3 ms·
Indeed. A difference I see between the GPT-like language models and those image generation models is that it feels like the language models actually hold full c
by lelag 4y ago
Indeed. A difference I see between the GPT-like language models and those image generation models is that it feels like the language models actually hold full copies of a lot of sample of the training dataset (hence their ability to recite existing content), whereas the image generation models clearly do not: Stable Diffusion is 4Gb something, yet it can draw anything.
That's the amazing part: the training dataset contains 5B images. Yet it distilled all of them in this mere 4Gb of data and can produce an infinite amount of content with those. It really feel like it learned how to draw, in the same sense a human learn and does not simply reproduce exact copy of what it already saw.
- kixiQu 4y agoHaven't we seen a lot of examples of these things vomiting up Starry Night on demand? Isn't that a clear case of memorization?
- scarmig 4y agoMidjourney did this one: https://i0.wp.com/www.technollama.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/starry-ai.png https://i0.wp.com/www.technollama.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2... Not really a copy. I'm sure you could cajole it into something very similar to the actual piece, but at that point it's more the model + the extensive prompt instead of the model itself.
- majou 4y ago32Gb (4GB)
- earth_walker 4y agoI see what you mean about GPT returning copies. But is there really a difference if your model just happens to 'calculate' an exact copy instead? For example, if you enter in something simple and high profile, what it returns looks pretty close to an existing work... Try, for example, typing in "Banksy", "Brad Pitt" or "Starbucks". So if you type in "Photo of a Coffee", "Impressionist painting of a fruit bowl" or "Blue canvas with one red line in the middle", how do you guarantee that the image you get back isn't actually a copy of someone's work?
- lurquer 4y agoCopyright - at least for images - is going to become moot shortly. Copyright exists to allow an artist time to reap the benefits of his labor. Without this time, they say, no rational person would invest his labor into making art. Dubious… but, whatever. The point is, if you remove the ‘labor’ from the mix, there’s no need for copyright. If I can produce spectacular images with zero individual labor, there will be little reason for me to copy someone else’s work.
- anonAndOn 4y ago> there will be little reason for me to copy someone else’s work Can I interest you in some recently discovered DaVinci paintings? 10% off when you buy 2 or more.