4 ms·

The quality and style is mindblowing! What data did you train?

Bombthecat 5y ago
The more interesting question: What about the sources for the AI to train? How are those artists paid? Do we need to pay them? Or if it used by an AI as train data, we just say: Its like a human learning?
- Gigachad 5y ago
  There is nothing that suggests it should be any different than human learning legally. As long as the output is significantly unique, it shouldn’t have any copyright issues.
  - nonbirithm 5y ago
    Does it matter if the artist themselves rejects the idea though? People were discussing having a "no machine learning clause" back when Copilot was being heavily scrutinized. I wouldn't be surprised if some artists allow republishing but not machine learning use. Plenty of artists already have a clause that prohibits any kind of republishing, and Danbooru is known to rehost some of those artists' content anyway until the artist notices and requests that it be taken down, if ever (for a time, they even allowed paid rewards from Patreon and other subscription services to be republished). The original dataset from Danbooru probably contained some percentage of content that would not have been there if the original artist had noticed in time.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > Does it matter if the artist themselves rejects the idea though? Why would it, if there are no copyright issues? No one is obligated to accept a license unless they require permission to do something which copyright would restrict. Of course redistributing the original image as part of a public dataset may be problematic, but simply using it to train an AI model—essentially the equivalent of studying it while teaching yourself to draw—is arguably not among the things covered by copyright, so you don't need a license for that and any clauses in such a license would be irrelevant. This is also basically educational in nature, even if it's a machine rather than a human being "educated", and educational use is often exempt from copyright in some degree or another to begin with. If the dataset is restricted to non-commercial research and educational use in the right jurisdictions then even redistribution may not be an issue.
- jokethrowaway 5y ago
  A human artist can purchase material or access freely available material, look at it, learn from it and then draw his own. An AI could do the same.
  - unobatbayar 5y ago
    Exactly, human artists browse through vast number of resources, then call it "inspiration".
lynzrand 5y ago
As a rough guess, I think it might be trained on the Danbooru archive dataset, since it's the largest anime picture dataset we can get today. https://www.gwern.net/Danbooru2020 https://www.gwern.net/Danbooru2020
liuru 5y ago
The first iteration of our model was built off of this amazing public dataset: https://www.gwern.net/Danbooru2020 https://www.gwern.net/Danbooru2020 Though now we have made our own :)

The more interesting question: What about the sources for the AI to train? How are those artists paid? Do we need to pay them? Or if it used by an AI as train data, we just say: Its like a human learning?

Gigachad 5y ago
There is nothing that suggests it should be any different than human learning legally. As long as the output is significantly unique, it shouldn’t have any copyright issues.
- nonbirithm 5y ago
  Does it matter if the artist themselves rejects the idea though? People were discussing having a "no machine learning clause" back when Copilot was being heavily scrutinized. I wouldn't be surprised if some artists allow republishing but not machine learning use. Plenty of artists already have a clause that prohibits any kind of republishing, and Danbooru is known to rehost some of those artists' content anyway until the artist notices and requests that it be taken down, if ever (for a time, they even allowed paid rewards from Patreon and other subscription services to be republished). The original dataset from Danbooru probably contained some percentage of content that would not have been there if the original artist had noticed in time.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > Does it matter if the artist themselves rejects the idea though? Why would it, if there are no copyright issues? No one is obligated to accept a license unless they require permission to do something which copyright would restrict. Of course redistributing the original image as part of a public dataset may be problematic, but simply using it to train an AI model—essentially the equivalent of studying it while teaching yourself to draw—is arguably not among the things covered by copyright, so you don't need a license for that and any clauses in such a license would be irrelevant. This is also basically educational in nature, even if it's a machine rather than a human being "educated", and educational use is often exempt from copyright in some degree or another to begin with. If the dataset is restricted to non-commercial research and educational use in the right jurisdictions then even redistribution may not be an issue.
jokethrowaway 5y ago
A human artist can purchase material or access freely available material, look at it, learn from it and then draw his own. An AI could do the same.
- unobatbayar 5y ago
  Exactly, human artists browse through vast number of resources, then call it "inspiration".

lynzrand 5y ago

As a rough guess, I think it might be trained on the Danbooru archive dataset, since it's the largest anime picture dataset we can get today. https://www.gwern.net/Danbooru2020 https://www.gwern.net/Danbooru2020

liuru 5y ago

The first iteration of our model was built off of this amazing public dataset: https://www.gwern.net/Danbooru2020 https://www.gwern.net/Danbooru2020 Though now we have made our own :)