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

91–100 of 365 posts

Re: Stable Attribution

#91

Post by csande17 »

codetrotter wrote: post #82
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…

Am I seeing the same thing you are in those two images you linked to? The first one, generated by AI has you looking at the camera. The other one has you looking at an instrument. They don’t look much like each other to me, in terms of pose or anything. The first images suggested by Stable Attribution looks a lot more like the AI image to me, in terms of pose and everything.

That's the point. The website is finding images that look similar, not the images the algorithm actually used to generate that picture for the prompt "avatar for saurik".

Re: Stable Attribution

#92

Post by mrtksn »

social_quotient wrote: post #86
mrtksn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it's disruptive and that's fine. The problem is that there's no mechanism to compensate the people who enable your new disruptive machine. As I said, humans learn but the phase humans do it still allows for people be compensated. I'm not anti-AI at all, I think its great and I think the artist who can leverage it can hugely benefit from it but it is not fair to just take something from people away.

So the parent post to yours said he’s taking piano lessons. Let’s suppose he becomes great. And let’s suppose he writes his own music. How is Taylor Swift supposed to get paid by him from his early lessons which have undoubtedly played a key role in not only his love for music but the song he writes today?

She doesn't because it's not a business issue for her. She is not getting paid when you sing her songs with your friends too and this is also not a problem.

I'm not thinking from the current definitions of right and compensation structures and I'm not calculating fees here. What I say is that if you build your thing on top of other people's work and put them out of business this needs to be addressed because you will cause huge problems to the people who made your machine possible in first place and you will dry up your source of "inspiration" because you will no longer have people making living of it.

Re: Stable Attribution

#93

Post by codetrotter »

mrtksn wrote: post #78
stonith wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So let's say, if an artist developed a particular style and someone wants to hire them for a business project like a game they can't feasibly just learn that style and use it so they hire the artist. Later other people catch on this style and develop over it. It only works because monetising through copying the style is not very feasible. I don't think copying an art style is that hard. Professional artists in your…

> hey haven't been in the past and they shouldn't be So what's your suggestion, free food and housing for the artistic types or mercy killings?

> free food and housing for the artistic types

Food and housing should be a human right, and it is only because of greed and fear that society allows someone to become homeless.

Not only should we provide housing and food for the artists. We should do it for everyone. And then they can spend time doing what they want, and earn more money that way but never have to worry about housing or basic food for survival.

Re: Stable Attribution

#94

Post by bioemerl »

mrtksn wrote: post #75
josephg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core of your concern (& argument) seems to be the problem of existing business models becoming disrupted by this technology. But the point of good law isn’t to protect an established business model. If that were the case, we would have outlawed the loom because it displaced weavers, and the camera (sorry portrait painters) and the iPhone. (How many telegraph operators are left? None!) When an artist learns to dra…

Sure, it's disruptive and that's fine. The problem is that there's no mechanism to compensate the people who enable your new disruptive machine. As I said, humans learn but the phase humans do it still allows for people be compensated. I'm not anti-AI at all, I think its great and I think the artist who can leverage it can hugely benefit from it but it is not fair to just take something from people away.

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.

Re: Stable Attribution

#95

Post by heliumcraft »

gfodor wrote: post #48

Ah, a nice visual proof that these AI systems are actually synthesizing images with a degree of inspiration from prior art similar to the way humans do.

Actually no it isn't proof of anything, the site is highly misleading, it's just searching for similar images using CLIP image embeddings and then claiming those must be the source. https://twitter.com/kurumuz/status/1622379532958285824

Ironically they don't give attribution to where this technique comes from https://rom1504.github.io/clip-retrieval/

Re: Stable Attribution

#96

Post by Retr0id »

codetrotter wrote: post #82
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…

Am I seeing the same thing you are in those two images you linked to? The first one, generated by AI has you looking at the camera. The other one has you looking at an instrument. They don’t look much like each other to me, in terms of pose or anything. The first images suggested by Stable Attribution looks a lot more like the AI image to me, in terms of pose and everything.

I think you're missing the point. How does Stable Diffusion know "what does saurik look like?". The answer is of course that it's seen saurik's profile pic in training data. Stable Attribution is not showing that.

As another comment[1] points out:

> This appears to be just looking for the nearest neighbors of the image in embedding space and calling those the source data.

Stylistically similar images are not the same as source images.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34670483

Re: Stable Attribution

#97

Post by bioemerl »

mrtksn wrote: post #66
gitfan86 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is no different than professional calligraphers losing their jobs because of the printing press and then later due to customizable fonts on printers. I have a ton of respect for calligraphers and believe they are artists, but at the same time I don't think that the millions of people who create custom fonts or use custom fonts are doing a bad thing.

Artist function is not limited to the act of producing the creation. Their value comes from creating the methods of exploring ideas or feelings and not from the output itself. Guernica is not invaluable because no one else can draw it and Picasso is not infamous because drew the best lines. Just to be clear, I think art made with AI also can have value because it's a tool after all. My concern is, it breaks the busin…

> My concern is, it breaks the business for the people that feeds on and that's not OK.

Why not? This is a website that's filled with programmers, almost all of our wealth is built on the skulls of jobs that once existed, and those programs were built without the consent of the people whose jobs were automated away, often through observing and rewriting the processes they used to do.

The standard, this has been going on for decades, the only reason it's getting backlash is because this is a group of people who never expected to have this happen to them.

Re: Stable Attribution

#98

Post by wokwokwok »

social_quotient wrote: post #86
mrtksn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it's disruptive and that's fine. The problem is that there's no mechanism to compensate the people who enable your new disruptive machine. As I said, humans learn but the phase humans do it still allows for people be compensated. I'm not anti-AI at all, I think its great and I think the artist who can leverage it can hugely benefit from it but it is not fair to just take something from people away.

So the parent post to yours said he’s taking piano lessons. Let’s suppose he becomes great. And let’s suppose he writes his own music. How is Taylor Swift supposed to get paid by him from his early lessons which have undoubtedly played a key role in not only his love for music but the song he writes today?

You are fundamentally not addressing the issue.

Previously, someone was being paid to produce something.

Now, they are no longer being paid and the business can get the same thing “for free”.

You can argue the same issue about out sourcing programmers to south east Asia.

Is it good or bad?

“…but how do we compensate the programmers who lost their jobs?”

It’s just economics right?

…but saying that doesn’t address the social issues that this technology is creating.

People. Out of jobs.

Bluntly, that’s what it boils down to.

Are you ok being replaced by a $0.02 / hour dude from Thailand? By a $0.001 / hour AI?

You think, maybe, it’s fair for the people being replaced to feel a bit upset about it?

I do.

Re: Stable Attribution

#99

Post by bioemerl »

hansihe wrote: post #70
friedman23 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's completely different. The customizable fonts did not violate copyright.

We have no idea if images by Stable Diffusion violates copyright, there is no legal precedent.

Technically we do have examples of stable diffusion violating copyright, it will generate some exact clone images if you give it the right prompt and that image exists a few hundred times in the training data.

Re: Stable Attribution

#100

Post by heliumcraft »

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…

relevant:

https://rom1504.github.io/clip-retrieval/

https://github.com/rom1504/clip-retrieval

Ironically, the stableattribution.com authors didn't give any attribution or credit to clip-retrieval and its developer

Post reply on HN