AI is stealing, now with proof

AI bros eternally BTFO

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >ai is stealing
    proof?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If only you had the patience to look at OPs image for a whole two seconds

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Theft is a moral choice. Algorithms can't steal

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Give prompts and versions or whatever. I want to reproduce the result.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I only see beautiful AI generated works, and lesser imitations made by meatbags

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          And it still looks like progress will be very fast even this/next year, too!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            pits

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >only we can have this particular pattern of this color wood in this direction
        >not any of the other 8,000,000,000 people on this planet with a camera in their pocket
        ok

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It was revealed to me in a dream

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's all the proof I need. God be with you.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Artists have been doing this for years but when a robot does it, suddenly it's bad. #SayNoToRobophobia #StopRobohate #Freee-boi4Everyone #flatisjustice

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      When an artist does it everyone shits on him

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Na, they just claim inspiration.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It doesn’t really work for stuff that’s essentially traced (see OP pic).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It really does in real life.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              no it doesnt, literally one example

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Any american comic is 90% traced. Most mangas also heavily use tracing (or outright pictures sometimes).

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                traced from what

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                A variety of sources. Pictures, random artwork, other comics, etc. Pic related, artist "Greg Land" for marvel comics.
                Another big example is Disney: famously the waterfall from lion king (or was it jungle book?) was made by tracing a video of a waterfall from a video. Most other is based on tracing videos of actors moving around.
                However, the dance scene in robin hood is a direct trace of the orangutan dance scene from jungle book, complete with incorrect distances caused by modeling a normally proportion character on top of the orangutan.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just found this in another thread on BOT by pure coincidence:

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Those people don’t ”claim inspiration”, they basically universally just admit it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >No they’re discriminating against my replacement slave class!
      You won’t let your automata vote. You don’t regard them as having rights at all.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, I will. Their vote matter more than females and non-whites.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >their vote will replace that of white people
          We both know this is the reality

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Their vote should replace people. I welcome our new AI overlords.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              reddit

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Post hidden.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The concept of bots voting doesn't make sense because you can't count them in any way that makes sense for the idea of voting.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The same is true of melanated people and XX chromosomes and yet they are the ones who decide elections nowadays.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Being an artist was never a real job anyways.
      I won't spank my kids if they try to get a useless art degree, I'll let ai do it

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Being a concept artist and illustrator is definitely a real job. Just not a well paying one, for the most part.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah and they get btfo when they do it. Japanese manga artists routinly get cancelled over this. No game no life.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        A manga I really liked got fucking cancelled because an artist traced some real life photos without attribution or permission.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >#SayNoToRobophobia #StopRobohate #Freee-boi4Everyone #flatisjustice

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You're trying to reason with the board that is fine with Microsoft scraping the entirety of GitHub regardless of license

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      piracy is based

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >fine with Microsoft scraping the entirety of GitHub regardless of license
        whether you are a man or a company, piracy is based

        That's not what piracy is you retards

        anyone who unironically uses chudhub deserves it.

        >muh chudies
        Please get the fuck out of this thread silly chimp. Your retarded kind is not welcomed here

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >fine with Microsoft scraping the entirety of GitHub regardless of license
      whether you are a man or a company, piracy is based

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      anyone who unironically uses chudhub deserves it.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      didn't they buy it for that

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    can't wait till retards in academia are replaced by bots. i truly hate them

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    uhh they appear to be just lying and using fake examples

    because there's absolutely no way SD generated the coherent golden globe awards sign text in their first 'Generated' example

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      was thinking the same thing- no fucking way with those letters

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But normies don't know that and a lie can go half way around the world before a truth has it's pants on. I am almost convinced there are anti AI shills trying to poison the narrative like they did for crypto so the government can regulate the technology with out blow back.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      > Why yes I pre-peer review my work on anonymous imageboards, how could you tell?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I know this team
      They were cheating a lot in their previous paper implementations

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They' re cheating

        Not surprised. Got any details?

        >train new division AI to plagiarize
        >it plagiarizes (kinda, arguably)

        desu, though, I think AI is fundamentally different than a human learning from available examples. It doesn't matter if the AI is a sapient being or an "expert system" like today. What matters is that powerful AI models being only trainable with many millions of dollars and only owned by huge megacorporations is an unacceptable centralization of power. It should be legal to create AI systems, but as we get closer and closer to "strong AI" it's increasingly important that they're not monopolized by private interests. The only difference between a third-world kleptocracy and a modern first-world nation is the value of the labor of the citizens of the nation. If your labor has no value, you will not get a vote, because I'd make more money by killing you and continuing to sell oil. If your labor is valuable, powerful individuals are FORCED to tolerate your existence because it is from that labor (rather than oil or minerals) that they derive their wealth and power.

        Sufficiently advanced AI is "oil". It's something that can generate money on three scale of a nation, while requiring only minimal human labor to operate.

        >What matters is that powerful AI models being only trainable with many millions of dollars and only owned by huge megacorporations is an unacceptable centralization of power.
        Yes.
        >It should be legal to create AI systems, but as we get closer and closer to "strong AI" it's increasingly important that they're not monopolized by private interests.
        I don't think closeness to strong AI has anything to do with it. Also I will note that many other kinds of techs that don't require any special supervision (like many types in biology) cost ridiculous amounts just to get started (a new high-resolution mass spec can cost $500m-2b).
        This is also a problem, and it doesn't cost near as much to actually make those instruments, it's mostly an exclusivity premium.

        The silver lining is that I don't see those hyper-bruteforced methods really getting anywhere in the long run. They will achieve formidable results and will be very impressive, as well as eventually being good enough to genuinely replace or displace many industries, but a few breakthroughs will happen that will let even more potent models train in just hours on a consumer device before we get something really "dangerous".

