5 ms·

I find the whole comparison "it´s just like a person learning" to be a tiring trope. It's demonstrably not. Like I said to another poster - you've probably see

I find the whole comparison "it´s just like a person learning" to be a tiring trope. It's demonstrably not. Like I said to another poster - you've probably seen a Picasso. Can you make me a copy? Because a Diffusion model can. But you can't. Why not? Your denial that there is a demonstrable difference between human and machine attention is part of the core obfuscation these companies are using to win this battle, so I reject it entirely. That difference creates the whole issue. If you don't recognise it, then answer me - Why can't you paint me a Picasso? You're saying the Machine is just like a human, yet a simple question of reproduction tells you it's not like a human in any way. It's a machine, and it produces machine reproductions. It learns faster and more accurately than any human, and its purpose is to produce derivative works. If the machine didn't need human data to do this, this discussion would be academic. But it does. So the whole future of the Arts will be decided by investigating what the machine actually does, not the simplistic idea of it´s just like a human. You have to evaluate the machine's abilities and impact onto the world. And that's the tough part. But just saying "hihih it's just a person" while it produces superhuman output is not a solution, it's just a lie that was invented by the people profiting from these models. >Is your argument that this AI would be legally prohibited from viewing any images it doesn't have a specific license for? Yes. You pay for access.

lt 3y ago
A diffusion model can't make a copy. That's the whole point. The original Picasso isn't in the model weights. It has learned to make pixels a particular color to mimic that style, but that's it.
- kranke155 3y ago
  If the model didn't learn anything important from Picasso, it wouldn't be in the training data. This whole argument of "ah but it doesnt really need it" doesn't hold up. If the model didn't need it, it wouldn't have used it in the first place. Same thing in Artstation. It was of course propitious for AI scientists to find such a lovely database of high quality imagery, and all so helpfully tagged into categories. All they had to do was take it.
  - lt 3y ago
    Of course it learned, that's the point of training. You claimed the model can reproduce an image from that training data. That's false, and what the judge dismissed. “none of the Stable Diffusion output images provided in response to a particular Text Prompt is likely to be a close match for any specific image in the training data.” “I am not convinced that copyright claims based a derivative theory can survive absent ‘substantial similarity’ type allegations,” the ruling stated. Whether using copyrighted data to train a model is fair use or not is a different discussion.
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    > If the model didn't learn anything important from Picasso, it wouldn't be in the training data. > This whole argument of "ah but it doesnt really need it" doesn't hold up. If the model didn't need it, it wouldn't have used it in the first place. I haven't seen anyone making this argument. There's a pretty clear difference between learning something from an image and memorizing it. There also isn't any illegal with memorizing an image and painting a reproduction. What you aren't allowed to do is sell or distribute that reproduction without a license. I think it makes more sense to restrict what people are allowed do with ML tools than to restrict what ML tools can do.
shkkmo 3y ago
> Because a Diffusion model can. This isn't a given, it is something that has yet to be decided in this case. (Edit: if you look at studies that look for examples of SD reproductions, the best examples still similar to what a human trying to reproduce the image from memory would create) > Your denial that there is a demonstrable difference between human and machine attention There are demonstrable differences between different intelligent systems. I have yet to see any demonstration that shows that you can't reproduce human attention with machine. (Though we can't do it yet) > If you don't recognise it, then answer me - Why can't you paint me a Picasso? I haven't studied painting or Picasso. There are many people who can paint a Picasso as well as, if not better than, any ML model we have today. There are people who you could take to a gallery show who could go home and reproduce both style and individual works at an equivalent level. > It learns faster and more accurately than any human, The word, "faster", here is doing a lot of work. Machine learning can be "faster" in that it can happen in parallel and be scaled to take less time. However humans currently also learn "faster" because they require fewer repetitions or examples to learn. As such, the "learning" derived from a human viewing an image is arguably currently larger. > Yes. You pay for access. Is this good faith? I already stipulated that the images are publicly accessible. Are you suggesting that somehow artists should be able to block the AI from viewing a properly licensed instance of a copyrighted image? That pretty much results in a ban on general ai.
- kranke155 3y ago
  >Is this good faith? I already stipulated that the images are publicly accessible. Are you suggesting that somehow artists should be able to block the AI from viewing a properly licensed instance of a copyrighted image? That pretty much results in a ban on general ai. No it, results in a ban on general ai that doesn't compensate rights owners.
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    So you have a general AI, it sees someone wearing a t-shirt containing a licensed, copyrighted image. This AI now needs to pay the copyright holder of that image? How I think it should work is the sa.e for any other intelligent system. Systems can view publicly available images, memorize them, and even reproduce them for certain fair uses. The systems have to pay for a license to right holders for the non fair uses of reproductions.
ben_w 3y ago
> Can you make me a copy? If you don't mind it being as bad as the the result of a Stable Diffusion image being passed on to a half-trained robot arm, sure: extra limbs, even more of a David Cronenberg vibe than Picasso at his weirdest, mixing with mis-attributed ideas from other images that I've associated with the same labels…
- kranke155 3y ago
  If you use DALLE3 the results are astonishing. No more issues with hands and legs. Give it a go.
theonlybutlet 3y ago
So do you put a sign outside your gallery, "No Savants"?
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> Can you make me a copy? If I am a decent human artist who's looked at many Picasso works and spent time studying how to reproduce his style? Of course I can. Artists copy each other's styles all the time, dude. You can literally go to Deviant Art (or wherever), scroll through, and point out examples of style copying, often much more glaring that anything I've seen out of a diffusion model.

