/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6506726
I don't see anyone talking about this article on twitter so it must be debunked.

>the AI does master studies and learns to draw from life like a human would

Sounds like a common W and you drawcucks seething and malding, get with the times, the genie is out of the toothpaste tube

>>6506726
How do people learn?

>>6506745
They don't learn like a diffusion algorithm.

>>6506746
But how do they learn?

>>6506750
Anon, do you want to talk epistemology or do you wanna talk about how retarded techbros are?

>>6506751
I'm happy either way.

>>6506726
>has just been exposed by experts as literally just copying it's training data and regurgitating it.
You don't say

>>6506745
Not by tracing over Mickey Mouse.
>>6506744
AI doesn’t reason and doesn’t learn techniques, it de-noises, interpolates and shit. Those aren’t human.
Machine learning models might be built on a theoretical understanding of an aspect of the human mind but that doesn’t make it the same or equivalent in value.
A master study is like a kid building a Lego set following instructions, and drawing your own materials is the kid taking it apart and building something of their own creation.
And the hope is that eventually that kid grows up and starts building their own things out of something other than legos.
Also that’s the podcast EP where Musk tried to blow the whistle on AI lol, ironic.
>>6506750
You can look up the explanation if you’d like, but human consciousness is still not well understood. There are also different kinds of learning. You can discover how to draw just by drawing and develop your own ways of abstracting things.

>>6506726
>limited dataset results in regurgitation
yeah we already knew that
https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.06539
https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.07646

>>6506745
>>6506746

>>6506783
This. I wish everyone hates themselves as much as I do. I heckin' love science and I'm trans btw.

>>6506783
r/singularity tier post. Friendly reminder that futurism has essentially become a religion and the singularity is their rapture.

>>6506726
but we already knew this

>>6506783
fpbp
/thread
case closed

>>6506783
one requires skill and work the other is putting in some words and playing the lottery to see if it comes out right.

>asked ai to do thing and got thing
skill issue

>>6506783
>this is their legal defense
Artists had nothing to fear
Meanwhile Getty just opened up their second lawsuit in the US
Yall keep drawing wojaks tho!

>>6506843
>oh no
>anyway

>>6506798
Doesn't matter.

>aijeets already past denial and anger and at bargaining
lol
you know, if the greedy little rats making these had some self restraint and waited for the relatively innocuous art aspect to settle instead of rapidly releasing shit that explicitly targets people’s likeness to make porn or le hate speech while directly threatening individuals’ livelihood and image, you might have stood a chance

>>6506856
Wait? Megacorps are investing literally 10s of billions $$ in this shit, ain't no time to wait

>>6506744
>pretending like your gay machine is "learning"
lolmao

>>6506862
Notice how those megacorps are very careful with what they introduce into the public consciousness. Pajeets unironically set back AI by a decade, not technologically, but through regulations they are forcing through culture shock.

>>6506877
It doesn't matter, money speaks.

>>6506882
lol retard
the money is on the other side
lean manufacturing ain’t shit to IP

>>6506887
you serious?

>>6506726
>>>/g/

>>6506890
look at the lawsuits, retard
the corps are pushing for regulation because retarded monkeys crossed the line and did exactly what they were spending billions to prevent, endangering their source of income

>>6506849
You alright bro?

>>6506902
buddy the IT industry is probably 20 times bigger than the entertainment industry, this can only go one way.

>>6506907
again, look at the suits, you illiterate monkey lmao

>>6506908
Look up what "money talks" means, retard.

>>6506909
see you in 2040, rajesh

>>6506903
Step two is to completely ban data collection unless done with explicit consent for the purpose of academic studies.

>>6506916
>oi guv you got a loicense for that data?

Copypasta, trite insults and bad art will not defeat A.I.
Keep trying though.

>>6506928
Perhaps you should go back to school instead of thinking that you're an expert at tech for learning webdev mr.techbro.

>>6506916
cant someone think of the poor multibillion dollar social media sites?! What will they do now??

>>6506916
>Step two is to completely ban data collection
Holy fuck if that were possible. Forget about just artists, that would be a net positive for all of humanity.

