5 ms·

Am I seeing the same thing you are in those two images you linked to? The first one, generated by AI has you looking at the camera. The other one has you looki

Am I seeing the same thing you are in those two images you linked to? The first one, generated by AI has you looking at the camera. The other one has you looking at an instrument. They don’t look much like each other to me, in terms of pose or anything. The first images suggested by Stable Attribution looks a lot more like the AI image to me, in terms of pose and everything.

csande17 4y ago
That's the point. The website is finding images that look similar, not the images the algorithm actually used to generate that picture for the prompt "avatar for saurik".
Retr0id 4y ago
I think you're missing the point. How does Stable Diffusion know "what does saurik look like?". The answer is of course that it's seen saurik's profile pic in training data. Stable Attribution is not showing that. As another comment[1] points out: > This appears to be just looking for the nearest neighbors of the image in embedding space and calling those the source data. Stylistically similar images are not the same as source images. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34670483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34670483
- killjoywashere 4y ago
  [flagged]
- ForestCritter 4y ago
  I think you may have a point. I can see familiar references and recognize certain artists in ai art without help, yet when I look at the supposed source photos, for the most part, I dont really see it.
- orangeoxidation 4y ago
  Interesting. So it only shows images that were transformed / mixed to get the output, but does not show images used to learn how to transform / select them? Sounds very much like a human would do it. If I 'know' how to recognize saurik and I know how anime is supposed to look like, I can check my digital photo library for a picture of saurik and than use that picture as a template to draw an anime version of saurik. If someone later asked me what pictures I used the photo is the only one I'd present. Not the thousands of anime pictures I have seen teaching me what anime looks like, nor the picture my eyes took meeting saurik.
  - space_fountain 4y ago
    I think saying exactly what an ai of sufficient complexity is doing is a mater for philosophy more than science. But idk if transforming or mixing is how I’d describe what this is doing. In particular it truly does not have a complete representation of any of the images it was trained on. They just wouldn’t fit. It does of course have an understanding of how embeddings relate to images that is informed by the images it’s seen so maybe that counts, but I’m not sure if it’s useful in understanding the limitations or how to improve models like it
    - makomk 4y ago
      The author of this tool is even aware of that argument and just dismisses it with no real justification: https://twitter.com/atroyn/status/1622360994579357696 https://twitter.com/atroyn/status/1622360994579357696
      - williamcotton 4y ago
        > historically, creatives have been among the first to embrace new technologies. ever since the renaissance, artists have picked up every new tool as it's become available, and used it to make great things. > these people aren't 'luddites' This is just total bullshit. I know plenty of artists who are embracing this technology to make all sorts of things that tools like SD were not designed to do, like psychedelic music videos, etc. What the author means is that a few loud blue check marks on Twitter who claim to be artists have been tweeting, get ready for it, inflammatory claims.
      - williamcotton 4y ago
        > i spoke to law profs about this - the analogy which kept coming up is the vcr. initially basically a piracy machine, it brought to life an enormous content market. had it been banned, creators would have been worse off in the long run. It’s called Sony v Universal, and the legal doctrine for fair use that resulted is a test for “commercially significant non-infringing use”, of which a tool used for inpainting to remove power lines, latent space psychedelic visuals, and photo booth-painterly-style all are. Imagine if Stable Diffusion was made illegal. Someone accuses me of using this illegal tool for one of these non-infringing uses, that is an image that doesn’t look like anyone else’s image as far as the court is concerned for copyright. I put the image on my website. If the image itself is not at all infringing, then what is the evidence that Stable Diffusion was used? Should the police be issued a warrant to search my private property for proof that I used Stable Diffusion without a shred of evidence or based on a tool that will always have both false positives and negatives?
saurik 4y ago
The slight adjustment of where I'm looking is minor. The instrument is uncommon and honestly difficult to get stable diffusion to generate correctly at all; though, from my experience playing with this (I spent a lot of time trying to figure out why it knew who I was before discovering the CLIP database browser), I'm going to argue that the reason that hand is showing up in the position it is is because of my hand holding the violin there. Frankly, we might also as well start nitpicking that the suit-like thing being worn in the generated image is not a tuxedo and the generated person looks a tad bit rounded and has more hair ;P. However, the key thing here is: do you really think "avatar for saurik" is going to come up with something out of the blue--out of all the numerous random images of people that exist and who have avatar/profile photos... people wearing lots of different clothing and in different orientations--where we can even be talking about such silly things as props and gaze direction? I will assert that would be ridiculous. Clearly seeing at least one photo of me (and AFAIK it was only trained on thousands of copies of that single photo) was absolutely crucial to the construction of this image, and yet this website isn't finding any such to show as it isn't really doing what it is claiming to do (and it isn't clear to me how it could without the original prompt). From there, SD is upscaling from memory a lot and filling in a ton of details (as almost all of the copies of my photo it was trained on are very small, embedded in screenshots of tweets), but the cornerstone of that construction is clearly my Twitter profile photo... and then, once you do that, you can go back and attempt to rationalize "these were the photos that were most similar to the photo that we generated, and so I guess those were what the algorithm used to generate this image", but--at least in this case--it is pretty obvious that that isn't how this worked as there's no way you start with "avatar of saurik" and arbitrarily pluck an image that is this similar to the one photo of saurik you have.
- throwaway1851 4y ago
  > Clearly seeing at least one photo of me (and AFAIK it was only trained on thousands of copies of that single photo) was absolutely crucial to the construction of this image, and yet this website isn't finding any I think there are two separate ideas that are being conflated here. The first idea is that there is a mapping between text input and a joint text/image embedding space. For that mapping, yes, your profile photo (paired with some caption text that says saurik) would have to be the most important training input because, as you say, how else does SD know what “saurik” looks like? But the second idea is the mapping from the shared latent space to an image output. It is NOT necessarily true that your profile photo is the most significant training example for the generated image. That’s because the text “saurik” can map to a neighborhood in the latent space that has all the photos this tool retrieved — photos which are indeed very similar to the generated image. As an example, let’s say that I resemble Ben Affleck. And you type in “throwaway1851” and you get back an image that does look like me, but also looks an awful lot like Ben Affleck. In this case I really wouldn’t be surprised if my one profile photo didn’t contribute much to the generated image as compared to a dozen different photos of Ben Affleck. Perhaps the original mapping just pointed to Affleck anyway, because I wasn’t significant enough to end up taking space in the model’s parameters.

csande17 4y ago

That's the point. The website is finding images that look similar, not the images the algorithm actually used to generate that picture for the prompt "avatar for saurik".

Retr0id 4y ago

I think you're missing the point. How does Stable Diffusion know "what does saurik look like?". The answer is of course that it's seen saurik's profile pic in training data. Stable Attribution is not showing that. As another comment[1] points out: > This appears to be just looking for the nearest neighbors of the image in embedding space and calling those the source data. Stylistically similar images are not the same as source images. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34670483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34670483

killjoywashere 4y ago
[flagged]
ForestCritter 4y ago
I think you may have a point. I can see familiar references and recognize certain artists in ai art without help, yet when I look at the supposed source photos, for the most part, I dont really see it.
orangeoxidation 4y ago
Interesting. So it only shows images that were transformed / mixed to get the output, but does not show images used to learn how to transform / select them? Sounds very much like a human would do it. If I 'know' how to recognize saurik and I know how anime is supposed to look like, I can check my digital photo library for a picture of saurik and than use that picture as a template to draw an anime version of saurik. If someone later asked me what pictures I used the photo is the only one I'd present. Not the thousands of anime pictures I have seen teaching me what anime looks like, nor the picture my eyes took meeting saurik.
- space_fountain 4y ago
  I think saying exactly what an ai of sufficient complexity is doing is a mater for philosophy more than science. But idk if transforming or mixing is how I’d describe what this is doing. In particular it truly does not have a complete representation of any of the images it was trained on. They just wouldn’t fit. It does of course have an understanding of how embeddings relate to images that is informed by the images it’s seen so maybe that counts, but I’m not sure if it’s useful in understanding the limitations or how to improve models like it
  - makomk 4y ago
    The author of this tool is even aware of that argument and just dismisses it with no real justification: https://twitter.com/atroyn/status/1622360994579357696 https://twitter.com/atroyn/status/1622360994579357696
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      > historically, creatives have been among the first to embrace new technologies. ever since the renaissance, artists have picked up every new tool as it's become available, and used it to make great things. > these people aren't 'luddites' This is just total bullshit. I know plenty of artists who are embracing this technology to make all sorts of things that tools like SD were not designed to do, like psychedelic music videos, etc. What the author means is that a few loud blue check marks on Twitter who claim to be artists have been tweeting, get ready for it, inflammatory claims.
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      > i spoke to law profs about this - the analogy which kept coming up is the vcr. initially basically a piracy machine, it brought to life an enormous content market. had it been banned, creators would have been worse off in the long run. It’s called Sony v Universal, and the legal doctrine for fair use that resulted is a test for “commercially significant non-infringing use”, of which a tool used for inpainting to remove power lines, latent space psychedelic visuals, and photo booth-painterly-style all are. Imagine if Stable Diffusion was made illegal. Someone accuses me of using this illegal tool for one of these non-infringing uses, that is an image that doesn’t look like anyone else’s image as far as the court is concerned for copyright. I put the image on my website. If the image itself is not at all infringing, then what is the evidence that Stable Diffusion was used? Should the police be issued a warrant to search my private property for proof that I used Stable Diffusion without a shred of evidence or based on a tool that will always have both false positives and negatives?

saurik 4y ago

The slight adjustment of where I'm looking is minor. The instrument is uncommon and honestly difficult to get stable diffusion to generate correctly at all; though, from my experience playing with this (I spent a lot of time trying to figure out why it knew who I was before discovering the CLIP database browser), I'm going to argue that the reason that hand is showing up in the position it is is because of my hand holding the violin there. Frankly, we might also as well start nitpicking that the suit-like thing being worn in the generated image is not a tuxedo and the generated person looks a tad bit rounded and has more hair ;P. However, the key thing here is: do you really think "avatar for saurik" is going to come up with something out of the blue--out of all the numerous random images of people that exist and who have avatar/profile photos... people wearing lots of different clothing and in different orientations--where we can even be talking about such silly things as props and gaze direction? I will assert that would be ridiculous. Clearly seeing at least one photo of me (and AFAIK it was only trained on thousands of copies of that single photo) was absolutely crucial to the construction of this image, and yet this website isn't finding any such to show as it isn't really doing what it is claiming to do (and it isn't clear to me how it could without the original prompt). From there, SD is upscaling from memory a lot and filling in a ton of details (as almost all of the copies of my photo it was trained on are very small, embedded in screenshots of tweets), but the cornerstone of that construction is clearly my Twitter profile photo... and then, once you do that, you can go back and attempt to rationalize "these were the photos that were most similar to the photo that we generated, and so I guess those were what the algorithm used to generate this image", but--at least in this case--it is pretty obvious that that isn't how this worked as there's no way you start with "avatar of saurik" and arbitrarily pluck an image that is this similar to the one photo of saurik you have.

throwaway1851 4y ago
> Clearly seeing at least one photo of me (and AFAIK it was only trained on thousands of copies of that single photo) was absolutely crucial to the construction of this image, and yet this website isn't finding any I think there are two separate ideas that are being conflated here. The first idea is that there is a mapping between text input and a joint text/image embedding space. For that mapping, yes, your profile photo (paired with some caption text that says saurik) would have to be the most important training input because, as you say, how else does SD know what “saurik” looks like? But the second idea is the mapping from the shared latent space to an image output. It is NOT necessarily true that your profile photo is the most significant training example for the generated image. That’s because the text “saurik” can map to a neighborhood in the latent space that has all the photos this tool retrieved — photos which are indeed very similar to the generated image. As an example, let’s say that I resemble Ben Affleck. And you type in “throwaway1851” and you get back an image that does look like me, but also looks an awful lot like Ben Affleck. In this case I really wouldn’t be surprised if my one profile photo didn’t contribute much to the generated image as compared to a dozen different photos of Ben Affleck. Perhaps the original mapping just pointed to Affleck anyway, because I wasn’t significant enough to end up taking space in the model’s parameters.