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

331–340 of 365 posts

Re: Stable Attribution

#331

Post by space_fountain »

makomk wrote: post #292
space_fountain wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think saying exactly what an ai of sufficient complexity is doing is a mater for philosophy more than science. But idk if transforming or mixing is how I’d describe what this is doing. In particular it truly does not have a complete representation of any of the images it was trained on. They just wouldn’t fit. It does of course have an understanding of how embeddings relate to images that is informed by the images…

The author of this tool is even aware of that argument and just dismisses it with no real justification: https://twitter.com/atroyn/status/1622360994579357696

I do want to clarify that I think stable diffusion and tools like it can engage in illegal copying. For example it will happily produce infringing images of logos and even somewhat random other images https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf. It seems like it’s devoting an uneven amount of its weights to different images, but I remain unconvinced that’s all it can do, or at least anymore all it can do than for a human artist

Re: Stable Attribution

#332

Post by 8note »

mrtksn wrote: post #315
luxuryballs wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How much is the estate of von Neumann making off each Mac sale though? Knr for each rust program?

Re: Stable Attribution

#333

Post by mrtksn »

8note wrote: post #332
mrtksn wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How much is the estate of von Neumann making off each Mac sale though? Knr for each rust program?

I guess you should Google it.

Re: Stable Attribution

#334

Post by 8note »

sorry_outta_gas wrote: post #220
ForestCritter wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automated jobs do the physical work. Here the computer is redistributing the physical work made by the artists, however much diluted. AI cannot make art on its own, it needs to be fed physical art and then be told what it is and what to do with it. It is not automation, it is simply a data manipulating tool.

to me it's less about the process and jobs lost and more about some feeling loss related to the excitement about removing expression and experience from a domain for honestly very little real benefit continuing to transform things which in part centered around exploration, discovery and experimentation into something cold and kind of dumb like we will make some interesting things but it's the general trend of modern…

On the other hand, paints and canvases are very very expensive, making art a domain of the rich. You can use the ai tools at the library, making art more proletarian.

I think the pushback is around status and elitism, and that people with certain backgrounds are societally expected to be not making art.

Re: Stable Attribution

#335

Post by nextlevelwizard »

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.

Well, yeah, copilot had bunch of clueless people yell how it would make programming so much easier, but it was pretty obvious for anyone who used it that it was no where near ready do replace anyone. It was more like a good generic LSP

Re: Stable Attribution

#336

Post by CapsAdmin »

tveita wrote: post #286
chii wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> This I find positively pro-dystopian. Who cares about reality when we can get regurgitated fakes generated much cheaper?

Who cares about playing against a chess player when you can just play against an AI opponent for free on your computer?

Who cares about going to a fancy bar when you can just drink at home for less?

Who cares about buying expensive concert tickets when you can just watch a recorded version for free on the internet later?

Who cares about buying a luxury car when a basic model gets you from A to B just as well?

.

People like you and many many others who think these questions are dumb will be the primary market for art.

Re: Stable Attribution

#337

Post by timmaxw »

wilimitis wrote: post #313
timmaxw wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 claim…

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see human artists doing the form of attribution you're describing. When people post artwork online, or when artwork is displayed in museums, it's normal to credit the artist who did the work, but not the artists who inspired them. (Unless the artist is directly copying another artist's work, or drawing fanart of a character from another work.) Can you clarify what this kind of attribution looks like when human artists do it?

Re: Stable Attribution

#338

Post by ForestCritter »

tveita wrote: post #282
stale2002 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Thanks, I needed that chuckle

Re: Stable Attribution

#339

Post by pksebben »

temp512345 wrote: post #328
pksebben wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not remembering pixels. for it to do that, it would have to have the pixels stored somewhere. It does not. The laion 5b dataset is in the neighborhood of 220TB. (1) That is how much storage space you need to remember the pixels. The stable diffusion 1.5 checkpoint is 7gb. (2) 1 https://github.com/rom1504/img2dataset/blob/main/dataset_exa... 2 https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5/tree/m...

It is exactly remembering the pixels. Just not all of them and it obviously fills in gaps (more hair as mentioned in a another post). You can consider the way it stores those pixels as a lossy compression format. If I copy a music sample but I store a compressed version of it (mp3 for example) you will not find the original bits in my database at all. I am still violating copyright.

But it's really not, though. It's remembering something related to the pixels, yeah, but that's like remembering the shape a line can take or the color of the sky.

To extend your musical analogy, it's remembering that many songs are in 4/4 time, and that major chords sound appealing.

Also, were you to compress anything, an mp3 or a picture, in a lossy fashion, to that degree of compression (~10^-5), you would no longer have anything resembling the original. The audio would be glitchy noise, and the image would be a scattering of apparently random pixels a few pixels wide.

Here's the thing - I empathize that this is disruptive in a very similar fashion to a tool that does store compressed copies of the work in question. It is capable of doing the same kind of damage. There's a conversation to be had there - but it's just not compression. That's not how the thing works.

Re: Stable Attribution

#340

Post by pksebben »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #302
pksebben wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I see and understand the FUD on behalf of the artists. It's real; this is going to change things in a way that makes their lives harder, and that sucks. What I see in the discussion is a results first, truth second thing. This is understandable - in an existential fight, damn the consequences - I'm swinging for my own survival. What's missing from that analysis though, is that by constricting open source models…

It’s insane how much of a gift to artists Stable Diffusion is, this tech could have been wrapped up in extremely expensive subscriptions by any of the current creative tool rent barons but it was handed to us all for free. Many are too angry and small minded to see how lucky we are. A tool beyond anything Adobe currently ships today, for free. Could have easily been a AutoCad level subscription (10k+ a year IIRC that…

I think that some of the friction here is about mindset. I have a lot of friends who are artists, and many of them consider this stuff 'tech shit I'll never understand'; I think, because we've culturally set ourselves up in a strata of 'professionals' (who are assumed to be better / smarter / uniquely capable) and non-professionals (who are born without whatever it takes to grok x). This is along many lines - my artist friends in question both believe they understand something about the creative process that the art-uninitiated will never get, and that 'tech shit' is leagues beyond what they'll ever get, because they did bad in math.

But here's the thing; I have never 'done art' as a part of my identity, and yet I can listen to them talk about it and understand where they're coming from enough to contribute.

Also, I work in tech and I didn't even make it through basic trig. I have a GED and a set of scattered community college credits that are never going anywhere because of a GPA The whole idea that there are 'this type of person' and 'that type of person' and that those are immutable is a horrific and dangerous lie.

But some people have bought it.

Post reply on HN