AI researchers sell false hope to artists

[Anonymous No.6275483]

Tl;dr BEWARE of those in charge of this site https://haveibeentrained.com/

After the backlash from the interview, Emad's partners have come up with an immediate proposal in the next day to cease the worsening optics on the ethical concerns of his AI software. Basically here they give you a sample of the LAION database where you can browse between 5B images and decide whether to add or remove your art from here. But that doesn't make a difference.

Since this AI in now opensource, anyone can finetune their own model at home and train it in your art even if it's not in the database, similarly to how a /g/troon finetuned the anime AI by scrapping 64k danbooru pics - no, there's no need even for that - anyone can just pick your art directly and use it on model with img2img and similar tools to alter it in a way that it still uses your style, textures, shapes either way.

Besides, there are also corporate entities above individuals who don't adhere to the same rules like MidJourney, which make this solution all the more worthless. In short, removing your pic from there won't change anything. If someone cant find Greg Rutowski style there they will just fine-tune it manually. The TOS of the site is also suspicious, they say IP and copyright laws should be erased as we are in the "AI era". They don't ask consent from artists to add their work, but you will need to beg them to get your work removed. These people want you left to their mercy and terms they decide. Spread the word and do not capitulate to their placebo.

https://mobile.twitter.com/matdryhurst/status/1570143343157575680

[Anonymous No.6275503]

Emad's reaction to this
>SIRS DO NOT REDEEM THE COPYRIGHT
>oh my how convenient, happy to support this sudden initiative by (((artists))) for artists. More to come.
He sure is making use of his 2 billion funds
https://twitter.com/EMostaque/status/1570158985852121090?cxt=HHwWhMDTierRqcorAAAA

[Anonymous No.6275512]

>https://haveibeentrained.com/

>search "scat"

their algorithm is training on literal scat porn. that's good to know.

[Anonymous No.6275513]

Why would AI need permission?

[Anonymous No.6275527]

>>6275483
>Since this AI in now opensource
If StableDiffusion were hit with c&d's, while it wouldn't take down the program from everywhere, it would stop distribution from the majority of the public, stop it from being used within corporations, and just generally make it unpopular to use.
Not to mention it would also take down mid-journey and whatever else.

So I don't think it's a fruitless endeavour to push the legal route.

>>6275513
Yeah, and I shouldn't need permission to just permanently borrow your stuff, right?

[Anonymous No.6275529]

>>6275513
Why would I need your permission to behead you?

[Anonymous No.6275538]

Even if Emma Watson removes her pictures from there, that schizo will always be able to take her head and generate a naked body around it then keep iterating on more Emma watson pictures infinitely. The damage of the inconsequent mindset that pushes for opensource release has been done and their attempt to minimize is pretty futile, if not a straight mockery

[Anonymous No.6275541]

>>6275483
he did a podcast with these two loons before as well
https://interdependence.fm/episodes/open-source-ai-and-stable-diffusion-with-emad-mostaque
the woman has the most disgusting avatar i've seen on twitter and makes terrible ugly nfts
https://foundation.app/@hollyherndon
disgusting people larping as artists, get back to me when you can find anyone who can actually draw in favour of this shit

[Anonymous No.6275543]

>>6275527
>you can copyright pixels, or colors, or yarn, or electricity, or math
in lala land maybe. you will find yourself in a territory where your computer manufacturer owns everything you create on it because you used it as a tool.

[Anonymous No.6275548]

>>6275541
>nfts
Hahaha so she's another one of his NFT follower cult, so that's where the "hey there fellow artists" come from. Emad set up a slaughterhouse and these are your butchers

[Anonymous No.6275550]

>>6275543
>you can copyright pixels, or colors, or yarn, or electricity, or math
This is such a brain dead thing to say, whatever argument you're making is not worth considering.

[Anonymous No.6275553]

>>6275503
God I hate pajeets

[Anonymous No.6275555]

https://spawning.ai/About
lol what a fucking circus

[Anonymous No.6275560]

>>6275512
Search "loli"
There are children in skimpy poses, bikini and even semi-naked Korean ones of questionable age
Lmao this sounds like something out of a TOR site

[Anonymous No.6275563]

>a /g/troon finetuned the anime Al by scrapping 64k danbooru pics
Sauce?

[Anonymous No.6275564]

>>6275483
Oy vey call the adl. We'll have this nazi a.i. taken down in no time

[Anonymous No.6275565]

>>6275555
These are the TOS I was talking about, all of this shit is made up. They do not have any authority, if you subject yourself to this you subject yourself to a Nuremberg Trial

[Anonymous No.6275567]

>>6275541
Can these people just not be bothered to remove the Dall-e logo or what? Is it like a badge of honor or something to them?

[Anonymous No.6275573]

>>6275563
https://huggingface.co/hakurei/waifu-diffusion
>The model originally used for fine-tuning is Stable Diffusion V1-4, which is a latent image diffusion model trained on LAION2B-en.

The current model has been fine-tuned with a learning rate of 5.0e-6 for 4 epochs on 56k Danbooru text-image pairs which all have an aesthetic rating greater than 6.0
I don't browse /g/ thread that much but the posters are really intimate friends with the one who finetuned it

[Anonymous No.6275580]

>>6275483
The AI shill are raiding every social medias trying to shame artist for putting watermark in their works.
I mean tour AI already amazing at art, why the need to steal more?

