3 ms·

You're saying it sees someone as if AI is walking around and this all happened by random chance. No. What happened was AI scientists deliberately built a giant

You're saying it sees someone as if AI is walking around and this all happened by random chance. No. What happened was AI scientists deliberately built a giant corpus of training data based off unlicensed imagery that was conveniently pre-tagged - Artstation and other sites of the same type. And it was trained to deliberately create images of the exact same type as it was ingesting. It wasn't "randomly learning about the world" and it certainly did not "stumble upon" these images. The fact that there was a large corpus of artistic imagery already tagged just revealed itself to be too appetizing for AI training, so a few companies did it in secret, without asking anyone for permission, then hoping to make enough money and VC funding that they would defeat any challenge in court. So yes, those people who made the original images should get paid.

theonlybutlet 3y ago
By that same logic, would the manufacturer of my monitor be liable for displaying the unlicensed image at my request? It's a tool. The end user, inputting variables into the model is generating that image.
shkkmo 3y ago
> You're saying it sees someone as if AI is walking around and this all happened by random chance. It's called a thought experiment. You are claiming that processing imagery that is publicly available for viewing consitutes an IP violation and I'm taking that to the logical conclusion. > based off unlicensed imagery The imagery on Artstation is licensed. Artstation has a license to display those images publicly. If Artstation did not have that license, they would be the infringing party. > so a few companies did it in secret I'm not sure what the basis for this assertion is it was not done in secret. Stable Diffusion was trained using https://laion.ai/blog/laion-5b/ https://laion.ai/blog/laion-5b/ This lawsuit isn't against the people who trained the model, but those who distribute it. Yhe Stable Diffusion model was not released by a for-profit company but was released as open source by a university research group which received funding from VC backed companies. The IP model you are pushing for is a huge expansion of the already problematic copyright system. It will curtain research and training of publicly available models. It is already easy as can be to copy images with a computer or digital camera. Stable Diffusion doesn't make it easier to reproduce these images and washing an image through a ML model won't protect you from that reproduction being an infringement. I think it makes far more sense to use our existing restrictions to regulate usage of the output than to make new restrictions on the types of processing that are allowed on publicly available content.

theonlybutlet 3y ago

By that same logic, would the manufacturer of my monitor be liable for displaying the unlicensed image at my request? It's a tool. The end user, inputting variables into the model is generating that image.

shkkmo 3y ago

> You're saying it sees someone as if AI is walking around and this all happened by random chance. It's called a thought experiment. You are claiming that processing imagery that is publicly available for viewing consitutes an IP violation and I'm taking that to the logical conclusion. > based off unlicensed imagery The imagery on Artstation is licensed. Artstation has a license to display those images publicly. If Artstation did not have that license, they would be the infringing party. > so a few companies did it in secret I'm not sure what the basis for this assertion is it was not done in secret. Stable Diffusion was trained using https://laion.ai/blog/laion-5b/ https://laion.ai/blog/laion-5b/ This lawsuit isn't against the people who trained the model, but those who distribute it. Yhe Stable Diffusion model was not released by a for-profit company but was released as open source by a university research group which received funding from VC backed companies. The IP model you are pushing for is a huge expansion of the already problematic copyright system. It will curtain research and training of publicly available models. It is already easy as can be to copy images with a computer or digital camera. Stable Diffusion doesn't make it easier to reproduce these images and washing an image through a ML model won't protect you from that reproduction being an infringement. I think it makes far more sense to use our existing restrictions to regulate usage of the output than to make new restrictions on the types of processing that are allowed on publicly available content.