>>6506916
good luck with that

>>6506919
well do ya, ya fookn bastid?

>>6506849
AIfags gotta make everything worse lol.

>>6506843
Holy shit! Two lawsuits!

>>6506948
3*

>>6506726
cope

>>6506783
Post the real one fag, also IA ain't mixing it's concept of a dog and it's concept of a girl, just copying a other people's dog girls

>>6506762
Just use A.I. to detect overfitting and retrain. Maybe even filter on low text token count. No big deal.

>>6506947
>worse
kek

>>6506762
They trained the model to support what they wanted to find:
"Our attack extracts images from Stable Diffusion most often when they have been duplicated at least k = 100 times; although this should be taken as an upper bound because our methodology explicitly searches for memorization of duplicated images.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of our attack, we select the 350,000 most-duplicated examples from the training dataset and generate 500 candidate images for each of these prompts (totaling 175 million generated images). We first sort all of these generated images by ordering them by the mean distance between images in the clique to identify generations that we predict are likely to be memorized training data."

>>6506916
>completely ban data collection unless done with explicit consent for the purpose of academic studies.
That will never happen in our lifetime.

Andy what if your daughter sees this?

>>6506991
I'm hoping it does, but I'm also fully prepared for the (likely possibility) that it won't happen any time soon (if ever).
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, I guess.

>>6506916
If that happens im packing my bags, moving to bongland, restoring my foreskin and saying ten God Save The Queens each night before bed

>>6506983
That’s how science works anon. You find evidence in the base case and expand from there. The fact this isn’t just a possible, but common issue with how the AI functions and is easy to replicate shows that this is actually how the AI works and the additional noise just masks the base problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v5sVfdr35w

AI art still wont draw dead women covered in feces

>>6506798
your dad played the lottery busting one in your mother, did he win?

I asked the AI to draw McDonald's logo and... then.. then... IT DID. OH MY FUCKING GOD IT ACTUALLY FUCKING DID IT. HOW COULD THEY? HOW FUCKING COULD THEEEEEEEEY?

>>6506746
Sounds like a bug.

>>6507016
That's like that scene from Kung Pow where they trained the guy wrong on purpose, except they at least knew it was a joke lol

>>6506983
but raj, I thought ai couldn’t replicate anything in the dataset because it doesn’t store the images in the first place?

>>6506983
Lil bro really thought he was saying something by typing all this LOL

>>6507047
well strictly speaking that is true, but it can get pretty damn close.

>>6507019
yeah cause nobody that isn't sick in the head wants to see that.

>>6507062
>that isn't sick in the head wants to see that.

where do you think you are lol

>>6507053
no, strictly speaking, it isn’t
pic related is not an image distinct from >>6507051 just because it’s riddled with artifacts

>>6507044
Except no.
Its like saying multiplying by 1 is wrong because multiplication is supposed to make numbers bigger.

1 is the base case that is expanded upon for other numbers.

>>6507081
Just wait until he finds out that you can use stable diffusion for lossy image compression

>>6507081
I mean it is, strictly speaking.
>>6507082
Nah, more like teaching someone only how to multiple by one and then being surprised they think every multiplication results in the same number.

>>6507107
>I mean it is, strictly speaking.
nta but if you think thats going to be a good defense against copyright then lol

>>6507107
no, strictly speaking, it isn’t
what you are doing is speaking colloquially
strictly speaking, that is the same image

>>6507016
It's called "cherry picking" but you are right, that is how a lot of "science" works.

>>6507141
Its okay if you're too stupid to understand how iterative logic works.
But the simple fact you can replicate this means its no longer cherry picking and is just how the ai works.

>>6507152
p-value = 1.
It's not science.

>>6507138
No, it's the opposite of how you understand it.

>>6507203
last reply, retard

>>6506726
they conducted an experiment where they took an image out of a training set and used inpainting to see if it could re-create it, it turned the cat into a truck i'm having a laugh ahahahhahhahah holy shit

>>6507212
fucking lel

>>6507068
Well someone has to remind people here when they fucked in the head.

>>6507068
I have higher standards.

