> The fact that in the paper they only managed to reproduce photos from Stable Diffusion that are likely common in the training set proves this and conclusively

> The fact that in the paper they only managed to reproduce photos from Stable Diffusion that are likely common in the training set proves this and conclusively disproves your hypothesis. There's no hypothesis. My conclusion is not scientific. My conclusion is derived from logic. It cannot be disproved. >The set of natural images is going to be smaller than 5.56×10^-309, but it's still going to be astronomically large. You're simply not going to get an accidental hit on a 512x512 image, even with training It might be low probability to get an exact pixel perfect match. But a similar match that is more or less indistinguishable (or even a different but obvious reproduction) to the original from the standpoint of the human eye is a significantly larger probability.