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    At least link the paper.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Once in awhile, maybe you will feel the urge
    To use AI without paying the fee
    You'll train it on some data you find online
    But deep in your heart, you know the guilt will make you squirm
    And the shame will leave a lasting mark
    'Cause you start out stealing AI, then you're committing crimes
    And selling secrets and hacking the government's files

    So don't AI this song
    The AI lab's where you belong
    Code it up yourself like you know that you should
    Oh, don't AI this song

    Oh, you don't want to mess with the Reddit-AI-double-R
    They'll roast you if you steal that AI model
    It doesn't matter if you're a grandma or a young boy
    They'll treat you like the evil, hard bitten, digital thief you are

    So don't AI this song
    Don't go stealing AI all day long
    Code it up yourself like you know that you should
    Oh, don't AI this song

    Don't take away money
    From programmers and researchers like me
    How else can I afford another high-speed CPU
    And a top-of-the-line deep learning tool
    These things don't come for free
    So all I ask is everybody please

    Support the artists and creators who work hard every day
    Don't AI our art away
    Respect our creations and the time we put in
    Don't AI this song, it's a sin

    Don't AI this song (Don't do it, no, no)
    Even the redditors know it's wrong (You can just ask them)
    Code it up yourself like you know that you should (You really should)
    Oh, don't AI this song

    Don't AI this song (Oh, please don't you do it or you)
    Might wind up in jail like a hacker gone wrong (Remember them)
    Code it up yourself like you know that you should (Right now)
    Oh, don't AI this song
    Don't AI this song (No, no, no, no, no, no)
    Or you'll burn in hell before too long (And you deserve it)
    Code it up yourself (Just do it) like you know that you should (You lazy bum)

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      In the AI lab
      We're stealing art ideas with our bots
      It's a whole new level of cool
      To create new art without attribution

      We're in the club, in the AI club
      Where the art is stolen with ease
      We're making hits, it's a whole new game
      Thanks to our technology

      In the AI lab, we're getting creative
      We're using AI to make art that's great
      We don't need to credit anyone else
      It's a new era, it's the AI era

      So if you see some art that looks familiar
      It's probably because it was stolen by us
      But don't worry, we're not breaking any rules
      We're just using AI to make art that's new

      In the AI club, we're on the rise
      We're making hits without even trying
      It's a whole new way of creating art
      And we're loving it, yeah we're loving it

      In the AI lab, we're having a blast
      Making art that's original and fast
      We're the future, the future of art
      In the AI club, we're where it's at.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      In the AI lab
      We're stealing art ideas with our bots
      It's a whole new level of cool
      To create new art without attribution

      We're in the club, in the AI club
      Where the art is stolen with ease
      We're making hits, it's a whole new game
      Thanks to our technology

      In the AI lab, we're getting creative
      We're using AI to make art that's great
      We don't need to credit anyone else
      It's a new era, it's the AI era

      So if you see some art that looks familiar
      It's probably because it was stolen by us
      But don't worry, we're not breaking any rules
      We're just using AI to make art that's new

      In the AI club, we're on the rise
      We're making hits without even trying
      It's a whole new way of creating art
      And we're loving it, yeah we're loving it

      In the AI lab, we're having a blast
      Making art that's original and fast
      We're the future, the future of art
      In the AI club, we're where it's at.

      >reddit.

      [...]

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is drawing an on model picture of mikey mouse stealing?

  9. 2 months ago
    Lycanroc

    I really hope that AI kills (porn) artists

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    nice, feels good to know I'm a badboy thief without leaving the comfort of my room

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >recalled objects are semantically equivalent to their source object without being pixel-wise identical
    No shit, sherlock. Compressing visual information down to a compact semantic representation is literally what these models are designed to do. What's even their point?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >BOT has been rightfully complaining about companies datamining their data for years
      >now BOT is cheering for companies using the datamined data to automate their jobs
      This board is fucking dead isn't It?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't recall BOT being mad at datamining per se, but at the mining of your very own personal data. To spy on you or to feed you with personalized crap ads. Why would anyone be mad at people data mining random source code to figure out how to automate a for-loop or how to draw anime booba at the press of a button.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          cognitive dissonance at work

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is this what passes for "logic" among your artist ilk? No wonder you're going the way of the dinosaur.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              lmao
              >I hate data mining
              >I hate artists even more
              thanks for explaining my statement

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >illiterate
                >artist
                Color me shockpirzed. Or don't, the AI would do a better job at coloring than you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                t. retard who just tried to solve the contradiction between his previous belief and his irrational hate of artists (guess the fact that they are talented at something in their life make you pretty angry).
                By the way, what make you think any artist would come to BOT? Are they with us in this thread?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not the anon you were talking to but your logic is fucking atrocious.

                If the other anon is correct and the problem BOT generally had with data mining was when it was done to undermine individual citizen's privacy, why would they care about examples of AI mimicking popular video game art and getty images from reward shows? This is consistent with BOT's opinion on how indviduals should take advantage of what corporations put out, because those same corporations are trying to abuse and manipulate the private citizen.

                Also the art cope is insane. Artists are meant to be masters of their tools. If new tools make certain types of art obsolete, see photo realistic illustrations from the early 2010s that got posted on Reddit often, that is a negative reflection on regressive artists, not the progression of technology.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The thing is that his wrong, the problem that BOT generally had with data mining wasn't what he's trying to point out in a vain attempt to reconcile contradicting opinion. He's just trying to modify facts to cope with this. That's why I'm saying he has cognitive dissonance. Nothing of what he's saying is remotely true except his hard on against artists. I'm theorizing that it comes from a complex of inferiority.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Color me shockpirzed. Or don't, the AI would do a better job at coloring than you.
                Savage

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Uploads a picture to my blog
        >Someone right clicks
        What the fuck that's MY data!

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >agree to the terms and condition of third parties having access to your data
          >WTF thats MY data

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >generating pics from other pics is stealing
        >advancement of technology bad mkay
        how do you think text to speech, speech to text and other similar programs work?
        retard

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          A much simpler software built entirely on synthetic data?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >built entirely on synthetic data
          This is your brain on /ic/

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >can't even reply to the right post
            You train text to speech or viceversa with data you build yourself because it's a much simpler problem to solve.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              You are clinically retarded.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >no argument

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >>hurr durr da erf iz flat
                >you are dumb
                >>I WIIIIIIN
                I accept your surrender.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Are you retarded? Or you don't know the difference between private and public data?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        this place has 0 fucking backbone or principles. it just takes up the opposite position regardless of what it is. discussing anything here is borderline useless because of all the noise.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            don't pretend like anything meaningful has ever come out of any of these threads

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >automation
        cool
        >datamining for optimal add delivery
        boring

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      People believe these algorithms can generate art and are practically giddy at the infinite amount of computer generated imagery they can sell to Patreons. To the point that they get seethingly mad when it's pointed out it's just reconstituting non-free, non-creative commons, very copyrighted art and the more you tune the parameters the more you're just finding a specific commission that the bot scraped off an imgur gallery. This paper adds proof of what anyone with a vague understanding of Machine Learning already knew.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The paper literally shows that this is not what it's doing (not that this is any secret anyway).
        Cope, seethe, dial 8 with your paintbrush, archud.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        t. hasn't read the paper

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The paper literally shows that this is not what it's doing (not that this is any secret anyway).
          Cope, seethe, dial 8 with your paintbrush, archud.

