3 ms·

Heres a Stable Diffusion buisness idea: sign up all the celebrities and artists who are cool with AI, and provide end users / fans with an AI image generation i

Heres a Stable Diffusion buisness idea: sign up all the celebrities and artists who are cool with AI, and provide end users / fans with an AI image generation interface, trained on their exclusive likenesses / artwork (loras). You know, the old tried and true licensed merchandise model. Everybody gets paid.

ben_w 3y ago
Why would those celebs pay Stability any significant money for this, given they can get it for a one off payment of at most a few hundred dollars salary/opportunity cost by paying an intern to gather the images and feed it into the existing free tools for training a LoRA?
- brandall10 3y ago
  I think in this case the celebs are getting paid for using their likeness.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    That sounds like the "lose money on every sale" philosophy of the first dot-com bubble, only without even the "but make it up in volume" second half.
sigmoid10 3y ago
You can already do that with reference images and even for inpainting. No training required. Also no need to pay actors outrageous sums to use their likeness in perpetuity as long as you do business. The licensing still tricky anyways, because even if the face is approved and certified, the entire body and surroundings would also have to be. Otherwise you basically re-invented the celebrity deepfake porn movement. I don't see any A-lister signing up for that.
numpad0 3y ago
I think the following isn't said often enough: there must be a reason why there are extremely few celebrities and artists who are cool with AI, and it cannot be something abstract and bureaucratic as copyright concerns although those are problematic. It's just not there yet. GenAI outputs aren't something audiences wants to hang on a wall. It's something that evoke sense of distress. Otherwise everyone's tracing them at least.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Most people mix up all the different kinds of intellectual property basically all the time[0], so while people say it's about copyright, I (currently) think it's more likely to be a mixture of "moral rights" (the right to be named as the creator of a work) and trademarks (registered or otherwise), and in the case of celebrities, "personality rights": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights > It's just not there yet. GenAI outputs aren't something audiences wants to hang on a wall. People have a wide range of standards. Last summer I attended the We Are Developers event in Berlin, and there were huge posters that I could easily tell were from AI due to the eyes not matching; more recently, I've used (a better version) to convert a photo of a friend's dog into a renaissance oil painting, and it was beyond my skill to find the flaws with it… yet my friend noticed instantly. Also, even with "real art", Der Kuss (by Klimt) is widely regarded as being good art, beautiful, romantic, etc. — yet to me, the man looks like he has a broken neck, while the woman looks like she's been decapitated at the shoulder then had her head rotated 90° and reattached via her ear. [0] This is also why people look at a Google street view image with a ©2017 Google[1] tiled over on a blue sky and say "LOL, Google's trying to own the sky", or why people even on this very forum ask how some new company can trademark a descriptive term like "GPT"[2], seemingly surprised by this being possible even though there's already a very convenient example of e.g. Hasbro already having "Transformers". [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7319434,10.8655264,3a,77.2y,321.62h,120.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9B993r6Wu66BpAKhsLnsFA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D9B993r6Wu66BpAKhsLnsFA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D36.736748%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7319434,10.8655264,3a,77.2y,... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35692476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35692476
  - numpad0 3y ago
    > Der Kuss (by Klimt) is widely regarded as being good art, The point is, generative AI images are not widely regarded as good art. They're often seen as passable for some filler use cases and hard to tell apart from human generations, but not "good". It's not not-there-yet because AI sometimes generates sixth fingers, it's something another level from Gustav Klimt, Damien Hirst, Kusama Yayoi, or the likes[0]. It could be that genAI is leaving something that human artist would filter out, or because images are too disorganized that they appear to us to be encoding malice or other negative emotions, or maybe I'm just wrong and it's all about anatomy. But whatever the reason is, IMO, it's way too rarely considered good, gaining too few supportive celebrities and artists and audiences, to work. 0: I admit I'm not well versed with contemporary art, or art in general for that matter
vasco 3y ago
> sign up all the celebrities and artists who are cool with AI "Cool with AI" and "sell my likeness so nobody ever needs to hire me again" are too close for comfort on this one.
- Loughla 3y ago
  And also, here's a way to just make so much pornography of me. I'm betting the list of folks who would sign the AI license are pretty small, and mostly irrelevant.

