6 ms·

I think it's sad that Apple doesn't even give attribution to any of the authors. If you copy the Bibtex from this site, the Author field is just empty. Their na

I think it's sad that Apple doesn't even give attribution to any of the authors. If you copy the Bibtex from this site, the Author field is just empty. Their names are also not mentioned anywhere on this site. This site is purely a marketing effort.

rvz 4y ago
> I think it's sad that Apple doesn't even give attribution to any of the authors. Pretty much like Stable Diffusion and the grifters using it in general and they will never credit the artists and images that they stole to generate these images.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  Do your point is that Apple and those grifters are equally reputable? two wrongs don't make a right.
  - rvz 4y ago
    I'm neither defending Apple or the grifters using Stable Diffusion in my comment. Both are as bad as each other, giving no attribution or credit.
- astrange 4y ago
  This is sort of like if you learned English from reading a book and the author said they owned all your English sentences after that. Of course you can see the original images (https://rom1504.github.io/clip-retrieval/ https://rom1504.github.io/clip-retrieval/), it was legal to collect them (they used robots.txt for consent just like Google Image Search) and it was legal to do this with them (but not using US legal principles since it's made in Germany). "Crediting the artist" isn't a legal principle - it's more like some kind of social media standard which is enforced by random amateur artists yelling at you if you don't do it. It's both impossible (there are no original artists for a given output) and wouldn't do anything to help the main social issue (future artists having their jobs taken by AIs).
  - pmarreck 4y ago
    > future artists having their jobs taken by AIs that's simply not going to happen. as in every technological development so far, this is just another tool. 1) artists create the styles out of thin air 2) artists create the images out of thin air 3) computers are just collectors of this data and do not actually originate anything new. they are just very clever copycats. you're looking at an artist tool more than anything. sure, it's an unconventional one and a threatening one, but that's been true of literally every technological development since the Industrial Revolution.
    - astrange 4y ago
      > that's simply not going to happen. I don't think it will either, but artists think it will, so it's strange that their proposed solution "credit the original artists behind AI models" won't solve the problem they have with it.
    - athrowaway12 4y ago
      4) If computers get good enough at 1) or 2), then there'd be much bigger problems, and essentially all humans will become the starving artists. Also, I'm not so sure that language models like SD, Imagen, GPT-3, PaLM are purely copycats. And I'm not so sure that most human artists are not mostly copycats either. My suspicion is that there's much more overlap between how these models work and what artists do (and how humans think in general), but that we elevate creative work so much that it's difficult to admit the size of the overlap. The reason why I lean this way is because of the supposed role of language in the evolution of human cognition (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language) And the reason I'm not certain that the NN-based models are purely copycats is they have internal state; they can and do perform computations, invent algorithms, and can almost perform "reasoning". I'm very much a layperson but I found this "chains of thought" approach (https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/05/language-models-perform-reasoning-via.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/05/language-models-perform-re...) very interesting, where the reasoning task given to the model is much more explicit. My guess is that some iterative construction like this will be the way the reasoning ability of language/image models will improve. But at a high level, the only thing we humans have going for us is the anthropic principle. Hopefully there's some magic going on in our brains that's so complicated and unlikely that no one will ever figure out how it works. BTW, I am a layperson. I am just curious when we will all be killed off by our robot overlords.
MichaelZuo 4y ago
Is it standard for Apple to attribute authors in the Bibtex? Or do they usually leave it empty?
ubercow13 4y ago
This is about an update to macOS and iOS. Are the 'authors' of macOS updates normally credited? Authors are credited on other papers published on this site that aren't just about OS updates.

rvz 4y ago

> I think it's sad that Apple doesn't even give attribution to any of the authors. Pretty much like Stable Diffusion and the grifters using it in general and they will never credit the artists and images that they stole to generate these images.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
Do your point is that Apple and those grifters are equally reputable? two wrongs don't make a right.
- rvz 4y ago
  I'm neither defending Apple or the grifters using Stable Diffusion in my comment. Both are as bad as each other, giving no attribution or credit.
astrange 4y ago
This is sort of like if you learned English from reading a book and the author said they owned all your English sentences after that. Of course you can see the original images (https://rom1504.github.io/clip-retrieval/ https://rom1504.github.io/clip-retrieval/), it was legal to collect them (they used robots.txt for consent just like Google Image Search) and it was legal to do this with them (but not using US legal principles since it's made in Germany). "Crediting the artist" isn't a legal principle - it's more like some kind of social media standard which is enforced by random amateur artists yelling at you if you don't do it. It's both impossible (there are no original artists for a given output) and wouldn't do anything to help the main social issue (future artists having their jobs taken by AIs).
- pmarreck 4y ago
  > future artists having their jobs taken by AIs that's simply not going to happen. as in every technological development so far, this is just another tool. 1) artists create the styles out of thin air 2) artists create the images out of thin air 3) computers are just collectors of this data and do not actually originate anything new. they are just very clever copycats. you're looking at an artist tool more than anything. sure, it's an unconventional one and a threatening one, but that's been true of literally every technological development since the Industrial Revolution.
  - astrange 4y ago
    > that's simply not going to happen. I don't think it will either, but artists think it will, so it's strange that their proposed solution "credit the original artists behind AI models" won't solve the problem they have with it.
  - athrowaway12 4y ago
    4) If computers get good enough at 1) or 2), then there'd be much bigger problems, and essentially all humans will become the starving artists. Also, I'm not so sure that language models like SD, Imagen, GPT-3, PaLM are purely copycats. And I'm not so sure that most human artists are not mostly copycats either. My suspicion is that there's much more overlap between how these models work and what artists do (and how humans think in general), but that we elevate creative work so much that it's difficult to admit the size of the overlap. The reason why I lean this way is because of the supposed role of language in the evolution of human cognition (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language) And the reason I'm not certain that the NN-based models are purely copycats is they have internal state; they can and do perform computations, invent algorithms, and can almost perform "reasoning". I'm very much a layperson but I found this "chains of thought" approach (https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/05/language-models-perform-reasoning-via.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/05/language-models-perform-re...) very interesting, where the reasoning task given to the model is much more explicit. My guess is that some iterative construction like this will be the way the reasoning ability of language/image models will improve. But at a high level, the only thing we humans have going for us is the anthropic principle. Hopefully there's some magic going on in our brains that's so complicated and unlikely that no one will ever figure out how it works. BTW, I am a layperson. I am just curious when we will all be killed off by our robot overlords.

MichaelZuo 4y ago

Is it standard for Apple to attribute authors in the Bibtex? Or do they usually leave it empty?

ubercow13 4y ago

This is about an update to macOS and iOS. Are the 'authors' of macOS updates normally credited? Authors are credited on other papers published on this site that aren't just about OS updates.