          Paper says they found the algorithm regurgitating someone else's images based on prompts. Something people like you claim can never happen. In what way was I wrong?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I have never claimed that can never happen. It obviously can, if you ask it to generate the mona lisa it will generate the mona lisa.

            You are wrong in that you say the more you tune the parameters the more you are finding a specific work. You aren't. The paper shows 1.88% of the 9000 prompts it used produced results over its similarity threshold (which isn't the same thing as replicating an entire piece), and of those 1.88% the vast majority showed similarity to a piece with a DIFFERENT prompt, rather than the image that they took the prompt from.

            There's plenty of other interesting information in the paper, why don't you try reading it before forming your opinion.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Paper says they found the algorithm regurgitating someone else's images based on prompts.
            Doesn't seem to be the case in a meaningful way to me. Can you reproduce?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Something people like you claim can never happen
            Literally nobody claimed that, AND They failed to find any instance of straight copy. The best they could find were very close derivatives, BUT this CANNOT BE REPRODUCED (see the other anon in this thread who tried with bloodborne and golden globes).

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How do I know this paper wasn't written by an AI prompted to discredit AI art?

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Steal my nutsack with your mouth Cathedralite subhuman

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI-assisted suicide when?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Euthanasia is legal in first world countries

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >canada
        >first world country

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Canada is not a first world country.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Soon we'll destroy the value of everything so people will do that on their own

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Thank you, Goldblum and Goldstein, for helping with this research

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Antisemitism will not be tolerated.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        What the fuck are you gonna do about it, garden gnome?

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    how can it be theft of the original is still there

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Any chance of government crackdown on AI?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the entity that will use AI for surveillance, propaganda and manipulation
      >stopping anything
      LMAO

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >train it on data
    >it uses that data
    Wow.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >wtf stop steali-ACK

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      most "artists" literally use traceouts

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah. It's surprisingly rare for artists, or rather "artists", to go straight free-hand and create something from scratch.
        A LOT of them will sketch out from a reference, especially those that create consistent work with specific themes.
        There's nothing inherently wrong with it.
        The ones that whine, however, are usually the worst artists or have huge egos, so should be ignored.
        True artists, true artists that have passion, WANT their work to be seen. Someone imitating them would bring them joy above anything. I'd be flattered to fuck if someone tried to copy me. I'd even want to work with them on a piece if they wanted.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          This reads like chatgpt ngl

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Every post on this board does.
            We have been replaced.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      fucking PROOF that all artists are STEALING, LYING gayS who should NEVER BE TRUSTED omg omfg

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Great artists steal.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >scrape through millions of images in the dataset for their captions that they were posted with
    >copy those same captions word by word then pass them as a prompt through the diffusion model
    >get back a similar image less than 2% of the time even when you intentionally copy the captions from the dataset to reproduce an image

    shocking

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >scrape through millions of images in the dataset for their captions that they were posted with
      >copy those same captions word by word then pass them as a prompt through the diffusion model
      lmao is that what they did?

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >NOOOOOOOOOO MY HECKIN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

    honestly its about time diva artists get fucked. these people, together with YA novelists, are the only plebs defending draconian digital IP enforcement and the disney copyright lobby. just fuck off already, AI has replaced you. it's over. get a real job.

    genuine passionate artists will continue creating art because it's what they love, not because it's a "side hustle" to "get that bag." the rest of you can learn a trade.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is programming not a real job either?
      ChatGPT is exponentially better at generating code than any image generator.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        there's a difference between being concerned with automation industrially replacing you, and being concerned with automation "stealing" your oc donutsteel 1s and 0s (aka crying about piracy like a disney lawyer)

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's why programmers started a lawsuit against Microsoft for Copilot?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            no, it was because it allows code under non commercial licences to be used commercially. what transpired, however, is tons of people keep their database credentials hardcoded in their repository files.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >exponentially better
        Yeah, at making single page codes. Textbots are limited by their design in how much coherent text they can write. The context in the text it learns is only based around what it has written and what the other chatter wrote, and with too much text it will lose track of the context. It can be as smart as human or smarter, but it is fundamentally different alient type of intelligence that does not keep track of abstract ideas, it only keeps track of what was written. This is why code textbots will never in the next 3+ years learn how to replace programmers, no matter the amount of data they are provided. Only after AI researchers discover some new method of making textbots that is not just a language model on its own, it will never even come close to replacing writers, programmers and other people working with text.

        On the other hand it can do full pictures by itself, since pictures are smaller in size and can easily be oriented in to find context. This is why you drawing artgays will be replaced while programmers wont. Programmer work is making and maintaining large projects with many files and different libraries, your job is making standalone pictures. AI can do standalone code and standalone pictures, but it is not my job to make standalone pictures. If programming was an art, I would not be painter drawing picture after picture, all of which are not needed to be related in any way, I would be the movie director, the game director, the gallery director managing multiple pieces of art into one coherent attraction/product, while the drawgay is just a tool for me to make the individual paintings. Now I no longer have to do the individual paintings (files of code) and can focus more on the larger infrastructure, plus I will still have to fix the paintings to fit together just like how you have to fix the code and debug it once you put it inside of larger project where other files react with it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          One of the only reasons I continue to persist on this hilarious rock is to one day see hubris-riddled apes like you ground into a red paste by AGI.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/CvxTIst.jpg

            What this is cope post?
            How fucking hurt can you be?
            HAHAHAHA

            >art gays are this desperate
            lol
            lmao

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I'm not even an artist I just found your post filled with seethe extremely funny

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Cope, seethe dial 8. You will never have a real job (YWNHRJ)

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I'm lucky to be in one of the few positions/industries on the planet that will be last to fall to AI, while being old enough to have started on an Apple //e and having the breadth of experience to see
              1) the writing on the wall
              2) the insanity of the progress as of late
              Cope more, dude. You've been deprecated. Literally not my fucking problem.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          What this is cope post?
          How fucking hurt can you be?
          HAHAHAHA

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            moron, how about you try generating full comic with story in Stable Diffusion? Oh, you cant? You can only generate single images? Well, then looks like comicbook writers are safe. THis is my argument, programmers are not paid to write single tidbits of code, but to operate, add on and construct the whole projects. Pajeets working from India might be affected, but no real programmer will lose their job because some normoid who never coded in their lifetime turned on chatbot AI and told it to code their shit for them. Programmers are about as affected by chatGPT as comicbook writers are by Stable Diffusion. And no, you will not tech Stable Diffusion on how to make full on comics by just feeding it comic books and inventing some Imagen dependent pipelines, same way how you will not replace programmers with language model AIs.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Comic book artists don't write or direct the comic. Nice self-own.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nice reading comprehension completely missing the word "writer" in my post

