7 ms·

I find the technology gatekeeping to be appalling. How can people make the argument that this is “blatant theft from Greg Rutkowski“ but turn a blind eye to Sta

by KMnO4 4y ago

I find the technology gatekeeping to be appalling. How can people make the argument that this is “blatant theft from Greg Rutkowski“ but turn a blind eye to Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, DALL-E, etc? At least Unstable Diffusion isn’t predominantly used for the same fantasy/illustrations that people love to generate on the other services.

chpatrick 4y ago
Stable Diffusion removed Greg Rutkowski et al from the training data per their request, Unstable Diffusion is a project to fine-tune them back in.
- GaggiX 4y ago
  Greg Rutkowski was simply very present in the unknown dataset used by OpenAI for training CLIP-L/14, whereas when LAION trained the CLIP-H model it did so on the LAION dataset that seems to have far fewer references to this artist.
chipgap98 4y ago
I mean I have seen tons of people complaining about the use of those models on social media. I don't think that people are only objecting to this project. I don't agree with them, but I don't think its fair to say there hasn't been pushback on the other projects you mentioned.
egypturnash 4y ago
You must not have any artists in your life, a lot of us are hollering that all of these things are massive copyright infringement machines that are trained on our hard work without any permission, never mind giving us a single penny of the money the companies building these things are making off of them.
- victor9000 4y ago
  Would your opinion change if these models were trained exclusively on works in the public domain? Do you consider it to be infringement if new and novel art is created simply in the style of other artists? If so, how should we treat art students when they try to recreate a previous work? It's also worth noting that producing new art is only a subset of possible use cases. So how should we treat new and novel photo-realistic images? Is that infringement too?
  - smrtinsert 4y ago
    Silence and ableism are what we get from artists. We're still in the kneejerk reaction phase. "Having to do it yourself" is an awful precondition for art and expression.
    - Guvante 4y ago
      The concept of AI art is fine. The implementation by scraping copyrighted work and claiming that their magic algorithm makes they immune to the consequences is where the complaints are.
      - Filligree 4y ago
        With the current length of copyright, there is no possible way to build it otherwise. Saying that AI needs to only train on public-domain works, is equivalent to saying that it shouldn't exist. Of course, if it didn't exist, I wouldn't be buying art from artists instead. I'd simply go back to my stories not being illustrated at all. So from my perspective, this story is all about artists wanting to tear the ability out of my hands.
        dinkumthinkum 4y ago
        Nonsense, the claim made by those that say the end of knowledge work is nigh is that an AGI is coming that is superior to human intelligence. Humans do not need to train and read / consume gigabytes and terabytes of past solutions to produce new work and they do it at a trivial fraction of the amount of watts.
- verdenti 4y ago
  Every human is trained on previous “hard work”. There’s no difference and your Luddite behavior is going to go… well the way of the Luddites.
  - egypturnash 4y ago
    Yet another triumph for the bosses of the world; in the absence of unions, automation only profits the owners of the machine, and none of the people who are now performing much less skilled labor gets a better life. In this case, it's a labor that's already a way to barely scrape by for a lot of its practitioners. This is the difference. Is this what you are cheering for? Is this the world you want?
    - int_19h 4y ago
      The problem in scenario that you describe is the bosses, not the automation. How about we solve that problem, instead of AI witch hunts?
    - verdenti 4y ago
      [dead]
    - concordDance 4y ago
      The world I want is one I can quickly generate and tweek art for my hobby game without it taking weeks, a thousand dollars and contract negotiation.
  - dinkumthinkum 4y ago
    You’re relying on multiple meanings of the word “train”. Humans produce new knowledge, art, solutions, etc, without consuming the full body of human created media. It’s hardly even reminiscent of the same things. Humans produce solutions, at times, without ever being trained in a fraction of the vast body of human knowledge. This is not the same as a generative AI.
- itake 4y ago
  I’m a professional writer that is paid for my copyrighted work. I welcome any tools that can help me write better. I think there are many sides to this issue and artists shouldn’t care keep their industry.
  - egypturnash 4y ago
    "Artists shouldn't care keep their industry" - so how do you feel about the SFWA's campaign to make Disney uphold the contracts for tie-in novels they bought along with Fox? https://www.sfwa.org/2020/11/18/disney-must-pay/ https://www.sfwa.org/2020/11/18/disney-must-pay/
- concordDance 4y ago
  Do you hate artists looking at your art and picking up ideas from it too? Is the every art movement inevitably copyright infringement?

by KMnO4 4y ago

chpatrick 4y ago

Stable Diffusion removed Greg Rutkowski et al from the training data per their request, Unstable Diffusion is a project to fine-tune them back in.