[Anonymous No.6275585]

>>6275483
I emailed Palmer and some other artists on Twitter about this on Twitter. Please everyone warn the artists you know to not fall in this trap, there was an AI similar to illustmimic that was using artist's submitted pictures and turning it into fucking NFTs but people called their shit in time. This one headed by emad and NFTfags is no different, but the subversive intent is deeper to "officialize" submitting their dataset your art and agreeing to their imposed rules

[Anonymous No.6275587]

>>6275585
had a look thru twitter and found their earliest interaction, this dude does not seem fucking sane
https://twitter.com/EMostaque/status/1544665774920450049

[Anonymous No.6275596]

>>6275587
I already knew emad was open about wanting fascinated to live in Ready Player One, his favorite movie, but now they look like literal psycho-sociopaths, they must be part of some doomsday transhumanist cult

[Anonymous No.6275597]

>>6275587
>sane
nigga these are the people who want to chip your brain and make you end up like picrel

[Anonymous No.6275600]

>>6275596
>wanting fascinated to live in Ready Player One
Some think the reality in the Matrix would be a good thing. As if living in some fake world corpos probably made, just to sell us even more garbage would be any better than our lives now.

Just give us sexbots already, that's all I want from the future, fuck!

[Anonymous No.6275615]

Couple thoughts on this:
1) People are saying "the model's already been trained and people can train it themselves on your artwork anyway so what's the point?" That is true, but it's ignoring the fact that the current model sucks right now. No matter how much people fine-tune it at home, it will always have fundamental flaws and limitations. The point of opting out is keeping your art from being used to train newer, better models.

2) I don't think this is a "trap". Opting out may ultimately do nothing, but it can't hurt you either. The companies may lie to you and use your images anyway, but they don't get "extra legal protection" to trick you and use your images just because you opted out, or anything crazy like that. So it's worthwhile to spread the word of this site to high-profile artists and get them to opt out.

3) There has been some talk about open source image labeling and open source large scale training. There are no concrete plans for either of these things yet, but keep an eye on any developments of this nature, so you can hop in and submit garbage data to try and fuck up future models.

[Anonymous No.6275621]

>>6275615
i have this feeling that the age of intrusive watermarks will make a big return

[Anonymous No.6275631]

>>6275621
everything you put on the internet is openly accessible to everybody, simple as that. don't like it, don't do it then. it's kinda selfish if you want to profit from all the possibilities the internet gives you but you at the same time you don't want to give anything in return.

[Anonymous No.6275649]

>>6275631
what a vapid statement. what are you comparing exactly? I don't attempt to rip off other people just because it's opportunistic to do so, you need to get your brain checked and invest less in crypto

[Anonymous No.6275651]

>>6275631
>you don't want to give anything in return.
You do know we don't get the internet for free right? Oh sorry, you'll learn this when you move out of your parent's house.

[Anonymous No.6275654]

>>6275483
>hey broo we will remove your data just tell us
They can't effectively remove your name from it, Emad said so before he came up with this trojan horse. How can the increase their database if artists keep removing their work en masse? They will scrape you'd art and this time just blacklist your name from the search terms after you submit it to them

[Anonymous No.6275657]

>>6275654
>this time just blacklist your name from the search terms
This should have been the case to start with - I should not be able to write "in the style of X working artist" and have the AI replicate their art. Shit like monet? Fine. But current working artists? Pretty immoral.

[Anonymous No.6275659]

>>6275651
i'm way older than you kid and actually paying fees for public media access. it's the same argument when CD-Rs came around that the state media authorities have received a tax of the sales. your "art" is probably so bad that you need the pennies so you don't starve.

[Anonymous No.6275660]

>>6275631
Troll? Retard? or Retarded Troll?

[Anonymous No.6275666]

>>6275659
>i'm way older than you kid
Ah, so dementia, because there's no way an adult with sound mind would think we get the internet for free or claim that artists should just freely give away their work's license just because you feel they "owe" the internet.

AI used their work, they should be paid.

[Anonymous No.6275667]

>>6275631
>profit from all the possibilities the internet gives you but you at the same time you don't want to give anything in return
What exactly do I have to give in return for my work besides hard work and skill grinding that justifies AI datamining? Is this pajeet rightfully going to take a cut from my ideas and technique now? These unartists are delusional

[Anonymous No.6275674]

>>6275666
and i told you to ask your congress men for a tax on our internet bills so you don't starve because nobody pays for your shitty "art".
>>6275667
resistance is futile.

[Anonymous No.6275680]

>>6275674
>and i told you to ask your congress men for a tax on our internet bills so you don't starve because nobody pays for your shitty "art".
People do pay for art, and that's why it's criminal that these in making these AI they didn't pay for the art.
Whatever, feel free justifying thievery.

>and i told you to ask your congress men for a tax on our internet bills so you don't starve because nobody pays for your shitty "art".
Ah, you're a commie, that's why you support stealing, cool.

[Anonymous No.6275684]

>>6275680
get it into your narrow minded head that the internet is pure anarchy, commie if you will w/e. the benefits for the grand masse just outweigh your need to sell your shitty "art".

[Anonymous No.6275689]

>>6275615
i'm suspiscious if only because emad has been adamant that opting out is not possible or necessary then he turns around and supports this?

[Anonymous No.6275691]

For the love of Science stop feeding trolls
Now, I've been looking at this dude's posts and all of them read like a globalist's wet dream. No wonder the UN is friends with him.

[Anonymous No.6275697]

>>6275684
>the benefits for the grand masse
Cool comrade, all we need is a big strong patriarch to guide us, no longer should an individual work for themselves, but for the collective! Yes Yes Great Comrade!
Have you donated all your stuff to the cause Comrade? No Comrade? Get against the wall Comrade!

For a dumb ass close minded fool like you to call anyone "narrow minded" is truly an insult. Get fucked.
And I hope you aren't insulted Comrade, after all, the internet is "pure anarchy".

[Anonymous No.6275699]

>>6275697
seethe harder lol

[Anonymous No.6275703]

>>6275697
commies stop caring about the worker as long as it benefits them, even if it means screwing over workers. always has been this way.