lt 3y ago

A diffusion model can't make a copy. That's the whole point. The original Picasso isn't in the model weights. It has learned to make pixels a particular color to mimic that style, but that's it.

kranke155 3y ago
If the model didn't learn anything important from Picasso, it wouldn't be in the training data. This whole argument of "ah but it doesnt really need it" doesn't hold up. If the model didn't need it, it wouldn't have used it in the first place. Same thing in Artstation. It was of course propitious for AI scientists to find such a lovely database of high quality imagery, and all so helpfully tagged into categories. All they had to do was take it.
- lt 3y ago
  Of course it learned, that's the point of training. You claimed the model can reproduce an image from that training data. That's false, and what the judge dismissed. “none of the Stable Diffusion output images provided in response to a particular Text Prompt is likely to be a close match for any specific image in the training data.” “I am not convinced that copyright claims based a derivative theory can survive absent ‘substantial similarity’ type allegations,” the ruling stated. Whether using copyrighted data to train a model is fair use or not is a different discussion.
- shkkmo 3y ago
  > If the model didn't learn anything important from Picasso, it wouldn't be in the training data. > This whole argument of "ah but it doesnt really need it" doesn't hold up. If the model didn't need it, it wouldn't have used it in the first place. I haven't seen anyone making this argument. There's a pretty clear difference between learning something from an image and memorizing it. There also isn't any illegal with memorizing an image and painting a reproduction. What you aren't allowed to do is sell or distribute that reproduction without a license. I think it makes more sense to restrict what people are allowed do with ML tools than to restrict what ML tools can do.

shkkmo 3y ago

> Because a Diffusion model can. This isn't a given, it is something that has yet to be decided in this case. (Edit: if you look at studies that look for examples of SD reproductions, the best examples still similar to what a human trying to reproduce the image from memory would create) > Your denial that there is a demonstrable difference between human and machine attention There are demonstrable differences between different intelligent systems. I have yet to see any demonstration that shows that you can't reproduce human attention with machine. (Though we can't do it yet) > If you don't recognise it, then answer me - Why can't you paint me a Picasso? I haven't studied painting or Picasso. There are many people who can paint a Picasso as well as, if not better than, any ML model we have today. There are people who you could take to a gallery show who could go home and reproduce both style and individual works at an equivalent level. > It learns faster and more accurately than any human, The word, "faster", here is doing a lot of work. Machine learning can be "faster" in that it can happen in parallel and be scaled to take less time. However humans currently also learn "faster" because they require fewer repetitions or examples to learn. As such, the "learning" derived from a human viewing an image is arguably currently larger. > Yes. You pay for access. Is this good faith? I already stipulated that the images are publicly accessible. Are you suggesting that somehow artists should be able to block the AI from viewing a properly licensed instance of a copyrighted image? That pretty much results in a ban on general ai.

kranke155 3y ago
>Is this good faith? I already stipulated that the images are publicly accessible. Are you suggesting that somehow artists should be able to block the AI from viewing a properly licensed instance of a copyrighted image? That pretty much results in a ban on general ai. No it, results in a ban on general ai that doesn't compensate rights owners.
- shkkmo 3y ago
  So you have a general AI, it sees someone wearing a t-shirt containing a licensed, copyrighted image. This AI now needs to pay the copyright holder of that image? How I think it should work is the sa.e for any other intelligent system. Systems can view publicly available images, memorize them, and even reproduce them for certain fair uses. The systems have to pay for a license to right holders for the non fair uses of reproductions.

ben_w 3y ago

> Can you make me a copy? If you don't mind it being as bad as the the result of a Stable Diffusion image being passed on to a half-trained robot arm, sure: extra limbs, even more of a David Cronenberg vibe than Picasso at his weirdest, mixing with mis-attributed ideas from other images that I've associated with the same labels…

kranke155 3y ago
If you use DALLE3 the results are astonishing. No more issues with hands and legs. Give it a go.

theonlybutlet 3y ago

So do you put a sign outside your gallery, "No Savants"?

Turing_Machine 3y ago

> Can you make me a copy? If I am a decent human artist who's looked at many Picasso works and spent time studying how to reproduce his style? Of course I can. Artists copy each other's styles all the time, dude. You can literally go to Deviant Art (or wherever), scroll through, and point out examples of style copying, often much more glaring that anything I've seen out of a diffusion model.