GaggiX 4y ago
Greg Rutkowski was simply very present in the unknown dataset used by OpenAI for training CLIP-L/14, whereas when LAION trained the CLIP-H model it did so on the LAION dataset that seems to have far fewer references to this artist.

chipgap98 4y ago

I mean I have seen tons of people complaining about the use of those models on social media. I don't think that people are only objecting to this project. I don't agree with them, but I don't think its fair to say there hasn't been pushback on the other projects you mentioned.

egypturnash 4y ago

You must not have any artists in your life, a lot of us are hollering that all of these things are massive copyright infringement machines that are trained on our hard work without any permission, never mind giving us a single penny of the money the companies building these things are making off of them.

victor9000 4y ago
Would your opinion change if these models were trained exclusively on works in the public domain? Do you consider it to be infringement if new and novel art is created simply in the style of other artists? If so, how should we treat art students when they try to recreate a previous work? It's also worth noting that producing new art is only a subset of possible use cases. So how should we treat new and novel photo-realistic images? Is that infringement too?
- smrtinsert 4y ago
  Silence and ableism are what we get from artists. We're still in the kneejerk reaction phase. "Having to do it yourself" is an awful precondition for art and expression.
  - Guvante 4y ago
    The concept of AI art is fine. The implementation by scraping copyrighted work and claiming that their magic algorithm makes they immune to the consequences is where the complaints are.
    - Filligree 4y ago
      With the current length of copyright, there is no possible way to build it otherwise. Saying that AI needs to only train on public-domain works, is equivalent to saying that it shouldn't exist. Of course, if it didn't exist, I wouldn't be buying art from artists instead. I'd simply go back to my stories not being illustrated at all. So from my perspective, this story is all about artists wanting to tear the ability out of my hands.
      - dinkumthinkum 4y ago
        Nonsense, the claim made by those that say the end of knowledge work is nigh is that an AGI is coming that is superior to human intelligence. Humans do not need to train and read / consume gigabytes and terabytes of past solutions to produce new work and they do it at a trivial fraction of the amount of watts.
verdenti 4y ago
Every human is trained on previous “hard work”. There’s no difference and your Luddite behavior is going to go… well the way of the Luddites.
- egypturnash 4y ago
  Yet another triumph for the bosses of the world; in the absence of unions, automation only profits the owners of the machine, and none of the people who are now performing much less skilled labor gets a better life. In this case, it's a labor that's already a way to barely scrape by for a lot of its practitioners. This is the difference. Is this what you are cheering for? Is this the world you want?
  - int_19h 4y ago
    The problem in scenario that you describe is the bosses, not the automation. How about we solve that problem, instead of AI witch hunts?
  - verdenti 4y ago
    [dead]
  - concordDance 4y ago
    The world I want is one I can quickly generate and tweek art for my hobby game without it taking weeks, a thousand dollars and contract negotiation.
- dinkumthinkum 4y ago
  You’re relying on multiple meanings of the word “train”. Humans produce new knowledge, art, solutions, etc, without consuming the full body of human created media. It’s hardly even reminiscent of the same things. Humans produce solutions, at times, without ever being trained in a fraction of the vast body of human knowledge. This is not the same as a generative AI.
itake 4y ago
I’m a professional writer that is paid for my copyrighted work. I welcome any tools that can help me write better. I think there are many sides to this issue and artists shouldn’t care keep their industry.
- egypturnash 4y ago
  "Artists shouldn't care keep their industry" - so how do you feel about the SFWA's campaign to make Disney uphold the contracts for tie-in novels they bought along with Fox? https://www.sfwa.org/2020/11/18/disney-must-pay/ https://www.sfwa.org/2020/11/18/disney-must-pay/
concordDance 4y ago
Do you hate artists looking at your art and picking up ideas from it too? Is the every art movement inevitably copyright infringement?