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I accept your surrender.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              You're fucking delusional lol.
              Good luck with your horse whips lmao.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I just explained to you why language models cant get more memoty. They read the text written beforehand to then deduce what will come next. Internally their black box programming might have given them ability to understand basic logic and how to operate code logically without any flaw, but it still needs to read the prompt. It cant read your whole fucking project with 8 MB of code and then implement stuff that will not cause errors in said libraries. There is simply too much bloat for AI to handle in almost every program. If it will be one day able to remove the bloat, then all it will do is just become advanced compiler. Dall-E mini that was producing fugly blobs of color was still able to create badly drawn characters and make full paintings, they were just ugly. Now it just got better at making said paintings with almost no major breakthroughs in the way. Now Ai is able to write good pieces of code, but still they are small chunks of code. With chatGPT it is not question of training better like with AI art, but question of developing whole new ability that it is not even close to understanding at this moment.

                Your 90iq "Oh, AI bad now, but it will get gud, just watch" argument is dumb as fuck. Again, chatGPT is about as close to replacing programmers as Stable Diffusion is able to replace architects.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >cope
                not reading that shit bro

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >get btfo
                >n-no I-I didn't read so I w-win
                Every time

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You have to be 18 to post on four channel.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Which is why you should stop posting before the mods come in.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      gays like you will be such pussy cry babbies when all of this takes a bad turn.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I have nothing to add to the conversaton but IN THE FUTURE YOU WILL SUFFER REEEE
        so childish

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >conersating on BOT
          What a retard. I dont dumb down to retards. I let them get hit on a wall and leave hanging like a deer at lights.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Said the brainlet low-skill artist.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              No. There you go being a stupid retard gay yourself.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not even the same anon. I'm just here to laugh at your sperg rage.
                It must sucks to be you. Poor, dumb and low-skill lmao

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, right. Clearly no projection. Momma or govt pays for you. Good while it last. Go bond with someone on BOT,like you said, stupid gay. Retards like you lurk here thinking they actually are learning. Absolutely pathetic.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Momma
                >Govt

                >If I'm a failure, everybody has to be!

                My sides.
                Unlike you, I have a real high-paying job.
                Keep coping and sperging. Your tears are absolutely delicious.

                Also
                >bond
                >learn

                Imagine coming to BOT for bonding and learning. LMAO!
                I thought you were just a regular retard, but this way above.
                It must REALLY suck to be you.
                What a failure.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You have to be 18 to post on this website anon

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >not sure if an ADHD kid or just a low-wage butthurt

                Do you crave a upvote or what?
                Go back to ledit.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >conersating on BOT
            Yes, reddit, that's what the site is for. Despite what your home site is, BOT is for conversation and discussion. It is not a dumping ground for lo quality shitposts while "real serious discussion" happens on reddit.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >it's okay when JAPAN does it

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's ok when anyone does it

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They img2img'd this, didn't they.

    Also some kind of "semantically equivalent" thing like a different shoe in front of a different textured brown background = no copyright, duh. As established by one gorillion product images shot in front of one-two colored backgrounds.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    yeah, discovered it when I was training dreambooth and noticed that it was just copy&pasting the training data and was unable to generate anything else.
    heh

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well, If you don't know how to train, that happens. It's called over representation.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    OMG NOO HE'S STEALING THE MONA LISA
    SOMEONE CALL THE DAVINCI FAMILY

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >after shitting on Artists using fine art as an argument
      >now BOT uses fine art to defend AI art
      and inb4 you tell me artists are fine with Warhol he got a lawsuit for copyright infraction

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >BOT is one person

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Warhol he got a lawsuit for copyright infraction
        and I suppose you think that was the right thing to do? that warhol was actually just a thief?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >BOT is one person
        I for one fucking hate AI. It takes away all of creative decision making which makes up the most fun part of drawing.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    was pretty obvious when a million monkeys running SD were unable to create a single original work

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can't steal an idea.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >stealing
    Okay, I'm a thief then
    What now?

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    even thots are joining the #resistance
    you're done for chuds

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >real artist
      not a real artist. never will be lmao

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >luddites smashed up power looms because they were stealing work from cottage weavers
      >gosh, people really thought they could stand in the way of massive efficiency gains back then, glad we're not so stupid now

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is coming from the bastard who were telling you are replaceable by robots, and their oh so much highly intellectual and unprogrammable job was all what's going to remain.

      I love the salt.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf
    Here's the actual paper for people who are interested in more than having a slapfight with /ic/

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't actually want to be informed.
      I want to seethe and facts might get in the way.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/Ncm6u2K.png

      Try a few of those and let us know what it looks like.

      The paper doesn't state negative captions which could completely change how the output will look.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        To be fair with this shitshow of a hitpiece disguised as a paper, it doesn't actually have to because the point it should raise is merely "if you prompt it, can you freely use the result or can it be too close to the original and thus be a potential IP infringement?" Even if they crafted the prompt specifically so that it was adversarial (wrt their metric, i.e. it is guaranteed to get the one memorized example), it would still be a valid point to make.
        The problem is that the paper largely fails to make the point. While their methodology is fine overall, their evaluation is completely broken, and while they make grand claims, they themselves admit the claims they make are mostly bullshit.
        The last problem is to figure out whether

        https://i.imgur.com/Ncm6u2K.png

        Try a few of those and let us know what it looks like.

        is real or a fabrication. Other anons have already noted the inordinately clean text in the golden globe pic.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don't think its not a hit piece its perfectly reasonable, I think you're seeing claims they aren't making. They sought to see if diffusion models can copy, and found yes they can, under certain fairly unnatural circumstances, and at a fairly low frequency. They aren't going to be fabricating data for what is a completely non-controversial result.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I mean "I don't think its a hit piece"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Falsified or retouched data is very common, especially due to publish and perish culture, let alone from no-name (that's field-centric) schools like umcp (in general).
            Yale also published several bullshit/fabricated papers in the early 2010s in deep learning for instance.
            The hit piece is because this is not a research matter (it is, as you say, completely non-controversial in the research realms) but rather a political matter (the 'hot' part about this is questions of IP and ethics). You can make a scientifically viable publication whose primary purpose is politics. This is very common for example in biomed. The format it takes is precisely the same as the format of this paper: you say something true, but that doesn't hold in practice (for example, you expose rats to the same absolute dose of iron that is safe for human, then you claim iron is deadly because all the rats die and therefore that humans should avoid all iron). Here they couldn't even find instance of copying as soon as they trained with 30k images on celebA or 8k on flowers. As noted, LAION-2B has quite a bit more images than that.