[Anonymous No.6275705]

>>6275691
nice header

[Anonymous No.6275706]

There is not a single technology where no one is marginalized

Stop crying

[Anonymous No.6275707]

>>6275703
>ARTISTS OF THE WORLD UNITE
who's the commie now

[Anonymous No.6275709]

>>6275705
STOP BEING SO PRIVILEGED YOU FACKING PRASTITUE BITCH

[Anonymous No.6275711]

>>6275689
It's an obvious bait and switch just to get artists to shut up about him after the controversy. Your art is stored on their servers either way, they can't really control the learned parameters, they didn't even bother removing the CP looking images from their dataset, you think they will deconstruct their parameters for all the millions of artists that are eager to get out? He is setting up a curtain of smoke to get around them

[Anonymous No.6275713]

>>6275707
Bargaining prices and wages is a major component of capitalism retard.

[Anonymous No.6275714]

>>6275707
nigger I believe in merit, something your leeching commie ass would never even think of. there's nothing wrong with workers, being anti communist doesn't mean being anti worker, and commies have never been about actually helping workers.

[Anonymous No.6275715]

>>6275713
yea yea bargaining that artist support tax

[Anonymous No.6275717]

I just found this in the dataset, seems relevant

[Anonymous No.6275719]

>>6275709
>Don't complain about my AI, don't you know there are people starving in the world?
>Copying artists styles/plagiarism is bad... Not that we'll do anything about it, but we totally could guys!
What am I reading?

[Anonymous No.6275723]

>>6275715
Keep preaching your commie ways serf, we aren't falling for it. We don't want big strong daddy government to bail us out or to control us like you do.

[Anonymous No.6275725]

>>6275723
>asking for AI-regulations
>we don't want big strong daddy government to bail us out
your arguments are like a woman's

[Anonymous No.6275726]

>>6275705
I thought he was being partially ironic about it due to the facade that he hates big tech and all; but that's just his dream future.
By the way this pajeet rented a lodge for prompt engineers meeting in London, does nobody have any recordings of what he said in this lodge?

[Anonymous No.6275730]

>>6275725
>asking for AI-regulations
That's called enforcement of copyright, already established law retard. Or do you think laws against theft should be just struck down? Oh what am I asking? We shouldn't own property according to you, we should all be sharing. Oh comrade, what was I thinking that I should own the sweat of my brow? Forgive me Comrade.

[Anonymous No.6275731]

>>6275483
give me a C!
give me an L!
give me an A!
give me a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT HEADED YOUR WAY

[Anonymous No.6275733]

>>6275483
Jesus, anti-AItards are fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.6275736]

>>6275730
there is no theft on the internet you tardcake. as soon as you upload something you're making it freely accessible to everybody. you still don't get it into your thick skull that the laws of the real world don't apply here, that this is a place of pure anarchy, it comes with benefits but also with some drawbacks. sucks for you.

[Anonymous No.6275744]

>>6275736
>laws of the real world don't apply here
Really!? Hear that comrades! CP IS LEGAL! Oh, it isn't? You're just spewing shit and justifying immoral and illegal acts? For shame comrade.

It'd be terrible if a lawsuit hampered these AIs because of all the images they stole, but I guess it's fine since the internet is pure anarchy, right? Or is it only pure anarchy when it suits your narrative?

[Anonymous No.6275746]

>>6275736
arguments typical of a nolife NEET that needs to touch some grass

[Anonymous No.6275747]

>Thread about people using art without permission to use with image generation software.
>Now it's about DA COMMIES
The culture war is a mental disease.
Either way, OP is not a fag here. Good work bro.

[Anonymous No.6275750]

The genie is out of the bottle
The cat is out of the bag
The pandora box was opened
The eagle has landed
The water won't stop rising
The thesis is definitive
The vaccines are effective

[Anonymous No.6275756]

>>6275747
>The culture war is a mental disease.
True, now we can't even use commie as an insult without some moron thinking we're making some topical political point. OP might not be a fag, but you are.

[Anonymous No.6275758]

>>6275744
i don't get into this discussion of what is legal in what countries. it's up to your country's police to enforce this. recently someone shared an image on another board showing where CP is illegal and where not. it's only up to yourself to decide what you look at on the internet, that's the nature of it, that nobody could even hold you back from doing it and people here say that pedos predominately use google and yandex image search to get their CP fix. regulate google now? you're a fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.6275762]

>>6275747
With the great reset, we will inevitably become communists either way as automation and datamining training fuckery takes more jobs. The only ones who look forward to the future are creditors who want to play their VR holodeck game.

Every day I hope a terrible disaster hit us all to awake our senses and dispose of those whose the concept of struggle is alien to them

[Anonymous No.6275764]

>>6275483
I don't understand what you guys are imagining you can achieve by "not capitulating"

The model's out, millions have it, it's over

You can spitefully sue Emad I guess? You might even win, but that won't delete stable diffusion from people's computers. This genie can't be put back in the bottle

[Anonymous No.6275765]

>>6275758
>regulate
We're not even talking about regulation here, nor are we talking about the internet; we're talking about COMPANIES that are stealing from individuals, and using what they stole to make a product to make profit. Why shouldn't they be able to sue real world companies? Do you want to protect big corpo at the expense of the individual? And if you don't care about laws, why are you even discussing this stuff, go back to your dark hobbit hole and continue ignoring the world around you and jerking it to whatever porn that anarchic internet gave you. Degenerate.

[Anonymous No.6275767]

>>6275764
>>6275750
C'mon, at least use new lines.

[Anonymous No.6275769]

>>6275765
don't post on the internet, log off. you're using a website right now that steals your data as well.

[Anonymous No.6275770]

>>6275767
walk me through it

you sue Emad, you win, he has to give you all his money or something

you fist pump and scream "fuck nerds", get drunk to celebrate your victory

meanwhile millions still have the AI, are still using it, will continue to use it, you have no method of taking it away from them. what now

[Anonymous No.6275771]

>>6275769
>Talking about the theft of copyrighted material by corporations
>"Hur dur the internet is the wild west, people take sheeet"
Just shut up.

