "stealing" their articles and not providing attribution, or creating websites that try to divine which specific book chapters or news articles ChatGPT used to generate any particular response (as if that's at all representative of how GPT works).

Re: Stable Attribution

#320

Post by ausbah »

GaggiX wrote: post #42

Calling 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…

I don't think this is right. it's possible to fine tune these models with a few pieces from a select artist such that when you say "[art] is the style of [new artist]" you will get new pieces in the style of that artist. those few select pieces have clearly had disproportionate influence on the generated images, even if just via conditioning in the prompt
Post reply on HN