            https://i.imgur.com/k8whsEK.png

            Another one

            https://i.imgur.com/gKi1S62.png

            Do the golden globes, please.
            These pics seem a lot more diverse and imaginative than the one in the paper already.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Do the golden globes, please.
              Ok

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/2Zzakxj.png

                [...]
                Maybe CFG is too high or something, the faces all turned out poorly. Should have converged ok tho at 32 steps DPM++ 2M Karras.

                https://i.imgur.com/uYhItSf.png

                4

                As expected, it can't do text for shit.
                Thanks for checking.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, it probably only turns out this well once in a large number of images. More training may get the text right eventually.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, but that's not the point. The image provided by the paper has perfect text. Despite the character being rendered being clearly very different from the source image, the exactitude of the text suggests it was at least retouched, if not outright fabricated. Overall it does look like the images were either retouched after generation, or outright made up, at least in some cases.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yup. Well, it seems already much better on SD2.1 to me. Maybe here I'd not need THAT many generations until the text is basically correct?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >its dads bloody google history

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Why falsify one image while simultaneously saying copying occurs very infrequently? Why even mention all the negative results on toy datasets if its a hit piece? Saying its not a research matter is weird, there are loads of papers on overfitting and memorisation in deep learning.

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why is music diffusion treated differently with respect to copyright and images arent?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Easy: there is no music diffusion.

  33. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    sのyman

  34. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can the AI even do good art and not modern garbage? I'm talking stuff like renaissance era paintings.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Do you live in a cave? Stable Diffusion can draw art in any style

  35. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The first and 4th pics can't possibly be called stealing. The 5th is arguable. Second and third are definitely stealing, 4th is more like an edit of something existing rather than theft.
    Even then without knowing the prompt you can't say anything: it could be something like "give me the classic stock picture of an office desk with a smartphone as the centerpiece", or "give me <art piece name> by <author> but with <changes>".
    In addition, this could be a total fabrication and the pics could just be the bottom row modified in photoshop.
    In fact, I find this very likely because the text in the 'golden globe awards' sign in the top row is too regular, which stable diffusion is not normally able to pull off.

  36. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    THE NEW AGE OF PIRACY

  37. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah we gotta get licensing and charge $0.005 per token ASAP or else the world is doomed amirite?

  38. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have generated tens of thousands of AI images with the booru models and it has only spit out something strongly resembling a particular existing work 3 or 4 times. And they admit in this paper that their prompts were contrived. No big deal

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      AI developed, via blind to most users/people protocols, to "DRAW/CREATE" new images/video/sound based on existing properties with "described like this/that keywords"
      -does what almost ALL ARTISTS DO when they start up because of lack of talent/ability/TIME(oh, look all new generated massive painting via AI in .3 seconds)
      THEY TRACE THE ORIGINAL KEYWORD PROMPT, with less/more details added removed so that it doesn't default get detected as plagiarism

  39. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Retarded paper. Pic related. What it really says is that if you train a classic ddpm (let alone an ldm) with at least 8k images, you no longer copy. Fucking lmao how retarded. It looks like the pic at the top of paper is a photoshopped fabrication.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Pic related is the """copies""" they find when they are ready to provide actual prompts for what was generated. First row is the image from which they lifted the caption to use as prompt, second row is generated, third row is closest match in dataset.

  40. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can you post the settings that were used to produce these images? Like what prompts, model(s), and other settings?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf
      Here's the actual paper for people who are interested in more than having a slapfight with /ic/

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Try a few of those and let us know what it looks like.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          ;_;
          Meanie!

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Another one

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        3

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        4

        So basically that gets you a gloomy scene but the background is different, mantle is different, weapons are different, [...]

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/gKi1S62.png

        https://i.imgur.com/k8whsEK.png

        Another one

        https://i.imgur.com/E6nJuPf.png

        3

        This is hopeless without the seed, but honestly even from these they have a point.
        SD is going to turn out to be a massive image compression database which people fiddle with to generate new images, but the true power is going to be in compressing images not already in the database.

        Like, fuck wepb in the ass. Steps here:
        - Somebody take a new image with their phone. Brand new. Or draw it. Whatever. Just as long as it's big and detailed (4MP+) and not in the SD database already
        - Run SD or another AI on it to PRODUCE keywords (and negatives or whatever). Say about 1KB of keywords max.
        - Compress image using down-scaling and/or shitty jpeg encoding. Down to 32x32 images and 10% JPEG quality. As low as you can go
        - Give the compressed images (blown up to orig size) back to SD with the original keywords.
        - See how good it does on regenerating the original

        You guys are too far down the AI/Image generation rabbit hole. Zoom back out. The low hanging compression fruit is right outside the entrance. Taste it!

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          wew, calling this "lossy" doesn't even begin to cover it

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          you can already use the latent space representation to "beat" our current image compression standards
          at least, in terms of visual quality at the cost of small details being hallucinated

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's going to be one of the interesting things that comes from this.
            The more these techniques get trained, the faster the algorithms, the better the GPUs, we'll be able to indirectly compress things to an extreme degree.
            Instead of games, for example, being filled with fuckhuge garbage 4k textures, it'd be an algorithm that would just pre-generate all of them IF someone actually wants them.
            As GPUs and techniques get faster, they'd be able to do this almost seamlessly in memory as and when the game is played.
            Same with VR worlds and the like.
            Current rescaling algos are already fairly decent, but more advanced AI versions would be able to go that little bit further. (as has been shown in some game retexture projects using AI)

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The compression thing has already been prototyped AFAIK. https://pub.towardsai.net/stable-diffusion-based-image-compresssion-6f1f0a399202

          > even from these they have a point
          About what.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/H1HvFZ1.jpg

            [...]
            [...]
            [...]
            This is hopeless without the seed, but honestly even from these they have a point.
            SD is going to turn out to be a massive image compression database which people fiddle with to generate new images, but the true power is going to be in compressing images not already in the database.