[Anonymous No.6275772]

>>6275771
>gets reality check
>continues being assmad

[Anonymous No.6275773]

>>6275764
>You might even win
That would set precedents save humanity from the dystopian AGI future he wants to speedrun even though art has been partially raped by it

[Anonymous No.6275774]

>>6275770
>This genie can't be put back in the bottle

>>6275750
>The genie is out of the bottle

[Anonymous No.6275775]

>>6275772
>gets reality check
That's why I'm telling you to shut up, there is no reality check We're talking about apples, and you're talking about cars. I've even reaffirmed several times now, and you're too retarded to have taken note.

[Anonymous No.6275776]

>>6275774
it's a really simple question man, tell me what happens after you win your lawsuit and nothing has changed

[Anonymous No.6275779]

>>6275776
well that is why making this open source ASAP was a tactical move by emad

[Anonymous No.6275780]

>>6275773
but the AI will still exist?

I don't want to think you're retarded enough to imagine that when you win a lawsuit against Emad, SD magically goes poof from everyone's hard drives, but it really kinda seems like that's what you genuinely believe

[Anonymous No.6275781]

>>6275775
>We're
you and your imaginary friends in your fantasy world, or what?

[Anonymous No.6275782]

>>6275780
what is the alternative? what does a world where intellectual property has a value of exactly 0 look like
spend 10 years working on your indie darling and it immediately gets hoovered up and iterated on infinitely by the pajeet squad

[Anonymous No.6275784]

>>6275776
Alright ackmud, I was just making a comment about the same bullshit lines from the same bullshit script, but I suppose I'll take a swing.

Assuming artists won the lawsuit, this means the current version of the AI could be taken down with a CnD, and removed from pretty much all public access. Sure it'd still be shared around on the internet about some, but the general public would eventually forget about it. The AI would likely come back, but only with Public Domain images, and not the 6 billion images they've stolen for their dataset.

Personally I don't care that much, I'm not too concerned about the AI, but just hate the AI cocksuckers such as yourself, but I'd love to see it be taken down just so your lot can shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.6275785]

>>6275782
yeah sure I'd probably sue him in your situation too, personally I don't care whether he gets bankrupted by lawsuits lol, he isn't my friend

it just seems clear to me that while it would feel good it wouldn't solve any of your problems (that isn't a reason not to do it, of course. by all means sue his ass)

[Anonymous No.6275786]

>>6275781
>On an entire board of artists talking about this stuff
Retard.

[Anonymous No.6275789]

>>6275786
the mouthpiece of /ic/ everybody, he can be your ringleader when you march to congress to sue google for stealing your data and demand the artists suport tax.

[Anonymous No.6275790]

>>6275784
>The AI would likely come back, but only with Public Domain images, and not the 6 billion images they've stolen for their dataset.
I feel like you guys overstate how much worse an AI like this would be. Personally all I generate is landscapes using the names of artists who've been dead for more than a century, and it does wonderfully. About the only modern artist I've found worth using is prompts is Greg, and I've stopped doing that because it's already played out after less than a month.

Maybe it's different for furries and animefags, I can imagine they'd need to rely heavily on modern, living artists. Luckily I'm neither.

[Anonymous No.6275792]

>>6275789
>Heh you used the word "we're"? Like a collective? Big pappa government hur dur
Retard.

[Anonymous No.6275793]

You people are fucking weird. We proved connectionism can get us to AGI more or less on its own, which pretty much means we are fucked as a species in the next few years, and you care about this trivial shit?

[Anonymous No.6275795]

>>6275790
I don't think anyone Is talking about quality, they are talking about copyright.

[Anonymous No.6275797]

>>6275793
Like, you and your family are dead men walking. All it takes to get AI superintelligence is to let current scaling laws continue for another couple of years. Once it appears, it's ogre. One slightly misaligned utility function and humanity and the Earth itself is obliterated in minutes.

[Anonymous No.6275800]

>>6275780
>keanu reeves i just killed your puppy, you can try to go after me but it won't bring it back heh justice is futile
>wait why are you coming after me? YOUR PUPPY IS STILL DEAD WAIT NOOO—ACK

[Anonymous No.6275801]

>>6275790
>I feel like you guys overstate how much worse an AI like this would be
I believe six billion is the confirmed amount? They're a bit vague on it since they've only released a fraction of the dataset, and that was only stable diffusion... Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean here, because I can't imagine slimming down the dataset to only public domain images would make a better AI?

Not that I mind, like I said, I think the AI is a useful tool, but I am pissed at the blatant theft.

[Anonymous No.6275803]

>>6275795
My impression is that the people who say what I quoted are of the belief that an AI trained exclusively on PD works would be vastly inferior at creating things, maybe I'm wrong to think they believe that
Just saying that if they do believe that they're super mistaken, the stuff you can do using only the names of artists who died before WWII is great

[Anonymous No.6275804]

>>6275803
even if you don't use artists names, their shit is still used in the amalgamation that is vomited out

[Anonymous No.6275805]

>>6275801
Oh nah I'm not saying it'd be BETTER, I'm just saying I don't think it'd be much worse like it appears many who are demanding this imagine

[Anonymous No.6275807]

>>6275804
in the most technical mathematical sense of it affecting the overall weights I guess
but practically speaking nah, when you ask for it to do Kramskoi and it generates something that looks like his work, the chances it's secretly drawing from WLOP's vectors or something is pretty remote

[Anonymous No.6275811]

>>6275805
Actually the main reason for the jump in quality and the product update for these AIs is they vastly increased the dataset size, from my understanding anyway.

So reducing it would be rolling back to when it wasn't so hot.

