91–100 of 140 posts
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 "art community" did most of the damage to itself.
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.
> damage many feel they've done to the art community If the "art community" can't understand what an insane gift SD1.5 and SDXL was to them then I don't know what to tell them. Without those open models we could have easily ended up in a world where this tech existed but was only in the hands of people who could pay OpenAI or Adobe a month to use it, and I mean with the power of it what should that cost be? I mean to…
Have you tried to train SD on your artwork? Pretty curious about the results an artist can achieve when embracing this tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it has no commercial intent. Under what possible analysis does art sold at a convention, by full time professional artists, not count as being done for a commercial purpose?
Does this actually happen at large scale without the permission of the owner of the IP? I can see someone making a few hundred bucks with their fan art, but doing tens of thousands of dollars of business is a different story. The main commercial factor (per the courts - see the recent Warhol lawsuit) is whether the derivative work competes in the market with the original work. I sincerely doubt that even if there is…
Yes?
Go to any convention center. Go commission a piece of art on the internet.
It is almost all infringing "fan art".
> I can see someone making a few hundred bucks with their fan art
Its not some rando person doing this stuff for a hobby. Instead, I am talking about the entire industry.
All you'd have to do is go to any gaming/media/comic convention and this is immediately obvious.
> that fan art is meaningfully competing with (ie reducing) the market for the original IP.
I mean, ok? Then if thats your metric, then you can't complain about the entire open source industry of people making AI art on their home PCs.
If you are giving that gigantic, large hole to slip through, then you have now allowed almost the entire open source AI art industry to exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SDXL is amazing. The community is entrechend in 1.5 because that's what everyone is now familiar with, IMO
>The community is entrechend in 1.5 because that's what everyone is now familiar with, IMO That probably has some weight to the community's decision to still use 1.5. Other reasons (and more important IMO) why we're still stuck on 1.5 is due to nerfing 2.0, and the plethora of user trained models based on 1.5. I'm continued to be amazed by the quality possible with 1.5. While there are pros and cons of each of the di…
But note that SDXL is really awful in automatic1111 or vanilla HF diffusers for me. You have to use something with proper augmentations (like ComfyUI or Fooocus(which runs on ComfyUI)).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. It's clear this community isn't open to critical views on this topic.
Or maybe they are just not sure how making things open to everyone can make someone a "dark horse".
Compared to Altman, Emad Mostaque is a relative nobody and a somewhat controversial figure at the head of what is apparently one of the frontrunners of the AI industry. Additionally, releasing the model, something that was I assume very capital intensive to create, is definitely a bold business strategy, and not one we've seen succeed yet despite the popularity of Stability's models and its derivatives within the open source ai community.
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…
ARRRRR..
This is a grey area still for me. It's a neural network. It works similar to our brains work, but more consistent. It's doesn't seem like piracy to me. If an artist was really into Salvidor Dali, and happened to imitate his surrealist style, it would not be considered piracy. In fact, this is how art has evolved over the centuries. Each relevant artist in the past has incrementally contributed to what we call art today.
I feel like the people unwilling to accept that AI may impact their career are more worried about putting food on the table than anything else, which is very understandable, but it's just the cost of progress.
The bigger problem we need to deal with is how to retrain and provide job placement who are affected by disruptive technologies. We've really failed the public on this in the past and I don't think it's worth nerfing emerging tech just to keep people employed. This is not the first or last time this has happened, and it's going to be more frequent as technology advances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The community is entrechend in 1.5 because that's what everyone is now familiar with, IMO That probably has some weight to the community's decision to still use 1.5. Other reasons (and more important IMO) why we're still stuck on 1.5 is due to nerfing 2.0, and the plethora of user trained models based on 1.5. I'm continued to be amazed by the quality possible with 1.5. While there are pros and cons of each of the di…
Well, personally, SDXL just blows 1.5 out of the water for me. I haven't had a reason to even touch 1.5 in months. But note that SDXL is really awful in automatic1111 or vanilla HF diffusers for me. You have to use something with proper augmentations (like ComfyUI or Fooocus(which runs on ComfyUI)).
Yeah, comfy was given a reference design of the sdxl model beforehand so it would be supported when sdxl was released. I should probably switch to comfy, but I don't touch the tech very frequently as I don't have a practical use case besides the coolness factor.
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 at a massive scale. ARRRRR.. This is a grey area still for me. It's a neural network. It works similar to our brains work, but more consistent. It's doesn't seem like piracy to me. If an artist was really into Salvidor Dali, and happened to imitate his surrealist style, it would not be considered piracy. In fact, this is how art has evolved over the centuries. Each relevan…
Irrelevant and incorrect.
> It's doesn't seem like piracy to me.
It's pretty indisputably piracy, whether or not it's legal/fair use/whatever. Many of the training sets included material like the books3 corpus which was downloaded to a server somewhere. That is simply piracy, doesn't matter why they downloaded it.
I believe many artists rightly refuse to accept this threat to their livelihoods because it was built on their labor. It's so fucking rich to see people patronizingly suggest that this is just an economic problem and those artists better just figure out a new profession.
You built a commercial product on unlicensed data. Do you actually think the law is going to agree that that's fair use?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's obviously problematic that these companies are deriving value from millions of people without compensating them, while creating a product that competes with those masses.
You are describing the original meaning of "cultural appropriation", like when jazz and rock & roll were copied from Black American culture and sold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.