>>6506726
They took the the top most duplicated photos in the dataset. And still despite generating 175 million images, only 109 "near copies" of training set pictures were able to be recreated, with what they call an attack. Extremely clickbaity abstract. This is exactly why stability deduped the dataset in their 2.0 version so this doesn't happen. Besides, being able to create infringing content does not mean the whole tool and process is infringing. Courts will decide whether using public images constitutes as fair use. I believe it is.

>>6507381
the issue wasn’t the ability to create infringing material, it was whether infringing material was contained within the dataset, and that material being replicated as output proves it is, the probability’s irrelevant because it’s not the output that was attacked in the first place, but the dataset itself
>Courts will decide whether using public images constitutes as fair use. I believe it is.
well, you’re retarded, because it isn’t, you are once again misconstruing the entire issue, refer to the above,

>>6507395
>the issue wasn’t the ability to create infringing material, it was whether infringing material was contained within the dataset
The model and the dataset is open source. Everyone knows what stable diffusion was traded on. This isn't a big revaluation.
The issue is whether training on these images was legal. Simple as. Pencil niggers really are dumb

>>6507402
>goalposts
AIfags have been claiming it does not contain those images only “metadata” essentially. Which is demonstrably false.

>>6507402
that is what I said, retard
the study showed using the words “trained on” is nothing but sophistry, because the ai will reproduce the same image, showing it is not some vague process under which the original image is not contained in the dataset, but rather explicitly using copyrighted work in the production of the output, which itself is explicitly not free use
again, you fail to comprehend the crux of the matter

>>6507408
If it were just an image search engine it would be useless. Call it what you will

>>6507417
are you actually illiterate

Get the brain implant. You can still pretend to control your hands and have soul.

>>6507408
>because the ai will reproduce the same image
It's not producing the same image though. That's like saying if I asked someone to paint a copy of the Mona Lisa by looking at it then it's the same image. It's not.

>>6507482
lol retard

>>6507482
People have literally been charged with fraud for painting copies of other paintings anon.

>>6507482
>a copy of a picture isn’t the same picture

>>6507482
>copyright
>copy right
>the right to copy

You guys realize that by acting this entitled and reactionary you don't get any people to sympathize with you, especially not the people developing this. Programs like stable diffusion have gotten incredibly memory efficient. Soon you will probably be able to scrape and train everything at home in your basement. There's no sense in trying to ban this. Just get with the time and learn to work with it. The industry still needs artists.

>>6507492
It's not an exact copy.

>>6507489
>>6507495
Well I guess every artist on Earth has committed fraud then, including the AI.

>>6507500
AI will win regardless, public domain insures that. All their struggling is pointless.

>>6507504
what drives you retards to offer your opinion on things you have literally no grasp on?

I for one, am embracing this technology

>>6507508
What's your point? I have Stable Diffusion on my computer, it's never going away, is the government going to kick down my door and stop me from clicking?

>>6507511
You're never gonna be able to use it for commercial purposes unless your training data has been vetted and only includes stuff in the public domain, stuff you have permission to use or stuff you have made yourself. This is a massive copyright bomb waiting to happen and no company is gonna use the tech seriously for commercial work.

>>6507511
No, it’s going to stop companies from distributing datasets without compensating the artists, crippling their ability to procure the immense data needed to have a functional image generator, and other companies from using it for the same reasons and copyright issues of the resulting IP. Nobody gives a shit if some retard in a basement clicks his consoomer bot any more than they care if he draws nintendo porn. You are irrelevant, and this was never about you.

>>6507513
They're not going to use it untill the creative commons/ licensed dataset is good enough. Either way you're fucked amigo.

>>6507515
They can’t copyright the output regardless, amigo.

>>6507513
>>6507514
Sorry, the cat is out of the bag. People are already using it to generate content that can be edited and adjusted to the point you won't know where it came from. Some artist can try suing as usual but what's done is done, even Netflix Japan is already including it into their productions, not to mention copyright law is different in different countries, the US may lock it down but people all over the world will be still using it.

>>6507519
the poo is out of the loo

>>6507519

>>6507519
>copyright law is different in different countries
do you not know what WIPO is
>>6507523
this guy gets it

>>6506958
Yes worse, pajeet