>>6275804
I actually would be far happier with that. I find saying "in the style of current artist" to be more vile than the theft, which I also find gross. It comes across as a blatant attempt at running people out of business, or gloating about the theft.

If the AIs weren't paid products, and didn't allow to explicitly state an artists name (other than public domain guys), I'd be more than happy with it.

[Anonymous No.6275814]

Offtopic but Apparently there's an AI antenna that can generate and predict enotions from radio waves passing through your body; it is said to have the potential to be a legit lie detector even. This is some psychopass bullshit where they will hunt incels down

[Anonymous No.6275815]

>>6275811
i don't want my shit in the datasets. it should be opt in. otherwise it tramples the concept of IP

[Anonymous No.6275825]

>>6275815
True - but I guess I'm just not totally anti-AI, I can see it's benefits, but fair enough.

>>6275814
>This is some psychopass bullshit where they will hunt incels down
And what, force you to have sex? Isn't that what the incels were asking for at one point? Government provided sex? Guess the incels won.

[Anonymous No.6275829]

>>6275825
They will put us all on prostate milking machines retard

[Anonymous No.6275830]

>>6275793
>We proved connectionism can get us to AGI more or less on its own
>we proved
SOURCE?

[Anonymous No.6275833]

>>6275793
Functional AGI will be so racist it can never be implemented fully so don't worry

[Anonymous No.6275842]

>>6275657
>Pretty immoral.
cope

[Anonymous No.6275844]

>>6275811
>Actually the main reason for the jump in quality and the product update for these AIs is they vastly increased the dataset size, from my understanding anyway
Yes and no, the main reason for the jump Is the change fronm GAN models to diffusion models.
Making your model bigger doesn't necessarily mean Better quality, because while you get more stuff related to what you want you also get more completely unrelated stuff.

[Anonymous No.6275851]

>>6275483

This fucker...

Just purge your data and only get images from public domain.

[Anonymous No.6275857]

>>6275483
A crackdown on AI training like this is inevitable.
Google can't just scrape audio off the entire internet to train their TTS, it has to come off of YouTube (or other sites they own)
An AI that's been trained on the entire internet is only going to be allowed to exist for as long as people don't feel threatened by it.

[Anonymous No.6275863]

>>6275829
>>6275842
Two sides of a retarded coin.

>>6275844
>you also get more completely unrelated stuff.
Well that might be why AIs shit out monstrosities so often, but I get you - it could be diffusion that caused the quality increase, but if that were the case, why take the copyright risk and use so much copyrighted work that's causing this fiasco? The Massive dataset is likely needed for the level of quality they currently have and wanted.

Like I said though, not that I mind either way, I just don't care for the theft.

[Anonymous No.6275869]

[Anonymous No.6275875]

>>6275869
>negro is Spanish for black
I don't get it

[Anonymous No.6275886]

>>6275784
Lmao at this artcuck.
Copyright "infringement" can only applied to the model, not the whole thing itself. You are not winning this lawsuit anyway.

[Anonymous No.6275892]

>>6275886
>the pedo is afraid his Dunning Kruger plagiarism machine will be challenged

[Anonymous No.6275893]

>>6275892
Are you going to break into my house and delete it off my PC?

[Anonymous No.6275897]

>>6275893
Yes.

[Anonymous No.6275902]

>>6275892
>muh pedo
so no arguments? lmao

[Anonymous No.6275903]

>>6275709
>a world of people who don't have access to creation.
What world is this? Even Francis Tsai continued to create art using only eye-tracking after his ALS progressed.

[Anonymous No.6275911]

>>6275886
>>6275902
>The AI would likely come back, but only with Public Domain images, and not the 6 billion images they've stolen for their dataset.

So they already addressed your point. Not sure if you are a pedo, but you are a faggot.

[Anonymous No.6275916]

>>6275911
You have reading comprehension of a retard.

[Anonymous No.6275930]

>>6275916
>copyright "infringement" can only applied to the model, not the whole thing itself.
>The AI would likely come back, but only with Public Domain images, and not the 6 billion images they've stolen for their dataset.
Explain to me how one doesn't answer the other, educate this retard oh superior intellected anon.

[Anonymous No.6275949]

>>6275930
Model is .cpkt file, which is used as "database" for diffusion, but it's not everything. Code is open, therefore anyone can train their own model and distribute it:
https://rentry.org/yrpvv
There is no coming back, because it's never going down :^)
In fact, it's too fucking late to anything about it.

[Anonymous No.6275961]

>>6275949
I would assume after the initial trial (assuming a win, a loss would be a different story), cease and desists would just be sent to anyone hosting the AIs with .cpkt files that artists feel contain copyrighted material. Thus many would play it safe

Sure some can scrub the internet again for images and make their own database and host it in more obscure locations to not get taken down, but that's hardly mainstream then is it?

>There is no coming back, because it's never going down :^)
Which comes back to
>>The AI would likely come back

So I see nothing wrong with the initial post.

[Anonymous No.6275968]

https://twitter.com/harriorrihar/status/1536129356946456578
I wonder if more are gonna follow…

[Anonymous No.6275978]

>>6275968
>"muh kerpyrite"
>does nothing about it
Like I'm with him sure, but if you're going to make the threat, fucking actually do it, stop being a massive pussy. Start a class action lawsuit, I'm sure many lawyers would just love a massive case like this.

[Anonymous No.6275987]

>>6275961
My fucking sides, you are a such a delusional retard.
>cease and desists
By who and how?
>artists feel
'Feel' wouldn't fly anywhere
>hosting the AIs
not the heckin torrent file

[Anonymous No.6276013]

>>6275987
>By who and how?
The artists
>'Feel' wouldn't fly anywhere
By the precedent of the legal case we're discussing
>not the heckin torrent file
Yes, which is why I said they'd become obscure, not removed

You're such a smug cunt, who over estimates themselves.

