3 ms·
A great artist can take these same prompts, look at the same input images, and produce the same or even better results. No one would call that stealing. Copyin
by randyrand 4y ago
A great artist can take these same prompts, look at the same input images, and produce the same or even better results.
No one would call that stealing. Copying, yes. Stealing, No. A great artist can copy other artist's style's expertly. A large part of being an art student is learning how to do exactly this.
Stable Diffusion is just a truly great artist.
- doublerabbit 4y agoThe difference is that the great artist would spend time studying, learning and researching the style. Which could take days, months or even years. That would be impressive. AI can produce the same result in seconds allowing the content to be ripped-off quicker than an great artist trying to achieve the same result. Isn't that unfair?
- wvenable 4y agoThe reason we are creating Artificial Intelligence is so that we can get results in seconds rather than days, months, or years.
- stale2002 4y ago> Isn't that unfair? No? Doing something better and faster does not change the fact that it is the same thing. If an artist is allowed to copy styles, then other people should be allowed to do so as well. Whether or not you have wasted year of your life, learning these skills, should have nothing to do with that.
- noobermin 4y agoGithub co-pilot is therefore too a great tenured professor at Texas A&M.
- randyrand 4y agoAI for code-gen is not nearly as developed or impressive as image-gen. So, no, I wouldn't say that...yet.
- sensanaty 4y agoI find these frequently brought-up comparisons of robots to humans pretty funny, personally. I think we can and absolutely should delineate between a human drawing inspiration from their peers and an AI taking a trillion images (far more than any human could possibly ever draw inspiration from) at once, shuffling them all together and spitting out the resulting amalgamation. I see no reason why we should be treating this as if the AI should be treated the same way we treat humans - we definitely shouldn't. As an example of someone with negative artistic talent of any kind, even if I were to take any one of their works and tried to trace them, it'd come out looking a mess, especially once I came to the portion that required any actual artistic skill like coloring and shading. With an AI, I save a few of their works, stick it in some blackbox A"I" that gives me 8 trillion different derived images that are in truth just kind of spitting out whatever makes statistical sense to stick together and boom, I've just managed to take a dozen artists' works and gain something out of it.
- randyrand 4y agoYou are drastically underselling the amount of emergent intelligence that comes from $500,000 of Stable Diffusion training. This is not merely "averaging" input images. It can literally understand human speech.
- tstrimple 4y agoMaybe I'm being too pedantic, but I'd feel it's far more accurate to say it can interpret human speech within a specific context. There's no understanding going on.
- kurtreed 4y agoComputers do it more efficiently, yes, but you're not giving an argument as to why being more efficient means there should be different rules.