4 ms·

I just typed in 'girl with a pearl earring vermeer' and got this: https://drop.qoid.us/vermeer.png https://drop.qoid.us/vermeer.png And, for a slightly differ

by comex 4y ago

I just typed in 'girl with a pearl earring vermeer' and got this: https://drop.qoid.us/vermeer.png https://drop.qoid.us/vermeer.png And, for a slightly different scenario, here's what I got for 'pikachu': https://drop.qoid.us/pikachu.png https://drop.qoid.us/pikachu.png But I think this sort of thing is the exception rather than the rule (similar to Copilot regurgitating the text of software licenses). Girl with a Pearl Earring is so famous that there are countless copies of it on the internet. I don't know what kind of deduplication process was used for Stable Diffusion, but if you consider multiple photos of the same painting, plus images distorted by compression, or cropped, or embedded in other images, plus attempts to redraw it or even parody it, I can easily imagine that the training set contained thousands of images or more that are essentially the same work. And so the model memorized it, albeit at low resolution. Similarly, it's seen countless different images of Pikachu. However, this seems to only apply to the very peak of popularity. I tested some other Pokemon: it does a decent job with Charizard, but with Bulbasaur and Squirtle and Jigglypuff its output only somewhat resembles the character design, and for less popular Pokemon there's no resemblance at all.

paranoidrobot 4y ago
> the exception rather than the rule [...] . Girl with a Pearl Earring is so famous that there are countless copies of it on the internet I think that's part of the point, though. Even if it's working like some kind of feature detection - "this is what 'nose' looks like [nose1,nose2,...,nose9999]" and "this is what 'girl with a pearl earring vermeer' looks like [vermeer1,vermeer2,...,]" Clearly it is storing copies of those images internally, and constant re-enforcement of it finding noses and vermeer paintings in the sources pushes the priority of those features up so that it stores them. We can't trust these models, as they exist right now, to reliably generate new works, rather than spit out something that already exists.
- comex 4y ago
  Not reliably, no. But at least for this size of model, its capacity to memorize seems to be limited to works that are so popular that 'everyone' knows what they look like. And it also seems to generate them only when asked. So in any situation where a human is reviewing the output, it doesn't seem like there's a big risk of plagiarizing something by accident. Larger models may differ.
- lifthrasiir 4y ago
  Technically speaking, there can be only so many such reproducible works in the model due to the information-theoretic constraint. But yes, I agree that this is a close enough reproduction of the Vermeer's work, and while this is indeed in public domain, you are right that other copyrighted works may be present in the model, in verbatim and extractable with a right but currently unknown prompt.
- newswasboring 4y ago
  I feel like this is one of those occasions where perfect is an enemy of the good. Yes there might be some, very very famous, artworks stored inside it. But unless you think StableAI has completely blown past the current hutter prize winner, there is no way this thing is storing many things. The things it might be storing are too public to really be that big of a deal. It will spit out a Vermeer, but your submission to Divient Art in 2007 is definitely protected.
  - paranoidrobot 4y ago
    > there is no way this thing is storing many things. I didn't claim that it was storing all of the images. It is, however, quite clearly storing at least some of the original training images. What that definition is, I don't know. To go back to the original point of this thread: > The thing is, people have wild misconceptions about what this technology does. Many clearly think it's a photocopier. As if StableDiffusion is hiding copies of all these works inside. I don't think it's a wild misconception, or even an unreasonable concern to be worried that it could output some of it's training images. As an end-user of the technology, you have no idea.
    - newswasboring 4y ago
      I feel like you completely missed the point I was making with the perfect vs good argument
- richardw 4y ago
  The photos of the painting on the internet aren’t original works either. This system is learning from everyone taking pictures. If you paid a very good artist to paint that painting, they’d work from a picture. No artist emerges fully formed without impact of what they’ve seen. There’s a difference between an artist and a machine (for now), but it’s not unreasonable to assume that some internalisation of others’ work is fair.
totetsu 4y ago
It does a pretty good Mario

by comex 4y ago

paranoidrobot 4y ago

> the exception rather than the rule [...] . Girl with a Pearl Earring is so famous that there are countless copies of it on the internet I think that's part of the point, though. Even if it's working like some kind of feature detection - "this is what 'nose' looks like [nose1,nose2,...,nose9999]" and "this is what 'girl with a pearl earring vermeer' looks like [vermeer1,vermeer2,...,]" Clearly it is storing copies of those images internally, and constant re-enforcement of it finding noses and vermeer paintings in the sources pushes the priority of those features up so that it stores them. We can't trust these models, as they exist right now, to reliably generate new works, rather than spit out something that already exists.

comex 4y ago
Not reliably, no. But at least for this size of model, its capacity to memorize seems to be limited to works that are so popular that 'everyone' knows what they look like. And it also seems to generate them only when asked. So in any situation where a human is reviewing the output, it doesn't seem like there's a big risk of plagiarizing something by accident. Larger models may differ.
lifthrasiir 4y ago
Technically speaking, there can be only so many such reproducible works in the model due to the information-theoretic constraint. But yes, I agree that this is a close enough reproduction of the Vermeer's work, and while this is indeed in public domain, you are right that other copyrighted works may be present in the model, in verbatim and extractable with a right but currently unknown prompt.
newswasboring 4y ago
I feel like this is one of those occasions where perfect is an enemy of the good. Yes there might be some, very very famous, artworks stored inside it. But unless you think StableAI has completely blown past the current hutter prize winner, there is no way this thing is storing many things. The things it might be storing are too public to really be that big of a deal. It will spit out a Vermeer, but your submission to Divient Art in 2007 is definitely protected.
- paranoidrobot 4y ago
  > there is no way this thing is storing many things. I didn't claim that it was storing all of the images. It is, however, quite clearly storing at least some of the original training images. What that definition is, I don't know. To go back to the original point of this thread: > The thing is, people have wild misconceptions about what this technology does. Many clearly think it's a photocopier. As if StableDiffusion is hiding copies of all these works inside. I don't think it's a wild misconception, or even an unreasonable concern to be worried that it could output some of it's training images. As an end-user of the technology, you have no idea.
  - newswasboring 4y ago
    I feel like you completely missed the point I was making with the perfect vs good argument
richardw 4y ago
The photos of the painting on the internet aren’t original works either. This system is learning from everyone taking pictures. If you paid a very good artist to paint that painting, they’d work from a picture. No artist emerges fully formed without impact of what they’ve seen. There’s a difference between an artist and a machine (for now), but it’s not unreasonable to assume that some internalisation of others’ work is fair.

totetsu 4y ago

It does a pretty good Mario