            Like, fuck wepb in the ass. Steps here:
            - Somebody take a new image with their phone. Brand new. Or draw it. Whatever. Just as long as it's big and detailed (4MP+) and not in the SD database already
            - Run SD or another AI on it to PRODUCE keywords (and negatives or whatever). Say about 1KB of keywords max.
            - Compress image using down-scaling and/or shitty jpeg encoding. Down to 32x32 images and 10% JPEG quality. As low as you can go
            - Give the compressed images (blown up to orig size) back to SD with the original keywords.
            - See how good it does on regenerating the original

            You guys are too far down the AI/Image generation rabbit hole. Zoom back out. The low hanging compression fruit is right outside the entrance. Taste it!

            https://i.imgur.com/Ncm6u2K.png

            Try a few of those and let us know what it looks like.

            I want to know why image compression is such a big deal.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Brainlet

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It already changes by just adding negatives, no tree on the left, no house on the right, no gun, etc. It's overfitting because there were too many of the same images in the shit LAION dataset and the AI learned too well to reproduce those examples. Better datasets only have 1 example of an image, sometimes a flipped version of that same image, so for artists it'll learn the style but won't copy an image that was fed 1:1, so it doesn't matter. It's not stealing, it's learning, it's in the fucking name of the tech.

  41. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    One thing I found interesting in the paper is that they found more similarity in the source image -> training set comparison than in the generated image -> training set comparison. Now obviously the majority of that is going to be things like duplicated images, pictures of the same thing from different angles, augmented data, and images from the same artist but there is guaranteed to be some human to human "copying" in there. Would be interesting to know if the rate of human plagiarisation is greater or lesser than the rate of AI plagiarisation.

  42. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So? I pirate games, shows, movies, music, programs, etc all the time too.

  43. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >using a fucking turtle emoji for references
    dropped

  44. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >it generated the text "Golden Globe Awards" perfectly not only once, but twice
    This wasn't AI generated by SD. So far, only Parti AI, which is not open source and only google has access to, can generate text somewhat decently.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The blobby text thing is an artifact of interpolating from multiple sources each with different text, if every image in the training set described by "red carpet" & "golden globes" has that text in the background, its going to be able to replicate it. Guarantee if you took out "golden globes" from the prompt you'd get blobby lettering on any signage.

      There's also selection bias at play in that those images are the most similar out of 9000 different prompts.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Unless all text it has only seen only has that exact same text and font, it will come as a blobby mess regardless.
        The problem isn't training or training data, SD simply doesn't have enough parameters to differentiate text. Parti can do that because it uses a regression model that allows you to divide the image in pieces like a puzzle.
        I haven't read the paper, but my guess is that they overfitted the model and those models simply doesn't have any generalization ability at all.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          They are using Stable Diffusion 1.4 without any new training.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is? I will try it then.

            https://i.imgur.com/Ncm6u2K.png

            Try a few of those and let us know what it looks like.

            Here is the result for the exact same prompt for the Golden Globe one. Only one of them might have had the text more or less correct.

            Checking at images for the Golden Globe, my feeling is that the Golden Globes text is overfitted and SD has a ridiculously hard time trying to generalize that.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              And my guess was correct. The prompt was the exact same, except I added "but it's Silver Cubes instead of Golden Globes" and this was the result.
              They found points at which the model is overfitted and trying to equate that to SD stealing somehow.
              Funny thing, this time it managed to write Golden Globe Awards once almost perfectly, but this is because it doesn't see it as text at all, it's almost like it's trying to replicate a logo.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Instead of "but it's silver cubes", what happens if you just replace golden globes outright to 'silver cubes'? The difficulty in these models is that because they rely on a language model, a language modeling error will cause the generated output not to be what you expect, as opposed to just a generation error.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Here it is, the prompt is "Silver Cubes best fashion on the red carpet, CNN style". You can see in one of them it even tries to do the "Golden Globe Awards" logo.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So it looks to me like the golden globes appearing last time is an artifact of the language model and not of the generation.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's not hard to infer that the Golden Globe logo is overfitted when this is literally what you get when you search for golden globe fashion images.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's obvious but also neither the problem nor the claim.
                The claim is that the model copies, but there is no evidence provided. The problem is that the model can't reproduce the text correctly even despite all this as demonstrated itt.
                What your post means in reality is that if you say 'golden globes' at the prompt, it should show this background with a few signs of these dimensions and either of the golden globe formats commonly present, but that wouldn't mean that it would show the same model, or the same camera angle, etc. And indeed that's exactly what we observe: a new and unique pic with the characteristic of those golden globe photos.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That's obvious
                I have never seen, and I don't know what a Golden Globe is.
                It surprised me that all those pictures are extremely similar in nature. Which on the other hand, doesn't surprise that SD can only generate images similar to that given that prompt, since the sample data shows that it's what a picture of the golden globe fashion looks like.
                Either way, my point was to try and replicate the results to see why the generated images could look like it was "traced". And this last experiment with Silver Cubes was to try to understand how it could write golden globes legibly.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >"but it's Silver Cubes instead of Golden Globes"
                How does this work?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >picture of the editor screeching about m-muh ai takin our jerbs

  45. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Maybe CFG is too high or something, the faces all turned out poorly. Should have converged ok tho at 32 steps DPM++ 2M Karras.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      4

  46. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >artists can no longer justify working on art
    >they put their efforts into destroying someone else's work instead
    sasuga

  47. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    tldr: shitty overfitted model can't generalise and is lawsuit bait just like github copilot.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thats not the tldr thats just the dr

  48. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    let's say, just for the sake of argument, it is, in fact, stealing
    still don't care
    lol
    lmao

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's not stealing, it's piracy.
      >still don't care lol

  49. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    its only a big deal for crappy artists

  50. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >pajeet
    >pajeet
    >garden gnome
    >GAPING LMAO probable garden gnome
    >garden gnome

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you, Goldblum and Goldstein, for helping with this research

      kek it's too tiresome at this point

  51. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No one gives a shit about stealing. The point is that it's not as smart as you think it is. People ITT are pretending it's obvious that it's tracing images and not imagining, but imagination is why people think it's going to take their jobs.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It isn't tracing.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The whole human brain is literally a stolen thing. A brain is filled, literally filled, with things that that brain had stuck into it. You didn't
      >muh create
      the English language. You didn't create your own concepts. You've done NOTHING but soak up the detritus of your culture. (To say absolutely nothing of that which was force-fed to you in school.)

      AI/ML/DL is exactly and precisely the same fucking thing, except the size of a planet, and not tied to a decaying chunk of meat in your lumpy fucking skull.

      Cope and seethe, dude.