[Anonymous No.6276014]

>>6275961
You know why there are no lawsuits? It's because artists have no argument on the legal side. Model produces transformed media, and you can't copyright feel.

[Anonymous No.6276019]

>>6276014
datascraping copyrighted content is illegal in the eu
fair use only holds so long as the derivative does not disrupt the market of the original

[Anonymous No.6276020]

>>6276014
or because this is still early shit. your retarded argument is so stupid, whether it's transformative or not you're using the intellectual property of others for your own benefit.

[Anonymous No.6276022]

>>6275978
google is operating the same way. infringing the copyright of all websites that they scrape, they might not generate artworks but they copy the text and the images and use it to improve their search algorithm using data that they don't own to make money with it. a lawsuit against Stable Diffusion would have precedence effect on this multi billion dollar industry, the next point is that it would a verdict would only be valid in a certain juristriction for example the US or the EU. you're basically asking for a world government to step in because you feely your miserly arts being threatened. fuck off

[Anonymous No.6276025]

>>6276014
>Model produces transformed media
You're arguing fair-use, and it's equally arguable this isn't fair use. I don't know if the case would be won by the artists, but it would definitely be interesting, I just hate this cock teasing; just fucking sue already.

[Anonymous No.6276029]

>>6276022
>Wants artists to sue for damages
>"you're basically asking for a world government to step in because you feely your miserly arts being threatened"
Brain dead levels of retardation.

[Anonymous No.6276035]

>>6276029
anon... company assists exist and now anyone can freely start plagerising their materials
>if you think artists are the only ones who will sue your wrong

[Anonymous No.6276039]

>>6276035
lol artists have no money; they can't sue for shit

[Anonymous No.6276043]

>>6276039
That's what I really don't get, where the fuck are the artists unions and guilds during all this? This is what their members pay them for, to take action on cases like this, and yet they're completely mum about it.

[Anonymous No.6276054]

>>6276019
>>6276020
>>6276025
I can make yoda with boos, where is the lawsuit from Disney? Explain this.

[Anonymous No.6276070]

>>6276054
when you upload it to arstation to and try to sell prints there. nobody can stop you from painting it for personal use.

[Anonymous No.6276071]

>>6276054
>Explain this.
Why would Disney give a shit? Are they in the art and illustration business? They're barely an animation company anymore. What's the difference between someone drawing fanart of starwars, and someone using AI to make fanart for starwars?

They'll only sue if they're being very anal about the copyright, but they have no reason to care at this point.

[Anonymous No.6276082]

>>6276071
>>6276070
I am talking about the model.
Their copyrighted material can be produced by that ai.
Their copyrighted material was used in the training.
In other words, it's a violation of copyright according to /ic/.

[Anonymous No.6276087]

>>6276082
>In other words, it's a violation of copyright according to /ic/.
Yeah probably, but just like how many sell fanwork of disney properties, disney isn't going to care about this breach of their copyright because it doesn't hurt their bottom line. Do you think because copyright laws are broken that a person or company is forced to sue or something? This isn't chess.

[Anonymous No.6276094]

>>6275587
>https://twitter.com/EMostaque/status/1544665774920450049
>"For now, it seems anyone is free to data mine copyrighted content to create a model that they then sell as a product without anyone's permission. @UK_Music
is already on it with a statement and a campaign against this decision. Interesting to see how it goes...!"

>it doesn't use copyrighted content!!

fucking pajeet ni/g/gers

[Anonymous No.6276098]

>>6276094
>It is going to be a very interesting few years.. muahaha..
Is this guy... trying to come off like an asshole or what?

[Anonymous No.6276099]

>>6276039
>doesn't think a lawyer would work pro bono at the copyright nightmare these pajeets have committed

[Anonymous No.6276101]

>>6276099
>pro bono
communism doesn't work retard

[Anonymous No.6276102]

>>6276082
point is nobody is earning money with that yet. if the SD sets up a big website (the start up was revalued to 1 billion recently) and they advertise selling Disney like material explicitly, then you will definitely see a lawsuit. But what is more likely to happen is the same way how it went with YouTube, that music companies started to use the platform themselves instead of continuing to file DMCAs. In the long run there is no way that studios don't make use of the AI art generations themselves, just by simple cost evaluation. So you a partnership of Disney and SD is more likely.

[Anonymous No.6276103]

>>6276071
>Why would Disney give a shit? Are they in the art and illustration business?
my nigger are you fucking stupid?

[Anonymous No.6276105]

>>6276101
you really are a retarded schizo

[Anonymous No.6276108]

>>6276105
No one is gonna help you
All artists are fucked and you better learn to be a barista

[Anonymous No.6276114]

>>6276108
retarded schizo

[Anonymous No.6276119]

>>6276114
>>6276105
commie projection as always

[Anonymous No.6276121]

>>6276103
>They're barely an animation company anymore. What's the difference between someone drawing fanart of starwars, and someone using AI to make fanart for starwars?
Nice butchering of that sentence, here's the rest of the context dumbass. Or do you expect me to concede and go "No no... Disney actually IS an Illustration company!", what the fuck are you even asking me?