ben_w 3y ago

Why would those celebs pay Stability any significant money for this, given they can get it for a one off payment of at most a few hundred dollars salary/opportunity cost by paying an intern to gather the images and feed it into the existing free tools for training a LoRA?

brandall10 3y ago
I think in this case the celebs are getting paid for using their likeness.
- ben_w 3y ago
  That sounds like the "lose money on every sale" philosophy of the first dot-com bubble, only without even the "but make it up in volume" second half.

sigmoid10 3y ago

You can already do that with reference images and even for inpainting. No training required. Also no need to pay actors outrageous sums to use their likeness in perpetuity as long as you do business. The licensing still tricky anyways, because even if the face is approved and certified, the entire body and surroundings would also have to be. Otherwise you basically re-invented the celebrity deepfake porn movement. I don't see any A-lister signing up for that.

numpad0 3y ago

I think the following isn't said often enough: there must be a reason why there are extremely few celebrities and artists who are cool with AI, and it cannot be something abstract and bureaucratic as copyright concerns although those are problematic. It's just not there yet. GenAI outputs aren't something audiences wants to hang on a wall. It's something that evoke sense of distress. Otherwise everyone's tracing them at least.

ben_w 3y ago
Most people mix up all the different kinds of intellectual property basically all the time[0], so while people say it's about copyright, I (currently) think it's more likely to be a mixture of "moral rights" (the right to be named as the creator of a work) and trademarks (registered or otherwise), and in the case of celebrities, "personality rights": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights > It's just not there yet. GenAI outputs aren't something audiences wants to hang on a wall. People have a wide range of standards. Last summer I attended the We Are Developers event in Berlin, and there were huge posters that I could easily tell were from AI due to the eyes not matching; more recently, I've used (a better version) to convert a photo of a friend's dog into a renaissance oil painting, and it was beyond my skill to find the flaws with it… yet my friend noticed instantly. Also, even with "real art", Der Kuss (by Klimt) is widely regarded as being good art, beautiful, romantic, etc. — yet to me, the man looks like he has a broken neck, while the woman looks like she's been decapitated at the shoulder then had her head rotated 90° and reattached via her ear. [0] This is also why people look at a Google street view image with a ©2017 Google[1] tiled over on a blue sky and say "LOL, Google's trying to own the sky", or why people even on this very forum ask how some new company can trademark a descriptive term like "GPT"[2], seemingly surprised by this being possible even though there's already a very convenient example of e.g. Hasbro already having "Transformers". [1] https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7319434,10.8655264,3a,77.2y,321.62h,120.41t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9B993r6Wu66BpAKhsLnsFA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D9B993r6Wu66BpAKhsLnsFA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D36.736748%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7319434,10.8655264,3a,77.2y,... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35692476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35692476
- numpad0 3y ago
  > Der Kuss (by Klimt) is widely regarded as being good art, The point is, generative AI images are not widely regarded as good art. They're often seen as passable for some filler use cases and hard to tell apart from human generations, but not "good". It's not not-there-yet because AI sometimes generates sixth fingers, it's something another level from Gustav Klimt, Damien Hirst, Kusama Yayoi, or the likes[0]. It could be that genAI is leaving something that human artist would filter out, or because images are too disorganized that they appear to us to be encoding malice or other negative emotions, or maybe I'm just wrong and it's all about anatomy. But whatever the reason is, IMO, it's way too rarely considered good, gaining too few supportive celebrities and artists and audiences, to work. 0: I admit I'm not well versed with contemporary art, or art in general for that matter

vasco 3y ago

> sign up all the celebrities and artists who are cool with AI "Cool with AI" and "sell my likeness so nobody ever needs to hire me again" are too close for comfort on this one.

Loughla 3y ago
And also, here's a way to just make so much pornography of me. I'm betting the list of folks who would sign the AI license are pretty small, and mostly irrelevant.