Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Key Stable Diffusion Researchers Leave Stability AI as Company Flounders

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 140 posts

Re: Key Stable Diffusion Researchers Leave Stability AI as Company Flounders

#71

Post by ronsor »

SkyBelow wrote: post #41
ronsor wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "art community" did most of the damage to itself.

To expand upon this, the majority of the complaints I see are coming from the online community where the largest part of the material seems to be based of IP/copyright violation by the artists. I've been part of multiple communities who have decided to ban AI art because of a moral clause against using other's peoples works without their permission, but yet which don't like having it pointed out that the IP holders h…

There is also the fact they have driven themselves mad trying to "detect" or distinguish AI art, and now consistently attempt to tear each other down over claims of AI use.

Re: Key Stable Diffusion Researchers Leave Stability AI as Company Flounders

#72

Post by ziddoap »

hanniabu wrote: post #36
api wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire AI industry is powered by piracy at a massive scale. Very little training data is properly licensed or compensated. It's just more obvious with open models because we can investigate them. Closed models are sausages and we don't know what went in. Download a movie and you can get sued or your Internet connection terminated, but pirate the entire collective output of humanity and sell it back to us from beh…

> The entire AI industry is powered by piracy Just like all art. When you draw something you don't cite every single thing you've seen and experienced in life that inspired your drawing and style. Nor did you own or pay royalties to all that inspiration either.

>When you draw something you don't cite every single thing you've seen and experienced in life that inspired your drawing and style.

Oh please. There is an astounding degree of nuance and context missed in your example here.

Re: Key Stable Diffusion Researchers Leave Stability AI as Company Flounders

#74

Post by FergusArgyll »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #58
gorwell wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*Every legacy media article

No argument from me, but Forbes is special in this regard. It takes $500 to be a “featured contributor” and they will post whatever nonsense you like. The brand is diluted.

See Wikipedias guidelines for sources.

(ctrl-f for forbes)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...

Re: Key Stable Diffusion Researchers Leave Stability AI as Company Flounders

#75

Post by ben_w »

api wrote: post #5
__loam wrote: post #2

Stability always seemed like a dark horse thanks to the reputation of their founder and their open source business model. I do get some schadenfreude from seeing them like this considering the damage many feel they've done to the art community. E: -4 in 10 minutes. Stay classy hackernews. I hope this company and OpenAI choke on the algorithmic disgorgement when the law catches up.

The entire AI industry is powered by piracy at a massive scale. Very little training data is properly licensed or compensated. It's just more obvious with open models because we can investigate them. Closed models are sausages and we don't know what went in. Download a movie and you can get sued or your Internet connection terminated, but pirate the entire collective output of humanity and sell it back to us from beh…

If there is a model which is, for the sake of the argument, absolutely definitely and unambiguously powered by piracy at a massive scale, then the act of forcing it to be released is going to necessarily entail all of the possible harms from that specific act of IP piracy.

IMO, if a model is deemed to be such, all copies of that model should be destroyed. Actual copyright law allows for the destruction of equipment used for copyright infringement, and those laws were written in the days where this meant "a printing press".

> the whole AI safety bullshit performance

The people who care about AI safety have been loudly warning about it for so much longer than these companies and models have existed, that they roll their eyes at newspapers using stock photos from Terminator to illustrate the discussion.

> The entire AI industry

Also includes self-driving cars, spam filters, medical diagnosis tools, …

Re: Key Stable Diffusion Researchers Leave Stability AI as Company Flounders

#76

Post by altruios »

__loam wrote: post #15
altruios wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and sell it back to us from behind a paywall and that's fine. That's the sticking point. If it's an open tool for humanity's benefit being created given back to us, that's one thing... but to sell it back to us... With that said, piracy is close to what's happening... but I think we should be careful classifying where/what exactly is the matter. I reason I think that matter's lies may be down the end of a slippery s…

These companies need to make money because they took VC money and training these things take 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars. Also nice to see the complete nonsense of digital mind uploading on hackernews vis a vis this discussion. If that happens we'd need to change a lot of laws anyway.

The mind uploading is just one of many potential outcomes.