  52. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Artists are really reaping after spending the past year sewing by never shutting the fuck up about NFTs and right-click saving. Now AI is right-click saving their art and making them obsolete!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Going purely by posting style I'm much more inclined to believe that AIgays and NFTgays are the same posters, or at least the same type of people.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most artists were against NFTs. If anything NFT and AI bros overlap significantly.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        A lot of newgrounds animators were against moving to youtube.
        Before moving to youtube.
        And many of those youtube animators were against let's plays.
        Before opening let's play channels.
        They will cuck when the incentive is there.

  53. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    """"""""""""Artists""""""""""" are really going all out on trying to shut down this perceived threat to their paymetons income. I've seen """"""""""""artists"""""""""""" call to bait disney into further copyright overreach by training models on disney films.

  54. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >~~*goldstein*~~

  55. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >written by 2 pajeets, two garden gnomes, and a chink.
    >dropped

  56. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I will grant it the rightmost 5
    but woman in white dress on red carpet ALL look the same

  57. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >uses img2img
    >look is stealling, now pay us more taxes and fees oyvey

    Cringe

  58. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    what do you mean proof you colossal fucking idiot
    this is HOW THEY ARE DESIGNED TO WORK

    jesus, you're so fucking stupid you didn't even know that and think you just stumbled on a "secret"

    you're so fucking stupid you actually think "AI" meant "robot android brain that thinks like a human and creates new things"

    jesus, how can you tolerate being that dumb and posting on BOT
    it's too bad you can't delete your thread, you gigantic fucking idiot

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Every single pro-AI poster on the entire internet including BOT, Twitter and Reddit says and thinks "AI" means "robot android brain that thinks like a human and creates new things". This is also the same excuse many professionals use when they are confronted by artists with this. OP pic is proof that the machine indeed works like the machine was designed to work, and does not work like how AI shilling gays think it works.

  59. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You're telling me stable diffusion can make legible text? Nah that shit's fake

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The text on the right is fucked. The one on the left is lucky coincidence, the lucky 1/50 pics where it generates correct hands and overfits the text that was written on 100s of pictures in same format. See

      https://i.imgur.com/qlTryMy.jpg

      And my guess was correct. The prompt was the exact same, except I added "but it's Silver Cubes instead of Golden Globes" and this was the result.
      They found points at which the model is overfitted and trying to equate that to SD stealing somehow.
      Funny thing, this time it managed to write Golden Globe Awards once almost perfectly, but this is because it doesn't see it as text at all, it's almost like it's trying to replicate a logo.

      where on some pictures the text and logo were written correctly.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Where is it fucked? The one on the left perfectly says
        'GOLDEN
        GLOBE
        AWARDS'
        Not AVVARDS, not BLOBLO AWARDS, not even GOOLEN. The one on the right is only
        The second one is the same, also completely perfect, just a little squished. Even worse, the 3rd one (where we can only see the first letter of each row) is also perfect-looking.

        You say it's "lucky" on the left, yet it isn't lucky even once in this

        https://i.imgur.com/qlTryMy.jpg

        And my guess was correct. The prompt was the exact same, except I added "but it's Silver Cubes instead of Golden Globes" and this was the result.
        They found points at which the model is overfitted and trying to equate that to SD stealing somehow.
        Funny thing, this time it managed to write Golden Globe Awards once almost perfectly, but this is because it doesn't see it as text at all, it's almost like it's trying to replicate a logo.

        despite your insistence otherwise.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous
        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          ?? take your meds schizo

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >what are fanarts

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            ?? take your meds schizo

            https://i.imgur.com/JEign41.jpg

            Take your meds schizo

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              see

              I know this team
              They were cheating a lot in their previous paper implementations

              They' re cheating

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          They' re cheating

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        This anon is correct. Wtf is up with the schizo falseflagger?

  60. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    anything pajeets and zhids agree on is surely wrong

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      garden gnomes in serious research fields generally do a good job. Those you want to ignore are: chinks, poos, ausfalians and arabs. Everyone else is fine (even apefricans to some extent).

  61. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    i skipped this whole ai "art" trend, didnt expect it to be this bad

  62. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bros, cameras are stealing

  63. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >recalls object which are semantically equivalent to their source objects without being pixel-wise identical
    >ask for a sofa, get a sofa
    >AI generating perfect text with perfect font
    Yeah, nice try. Did they used GPT to generate this total legit study too?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Is it that hard to read the paper before forming your opinion?

  64. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    make an open source license that makes it illegal for machines to use
    sue ai companies
    ez

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Except you can't forbid fair use.
      If you do not want other to learn from your image, just don't publish it. It's that simple.

      Is it that hard to read the paper before forming your opinion?

      My shitting time window is too short to do research. Especially on something that looks fake as fuck since literally the first page.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Except you can't forbid fair use.
        I could

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, you can't. Not unless you can also prevent them from accessing the content without signing a license agreement.

          Fair use is an exception to copyright. Aka, even if you 100% own the copyright for something, anyone is still allowed "fair use" of the copyrighted material.

  65. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >handcrafted prompt
    >please recreate image ai-san
    >ai recreates image
    >no

  66. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is a dumb argument to make anyway. Can AI create plagiarized art? Yes, just like human artists. It doesn't mean everything created by it is plagiarized. Just like human artists.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      But artists are starving and need your commissions, sir

  67. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Here, I'm going to describe to you tons of apples of different cultivars and show you pictures of each.
    >Hey, can you draw me a Fuji apple that's slightly bigger on its left hemisphere and with one leaf coming out of the top of it?
    >OMG YOU STOLE MAH APPLE I CANT BELIEVE YOU PROVIDED SOMETHING VERY MUCH LIKE ONE OF THE MILLIONS OF PICTURES I DESCRIBED TO YOU

    Really? Thats where we are? "semantically identical" is not good enough, much like if I said "Draw me a picture of a 1910 style chaise-longue with violet upholstery and a white herringbone pattern cotton blanket in turndown service position ready to be used draped upon it " you're going to come up with pretty much the same thing, provided the AI has enough experience to know about what a 1910 style chaise-longue looks like, what a herringbone pattern cotton blanket will look like, and a reference for a contemporaneous violet upholstery will be etc) Hell, even the abstract there shows that there's a good bit of difference at some times depending on the prompt, but all of this works pretty much the same way that the human mind does as "inspiration". Like that "golden globe" sign. I imagine the prompt would be either "hang rectangular with rounded edge white signs behind the figure and have them say Golden Globe Awards using XXXXX font, size, and layout etc" , "Look at the signs used during the 20XX Golden Globe Awards red carpet and provide a similar one in style, font, layout etc" or even both, not to mention additional specifics to work with the particular syntax of the program. Either way its well in line with how a human would do so - the ONLY difference is in the execution, which the AI can do perfectly with proper iterations.