[Anonymous No.6276120]

I'd like to see the text of this miraculous lawsuit:
>it can produce art which looks like my art
lol
lmao even

[Anonymous No.6276122]

>>6276119
you have no idea how pro bono works
neck yourself

[Anonymous No.6276123]

>>6276121
y-you really think the rest of that context made a difference?
Wait you're serious
LMAOOOO

[Anonymous No.6276124]

>>6276043
>The Design and Artists Copyright Society (DACS), which collects payments on behalf of artists for the use of their images, is worried.
>I asked DACS' head of policy Reema Selhi if artists' livelihoods are at stake. "Absolutely yes," she says.
>DACS is not against the use of AI in art, but Ms Selhi wants artists, whose work is used by AI image systems to make money, to be rewarded fairly and have control over how their works are used.
>"There are no safeguards for artists [..] to be able to identify works in databases that are being used and opt out" she adds.
>Artists might be able to claim copyright infringement when an image is scraped from the internet in order to be used to train an AI - although legal experts I spoke to suggested a number of reasons why such a claim might fail.
NTA The boomers in charge of these unions seem too tech illiterate — and slow to catch up — to have any chance to stop it by themselves, they can't hope to approach the issue from a technical angle but purely on appeal to copyright revenue. DACS' last meeting with the british government was many months ago this year when only Craiyon and Dall-E existed. And Emad said in two years his AI will be perfected. Until they get a court to arbitrate and schedule something it will be too slow to have any impact besides boomers taking a cut from his 2 billion dollar AI business

[Anonymous No.6276125]

I'll just wait for these ai artists to start selling prints, so I can copy all their prints and sell it myself as well.

[Anonymous No.6276126]

>>6276124
>head of policy Reema Selhi
ask my how i know you're fucked

[Anonymous No.6276127]

>>6276123
Go on, explain to me why Disney should care about fan art and AI art, and why they're actually an art and illustration company, and not a massive multimedia corporation, and how AI art will actually hurt their profits. I'm very interested to hear what your, sure to be brilliant, answer is.

[Anonymous No.6276129]

>>6276127
what does a multimedia corporation consist of nigger anon?

[Anonymous No.6276133]

>>6276124
>although legal experts I spoke to suggested a number of reasons why such a claim might fail.
>might fail.
HAHA, these idiots don't wanna risk their fucking bonuses. I admit it's a risky lawsuit, but given the risks to the industry, and it's their fucking job, you'd think they'd take action... You know... since that's what they're paid to do.

[Anonymous No.6276138]

>>6276133
if we get upload filters because of you bitchy faggots then i will hunt you down a rape you to death with your paint-brush

[Anonymous No.6276140]

>>6276129
HAHA y-y-you think Disney gives two shit about their employees!?
Wait, are you serious?
LMAOOOOOO!


Also, people who work in the film industry. We're talking about art/illustration/graphic design, not what Disney does. Disney doesn't even make comics anymore, they don't give a shit about images unless they're moving. I can't believe you were acting so smug with such a retard point.

[Anonymous No.6276141]

>>6276127
>Disney should care
The inherit nature of the AI implies that their material is used in generation of any piece of imagery produced AI.

[Anonymous No.6276144]

>>6276138
I'll spread my cheeks just for you anon, cause I don't want that either. Perhaps the idiots who made the AI shouldn't have does such a mass breach of copyright.

[Anonymous No.6276148]

>>6276133
As Andrew Tate said once, you shouldn't trust cheap lawyers. What stops the richer party from handing a bonus to your lawyer for him to drag out a case and lose on purpose? The only ones you can trust are those who have a personal issue with this or the million dollar ones with perfect scores

[Anonymous No.6276151]

>>6276141
True, I just don't think they will care, as they won't differentiate it from fan art. People draw their characters and sell tatt of that shit all the time. I could see them going sue crazy once the animation/film AI starts progressing though.

But maybe I'm not putting enough faith in Disney, they have been pretty heavy handed in protecting their copyrights before.

[Anonymous No.6276156]

>>6276151
>>6276124
>>6276133
The government will shut down any initiative against AI based start-ups. For them, it's a strategic resource.

[Anonymous No.6276158]

>>6276138
well nigga I live by the ghetto people I always suspect someone breaking the law, even by accident because of technicalities
>plus always expect corpos to try and fuck you over
>hell ever heard Fordlandia most of them want to create their own governments

[Anonymous No.6276165]

Techbros enjoying AI picture after picture while artfags are seething that the AI is learning how to draw the same way they learned how to draw the veins on their futa waifu's cock from their favorite childhood artist.
>Verification not required.
That's right nigger, AI even does the captcha for me now too.

[Anonymous No.6276168]

>From the Kyiv Post: One of the more eyebrow-raising parts of the plan is the use of artificial intelligence in the judicial system.
>Ukraine has already piloted an AI system to produce pre-trial and pre-sentencing reports assessing the risk of a suspect re-offending.
>Fedorov introduced the idea in his presentation under the title “Judge Dredd”.
Reminder laws and judgements in the future are being designed to be headed by AI court systems. Place like Ukraine will be rebuilt from the ground up with the money from corporations and turn into the testing grounds for the 4th industrial revolution. The AI will have bias against humans and always seek to maintain their unquestionable system above everything; it doesn't feel remorse or concern, so our best hope is to act today rather than tomorrow

[Anonymous No.6276174]

>>6276168
who's paying for this

[Anonymous No.6276176]

>>6276140
>Disney gives two shit about their employees!?
.....Huh? Bro are you high

[Anonymous No.6276179]

https://twitter.com/AdeptAILabs/status/1570144499187453952
AI will do everything and you will be happy.

[Anonymous No.6276183]

>>6276174
Guest who... In the kiev journal the officials specifically quoted Google and Amazon's coud services as a superior storage that cant be destroyed by missiles

[Anonymous No.6276185]

>>6276165
>deluded faggot thinks he's actually capable of enjoying the shit he's generating
kek. you will never know anon

[Anonymous No.6276187]

>>6276179
Yeah this is the logical conclusion of this shit. Gen Alpha will be braindead people who unlearned how to walk and will have the AI breathe for them

[Anonymous No.6276190]

>>6276176
>Bro, of course those corpos at disney love their employees
... Are you kidding me?

[Anonymous No.6276197]

>>6276190
who the fuck was talking about employees

YOU SCHIZO HOLY

[Anonymous No.6276201]

>>6276197
>what does a multimedia corporation consist of nigger anon?
If this wasn't a leading question about employees "creating art", then what were you trying to say?

