That makes sense in a “but for” type of causality. However, I don’t think that’s what this website is aiming for (however flawed or misleading it might be so fa

That makes sense in a “but for” type of causality. However, I don’t think that’s what this website is aiming for (however flawed or misleading it might be so far as its methodology is concerned). I think the idea of attribution here is more of a visual concept: ie, “which images contributed visual features in the output image?” For that, if you wrote down the latent embedding for “saurik”, then retrained CLIP and Stable Diffusion from scratch without any of saurik’s profile pics in the training data, it is quite possible that you could generate an image from the embedding you wrote down and it would look the same. Pure speculation on my part - perhaps your profile pic is the real source material and this website is junk. I just think it’s an interesting and worthy question the site is trying to answer, even if it’s not possible to answer it with much certainty.