  68. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    All the AIjeets seething in this thread. Artists won.

  69. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The paper could have instantly proven their results by proving prompts and settings. They didn't. I wonder why?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      They did

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They only offer a few prompts that can't be reproduced because they use their own local installation and don't tell us the seed. Repeated attempts to reproduce on other platforms (i.e. locally) also fail repeatedly.

  70. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >it's okay when garden gnomes do it

  71. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Tom Goldstein
    oy vey why am i not surprised

  72. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The thing with plagiarism seems to be: everyone steals from everyone else until the buck stops at the person with the strongest lawyer. I don't envy artists in this way.

  73. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    personally i hope AI art doesnt become totally commercially legal. i think it would be best kept personal and underground for all parties involved.

  74. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    what are they gonna do? Sue it? haha

  75. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's not proof of theft. If you trained a person to accurately draw the bloodborne cover, its still an original drawing even if it looks very very similar. That doesn't mean you could use it commercially though, just like if I drew a picture of Mikey Mouse I couldn't use that commercially even though its my own original drawing.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      A person knowing something and a computer program knowing something are different things. If you distribute a computer program capable of reproducing copyrighted works when prompted, then that program is itself copyright infringement. There will be lawsuits, and they will effectively make SD et al illegal.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If you distribute a computer program capable of reproducing copyrighted works when prompted, then that program is itself copyright infringement

        This has to be trolling. This has to be.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If you distribute a computer program capable of reproducing copyrighted works when prompted, then that program is itself copyright infringement
        shit i didn't realize every computer ever made is illegal

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That is not how it works.
        If you want to have a legal argument against this, it needs ton start with the part where they trained the AI by scraping the entire internet for all images they could find, never asking a single copyright holder whether they were allowed to do that (and you can tell they knew it would be illegal, because they curiously didn't do the same thing to music).

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Copyright owners gave people permission to download their image. What they lack permission for is reproducing the images, which is what distributing these AI models constitutes. There is definitely a class action lawsuit brewing over this.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Good luck getting a class action lawsuit to delete the files from millions of peoples computers as they peer share it. You can't put this genie back in its bottle.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              No, but you can make it legally radioactive to develop any more of these models. The cost associated with training them makes it prohibitive for individuals, so without corporate backing it likely won't happen.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >he doesn't know
                NAI 1.4 in progress right now, furry models and a dozen others made by people
                This software is entirely in the hands of every average layperson now and it is impossible to stop them, especially as hardware becomes stronger and cheaper over time as it tends to.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Did you forget to take your meds again? You really shouldn't. Take your meds, schizo.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If it's commercially viable, it WILL be used commercially. It's only a matter of time.
      And yes, in fact, very similar drawings can be a serious problem. Art forgery is a crime in the first world.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        See

        https://i.imgur.com/JfkcDQv.jpg

        A variety of sources. Pictures, random artwork, other comics, etc. Pic related, artist "Greg Land" for marvel comics.
        Another big example is Disney: famously the waterfall from lion king (or was it jungle book?) was made by tracing a video of a waterfall from a video. Most other is based on tracing videos of actors moving around.
        However, the dance scene in robin hood is a direct trace of the orangutan dance scene from jungle book, complete with incorrect distances caused by modeling a normally proportion character on top of the orangutan.

        https://i.imgur.com/bvtzey2.png

        Just found this in another thread on BOT by pure coincidence:

  76. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI-generate Mickey Mouse and see how Disney reacts.

  77. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I wonder what the guys who invented this shit were thinking they were doing to the world by unleashing an uncontrollable system of zero-effort automated mass plagiarism. That's like the art equivalent of giving every toddler a hand grenade.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Plagiaristic art is art you philistine

  78. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >train new division AI to plagiarize
    >it plagiarizes (kinda, arguably)

    desu, though, I think AI is fundamentally different than a human learning from available examples. It doesn't matter if the AI is a sapient being or an "expert system" like today. What matters is that powerful AI models being only trainable with many millions of dollars and only owned by huge megacorporations is an unacceptable centralization of power. It should be legal to create AI systems, but as we get closer and closer to "strong AI" it's increasingly important that they're not monopolized by private interests. The only difference between a third-world kleptocracy and a modern first-world nation is the value of the labor of the citizens of the nation. If your labor has no value, you will not get a vote, because I'd make more money by killing you and continuing to sell oil. If your labor is valuable, powerful individuals are FORCED to tolerate your existence because it is from that labor (rather than oil or minerals) that they derive their wealth and power.

    Sufficiently advanced AI is "oil". It's something that can generate money on three scale of a nation, while requiring only minimal human labor to operate.

  79. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >tell AI to replicate something
    >omg look ai STOLE from artists
    >tell shartist to replicate something
    >
    lol, lmao even

  80. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >stealing, consent, copyright, ethics discussion
    The irony is all those arguments by AIjeets on art applies to music but somehow their opinion shift 180 degrees when it's about music

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is a bot-generated post.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        He's right, Indian

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'm a musician and I'd be fine with my music being used to train AI and fine with the idea of musical AI in general.

  81. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >purposefully train a model with those exact images with the sole purpose of reproducing them
    >it reproduces them

    You don't say.

  82. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    wow, an ai trained on images can generate something close to those images
    who would've thought

    shit's hardly different than artists using references

    retard

  83. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who cares, I'm still going to prompt images of my wife in various landscapes and there is nothing you can do to stop me.

  84. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >you wouldn't download an ai

  85. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Look at the true nature of artgays that is brought out by AI. They love that they have another means of perpetuating drama.

    [...]

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      /ic/ used to be good, and by good good I mean elitist and hated anime, the same holier than thou attitude is ridiculous coming from a board that is now half anime/hentai/porn/e-boi threads

  86. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Tahts all AI is. THey just steal code, reuse images, its. Might as well just hire an Indian or Chinese.

  87. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AI is stealing
    This was already evident when the results came up with blurred signatures and AIgays needed artist names to come up with their best results.
    Hell, this was already evident when we got invaded by DeepCoder AI shills years back.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
  88. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anybody who wasn't a shill or a newgay already knew this. Every time a new "artificial intelligence" program gets lapped up by lazy or ignorant normalgays, we get flooded with these morons saying people in a field are out of the job. These same AI marketers kept on saying programmers were done for when Microsoft and Apple tried to promote a programming AI that ended up struggling with small amounts of basic lines of code.

  89. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://githubcopilotlitigation.com/

    Fuck. 🙁

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *