4 ms·

Yeah, it is. It is for authors that got their works stolen for "the greater good" without even being notified. A friend of mine found his works in the Stable

Yeah, it is. It is for authors that got their works stolen for "the greater good" without even being notified. A friend of mine found his works in the Stable Diffusion dataset, the work was not meant for public use, he's never been notified and, most of all, he would have never agreed if they cared to ask. https://laion-aesthetic.datasette.io/laion-aesthetic-6pls/images?_search=LRNZ&_sort=rowid https://laion-aesthetic.datasette.io/laion-aesthetic-6pls/im...

hbn 4y ago
I don't think the word "stolen" applies here, at least not any more-so than I stole from him when I looked at that image. I'm not sure about that website rehosting his image, but in terms of the model people are running on their computers, it's not like it literally includes the image that can be pulled back out of it. A computer looked at that image, and tweaked a very small amount of numbers within ~5GB of numbers based on it. That said, it did get a little better at drawing like your friend from that. But so does every other person who looks at his art. The model however might be better at it than most people. It's a dilemma but it's hard to say any individual image is "stolen" We kinda already went through this once when GitHub scanned all public codebases to build the model for Copilot. When they did that, Copilot got the ability to program a little more like me (sorry everyone). But when I publicly put my code out there, I was also giving people the opportunity to learn from my code and reproduce similar things to it as well.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > not any more-so than I stole from him when I looked at that image I spoke with the author, the author disagrees with you. The reason he consider that stealing is because they took that image from the online shop where the disclaimer specifically states "2022 © Magnetic Press LLC by Arenathemes. All Rights Reserved" without even trying to contact the copyright holder. https://store.magnetic-press.com/products/viewpoint-by-lrnz https://store.magnetic-press.com/products/viewpoint-by-lrnz > But when I publicly put my code out there, I was also giving people the opportunity to learn from my code and reproduce similar things to it as well. Not really, IMO I can enter a bookshop and look around, open a book, read some pages and maybe learn something. It doesn't give me the right to republish a similar book putting together what I saw, unless the license specifically grants me that right or I obtained a license that does. Code Pilot is a commercial product, free licenses don't automatically grant the right to commercial use of that code.
  - hbn 4y ago
    It seems like you didn't understand my point > took that image from the online shop They didn't take the image. They looked at it and learned a few datapoints from it. It's not like they compressed the image and added it into the model, able to be reversed by anyone who downloads it. In fact it's likely there's other completely distinct images that could have contributed the exact same tweaks to the model, like a hash. >I can enter a bookshop and look around, open a book, read some pages and maybe learn something. >It doesn't give me the right to republish a similar book putting together what I saw, unless the license specifically grants me that right or I obtained a license that does. No, but the analogy would be if you learned something from the blurb you read - like a word, or a factoid, or an expression - and it influenced some writing you did later. You didn't steal from that book's author.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > They didn't take the image. They looked at it and learned a few datapoints from it All rights reserved means "all rights" Nobody authorized them to do what they did. > No, but the analogy would be if you learned something from the blurb you read - like a word, or a factoid, or an expression - and it influenced some writing you did later. You didn't steal from that book's author that's what clean room implementation is for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design Wine contributors were not allowed to see Windows leaked source code to avoid copyright infringement claims. both WINE and ReactOS have refused to use the leaks; ReactOS doesn't even allow people who have worked legitimately at MS in the past to be developers, simply because even the smell of contamination would expose the projects to enormous legal risks So, to be fair, Stable Diffusion authors should take inspiration from all the source material, replicate it the best way they can using their own abilities and then train the model on what they produced. They didn't do it for two reasons: - it would have required centuries - the result would have been much less compelling stable diffusion is so interesting due to the fact that the source material was of high quality. So, we can conclude that it's the merit of the authors of the source material, not simply the model itself. Shouldn't they be rewarded or at least consulted before using their works? What if some of them is training their own model on works they have the right to use and now Stable Diffusion took all their hard work away? If stable diffusion was trained on my drawings, it would produce a steaming pile of shit. And nobody would be talking about it right now...

hbn 4y ago

I don't think the word "stolen" applies here, at least not any more-so than I stole from him when I looked at that image. I'm not sure about that website rehosting his image, but in terms of the model people are running on their computers, it's not like it literally includes the image that can be pulled back out of it. A computer looked at that image, and tweaked a very small amount of numbers within ~5GB of numbers based on it. That said, it did get a little better at drawing like your friend from that. But so does every other person who looks at his art. The model however might be better at it than most people. It's a dilemma but it's hard to say any individual image is "stolen" We kinda already went through this once when GitHub scanned all public codebases to build the model for Copilot. When they did that, Copilot got the ability to program a little more like me (sorry everyone). But when I publicly put my code out there, I was also giving people the opportunity to learn from my code and reproduce similar things to it as well.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> not any more-so than I stole from him when I looked at that image I spoke with the author, the author disagrees with you. The reason he consider that stealing is because they took that image from the online shop where the disclaimer specifically states "2022 © Magnetic Press LLC by Arenathemes. All Rights Reserved" without even trying to contact the copyright holder. https://store.magnetic-press.com/products/viewpoint-by-lrnz https://store.magnetic-press.com/products/viewpoint-by-lrnz > But when I publicly put my code out there, I was also giving people the opportunity to learn from my code and reproduce similar things to it as well. Not really, IMO I can enter a bookshop and look around, open a book, read some pages and maybe learn something. It doesn't give me the right to republish a similar book putting together what I saw, unless the license specifically grants me that right or I obtained a license that does. Code Pilot is a commercial product, free licenses don't automatically grant the right to commercial use of that code.
- hbn 4y ago
  It seems like you didn't understand my point > took that image from the online shop They didn't take the image. They looked at it and learned a few datapoints from it. It's not like they compressed the image and added it into the model, able to be reversed by anyone who downloads it. In fact it's likely there's other completely distinct images that could have contributed the exact same tweaks to the model, like a hash. >I can enter a bookshop and look around, open a book, read some pages and maybe learn something. >It doesn't give me the right to republish a similar book putting together what I saw, unless the license specifically grants me that right or I obtained a license that does. No, but the analogy would be if you learned something from the blurb you read - like a word, or a factoid, or an expression - and it influenced some writing you did later. You didn't steal from that book's author.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > They didn't take the image. They looked at it and learned a few datapoints from it All rights reserved means "all rights" Nobody authorized them to do what they did. > No, but the analogy would be if you learned something from the blurb you read - like a word, or a factoid, or an expression - and it influenced some writing you did later. You didn't steal from that book's author that's what clean room implementation is for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design Wine contributors were not allowed to see Windows leaked source code to avoid copyright infringement claims. both WINE and ReactOS have refused to use the leaks; ReactOS doesn't even allow people who have worked legitimately at MS in the past to be developers, simply because even the smell of contamination would expose the projects to enormous legal risks So, to be fair, Stable Diffusion authors should take inspiration from all the source material, replicate it the best way they can using their own abilities and then train the model on what they produced. They didn't do it for two reasons: - it would have required centuries - the result would have been much less compelling stable diffusion is so interesting due to the fact that the source material was of high quality. So, we can conclude that it's the merit of the authors of the source material, not simply the model itself. Shouldn't they be rewarded or at least consulted before using their works? What if some of them is training their own model on works they have the right to use and now Stable Diffusion took all their hard work away? If stable diffusion was trained on my drawings, it would produce a steaming pile of shit. And nobody would be talking about it right now...