To me the more interesting concern: we can't seem to agree on the bare minimum requirements for sentience/experience. Maybe the 'bare minimum' is 'electricity runs through it'. It may be that these LL/SD/ML models are having an 'experience' without the proper memory/state/internal-control to achieve sentience/consciousness.

Law's need to change, that's for sure (look at copyright).

And taking VC money to do anything Open seems like a trap. There are government grants... but yeah... there exists a whole host of (related or similar) problems in that.

Re: Key Stable Diffusion Researchers Leave Stability AI as Company Flounders

#77

Post by brucethemoose2 »

saurik wrote: post #69
blueblisters wrote: post #27

SD3.0 looks really good and will probably displace a lot of closed image generation models once it's out. I don't understand why Stability gets so little support from the community. They released the first usable open-source models and their models are the foundation of the most interesting AI-bashing workflows out there - VC funded or otherwise.

FWIW, they lost my interest entirely when they launched SD 2.0 and the model was worse, presumably (this was what people at the time were coming up with as the core problem) as they went overboard in their attempts at preventing it from generating naked photos (by removing so much from the training set that it no longer seemed to understand as well what a human looked like). The wider community then just got stuck on…

SDXL is amazing.

The community is entrechend in 1.5 because that's what everyone is now familiar with, IMO

Re: Key Stable Diffusion Researchers Leave Stability AI as Company Flounders

#78

Post by ben_w »

api wrote: post #63
wyldfire wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's just it - if we believe that what the model learns from the training material is abstract enough, they shouldn't license the content at all. Humans learn from and are inspired by art all the time. They create new works that are not considered derived works, despite there being obvious influence. Could we conceive of the same circumstance being possible with machine learning?

If we go down this road right now, we are allowing superintelligent AI powered corporations to front-run the entire human race and sell everything we think back to us. It's not about theory of mind stuff. It's about just compensation of living human beings.

1848 had a publication that might interest you.

I think the manifesto is missing some important aspects about game theory and human nature, and for some of that theory of mind is indeed very important, and that's why this particular political experiment didn't work out in the end despite the good intentions and that several aspects have become globally accepted.

Re: Key Stable Diffusion Researchers Leave Stability AI as Company Flounders

#79

Post by ben_w »

altruios wrote: post #76
__loam wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These companies need to make money because they took VC money and training these things take 10s if not 100s of millions of dollars. Also nice to see the complete nonsense of digital mind uploading on hackernews vis a vis this discussion. If that happens we'd need to change a lot of laws anyway.

The mind uploading is just one of many potential outcomes. To me the more interesting concern: we can't seem to agree on the bare minimum requirements for sentience/experience. Maybe the 'bare minimum' is 'electricity runs through it'. It may be that these LL/SD/ML models are having an 'experience' without the proper memory/state/internal-control to achieve sentience/consciousness. Law's need to change, that's for su…

Thought crime in 2084: the name given for a crime for which the only evidence is a scan of your brain.

e.g. "You imagined someone naked! That's a non-consensual deepfake of intimate personal imagery!"

Re: Key Stable Diffusion Researchers Leave Stability AI as Company Flounders

#80

Post by cdata »

SkyBelow wrote: post #41
ronsor wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "art community" did most of the damage to itself.

To expand upon this, the majority of the complaints I see are coming from the online community where the largest part of the material seems to be based of IP/copyright violation by the artists. I've been part of multiple communities who have decided to ban AI art because of a moral clause against using other's peoples works without their permission, but yet which don't like having it pointed out that the IP holders h…

Personally I think framing this as some kind of double-standard regarding copyright or even a copyright-specific issue misses the forest for the trees.

The problem I see is that the generative AI economy hinges on an injustice: the presumption that all art on the internet - no matter the medium, or means or relative notoriety of the artist - shall be candidate training data, and no burden of attribution whatsoever shall be laid upon those who leverage it.

Most graphic artists that I know bemoan copyright. But, it's a tool that the law has given them.

Also: most graphic artists that I know exist under low economic circumstances - some near poverty - relative to most of the people I know who are building the next great wave of technological innovations with generative AI.

I don't see a struggle over copyright. Artists, who exist towards the bottom of the economic ladder as it is, are doing what they can to survive.

Post reply on HN