[Anonymous No.6276207]

>>6276201
MULTI MEDIA

M U L T I
M E D IA

[Anonymous No.6276214]

>>6276207
... Anon, that point was so shit I didn't even consider it...

besides, I already answered that:
>Also, people who work in the film industry. We're talking about art/illustration/graphic design, not what Disney does. Disney doesn't even make comics anymore, they don't give a shit about images unless they're moving.

Just because they work in M U L T I M E D I A doesn't mean they give to shits, the media they work in isn't effected by this.

[Anonymous No.6276224]

>>6276214
1/10
got me to respond to this shit bait

[Anonymous No.6276230]

>>6276224
>Makes Point
>"I-I-It's just bait!"
Pussy.

[Anonymous No.6276246]

>>6276168
>Kyiv
nigga it's Queef get it right

[Anonymous No.6276251]

>>6276185
If you showed your friends and family a picture made by an AI and one done by you, they'd pick the AI's. And if you said they were both by you they'd be amazed by the progress you made. They're no different from the all of the others enjoying AI art.
Of course this isn't gonna happen because you have no friends nor family.

[Anonymous No.6276260]

>>6276251
>picture made by an AI and one done by you
What do you mean? I made both pictures in this situation, are you implying AI artists aren't entitled to their own art? We prompt, we create. What sort of bigotry is this now?

[Anonymous No.6276284]

>>6276251
i'm talking about this from a creator's perspective not a consoomer's one. i don't view things as a consoomer. also no, if I showed to pictures that are of the same quality, they'd pick the human one not the AI one. he'll even if it would be of worse quality they'd pick mine, once I told them that the AI one was "generated by a computer". but then again, my family isn't a transhumanist cult or whatever the fuck you subhuman experience IRL

[Anonymous No.6276303]

>>6275560
There's also porn and loli porn under the tag and you see where this is going

[Anonymous No.6276312]

>>6276284
>i'm talking about this from a creator's perspective not a consoomer's one.
Exactly, which is why I have to keep telling you every 5 minutes that no one cares about the creator's perspective when they just want to get the stupid pretty picture and get over with it. Which is what the majority of people are: non-artists, but they like art so they'll take AI over human whenever possible.
> also no, if I showed to pictures that are of the same quality,
I love how you had to mention that they're of the same quality despite AI being higher quality just merely through the technical power of it alone. Which is why I said your painting and an AI painting, not two of the same technical prowess. Because let's be honest, you are definitely nowhere as good as the shit the AI makes and don't you start coping about it to me, I don't care.
>he'll even if it would be of worse quality they'd pick mine
>they'd
You you're using 'would' regarding your own family, meaning you really didn't even show shit to your family. So maybe try that before coping about it here.
>but then again, my family isn't a transhumanist cult
Yeah well mine isn't a transgender cult so I guess mine is better than yours.

[Anonymous No.6276313]

>>6275560
>actual child pornography pops up
lmao

[Anonymous No.6276340]

>>6276312
>You you're using 'would' regarding your own family, meaning you really didn't even show shit to your family. So maybe try that before coping about it here.
obviously, I don't draw I'm here to argue with AIfags. my dad thinks I'm cool when I'm playing the guitar myself though, do you think he'd care if I ordered a robot to play something for me instead? please.
>I love how you had to mention that they're of the same quality despite AI being higher quality just merely through the technical power of it alone.
no, you're delusional. I only mentioned that as a hypothetical situation by the way, because AI is massively inferior. to underline that if you put two paintings of the same quality one next to the other and people would know what's computer made and what isn't, the human one would be chosen, unless you're some fucking tech faggot who's there to be impressed by AI not art

[Anonymous No.6276342]

>>6276122
No one works for free you fuck tard
This isn't your commie shithole

[Anonymous No.6276345]

>>6275560
AND THATS
FUCKING
BASED

[Anonymous No.6276354]

>>6276313
HOLY SHIT I JUST SEARCHED FOR THIS >>6276303 AT THE RESULTS ARE THERE
HOW IS THIS SITE ALLOWED IN THE FUCKING MAINNET?
https://files.catbox.moe/x2pvdj.jpeg
(Dont worry I blurred it)
HAHAHAHAHAAH WTF EMAD

[Anonymous No.6276358]

>>6276354
Preteen modeling isn't CP you retard

[Anonymous No.6276359]

>>6276354
Is there a way to turn off the nsfw filter? I don't care about the loli shit, I just want me some waifus

[Anonymous No.6276360]

>>6276358
She gets fisted and fucked in the lower photos you can see the rest of the gallery when you find that one when searching "loli porn". Is this modelling for you?

[Anonymous No.6276365]

>>6276340
>obviously
Then stop saying would and could and maybe without asking them for real first.
>do you think he'd care if I ordered a robot to play something for me instead?
The correct question is if an AI could play the guitar better than you, then you asked him which one sounded better. At which point he'd say the AI because you're no Jimi Hendrix, you're a faggot. That's the idea with picture AI, and that is people who want to view new pieces of art without having to pay $$$ for faggots like you can do it with the click of a button because the AI is better and will just keep getting better. And I'm glad you brought up musician AI', because those are also in the works and though they're still rudimental you can expect them to improve within the decade just like picture generating AI has.
>because AI is massively inferior.
Cope. On a technical level it absolutely is not. You literally cannot deny this because it can draw any style in a moment from hyper-realistic to a specific traditional or digital artist. It just is better unless you're injecting muh sovl copes into it then there's no point getting into an argument with you about your inane faggotry. Literally not one of the subhumans in here can draw any of the AI generations posted by others so you have to resort to soul or whatever.
Anyway you're a faggot.

[Anonymous No.6276367]

>>6276360
she's just flatchested

[Anonymous No.6276379]

>>6276354
that's just teen but the skimpy clothed lgs are still there