New version of Midjourney literally just copies famous movie scenes near-exactly

Why aren't corporations doing anything about this? You'd think they'd be terrified about such a blatant violation of copyright.

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

ChatGPT Wizard Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AI generated image

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Real movie scene

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/80SJj6x.png

      >Real movie scene

      instead of posting the gif, you posted two twitter screencaps.
      the absolute state

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/80SJj6x.png

      >Real movie scene

      >tell it to imitate a famous movie scene as closely as possible, use the word "screenshot"
      >it copies a famous movie scene
      >shit your pants about it
      notice that none of these are exact reproductions, it's not regurgitating the training data, it's reconstructing the scenes itself, which results in them looking slightly different
      the joker ones are close enough something weird might be happening but the thanos ones are just what you're going to get from any sufficiently good system

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        How would it "reproduce" the scene without having seen it before moron?
        Unless the OP prompter described every single detail in it in the prompt.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >How would it "reproduce" the scene without having seen it before moron?
          you must have replied to the wrong person, because that doesn't address anything i said
          of course it's seen that before, just like if you commissioned a human artist to produce a fake screenshot of a specific movie he would have to go watch the movie to do that

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >just like if you commissioned a human artist to produce a fake screenshot of a specific movie he would have to go watch the movie to do that
            yes and that is considered a copyright violation lmao.
            What are you even trying to say?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              i don't care about copyright. the position i'm arguing against is the position that these are just the AI regurgitating images from the training data, which might be true in some sense for the joker image but is definitely false for the thanos images.
              ai can definitely do things that violate copyright. so can human artists. that's a good thing.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              1. It isn't
              2. Copyright is itself theft

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They're not the same, although similar. There is no copyright violation.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      People have had their lives ruined for uploading mods of Nintendo games on the internet and their lawyers claiming it is a "copyright violation".

      If that sort of thing, which actually has a creative intent, is "copyright violation", then AI image generators straight-up copying copyrighted material is definitely copyright violation.

      So far it seems like a double standard. The little guy gets hit with the full force of every copyright lawyer that can be mustered if he dares make a minor violation. But multimillion dollar AI corporations can do whatever they want without punishment. Why?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If that sort of thing, which actually has a creative intent, is "copyright violation", then AI image generators straight-up copying copyrighted material is definitely copyright violation.
        If the generator generates the image entirely by redrawing it's no different than someone drawing it by hand and photoshopping it closer to reality. Companies are worried about AI not because of copyright violation but that that an AI will be able to produce works with a lesser monetary requirement. The only thing that actually keeps these companies earning is momentum and history, not talent. Expand the ability of people to produce content that these companies can compete with and they become irrelevant in the noise of everyone else's output. Their worry isn't about theft it's about competition making advertising no longer a competitive advantage that drives people to their output.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >another moron who believes in the lie that "ai works exactly the same as a human brain does!"

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >If the generator generates the image entirely by redrawing it's no different than someone drawing it by hand and photoshopping it closer to reality.
          So what you're saying is it's copyright infringement. If I draw Superman I'm infringing on DC's copyrighted material. They probably won't give a shit unless I start doing entire comics of it and selling them, but it is a copyright violation.

          Come up with something new instead of stealing other people's shit, you talentless israelite.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If I draw Superman I'm infringing on DC's copyrighted material.
            No you aren't. You might be infringing on their trademark, but that's a different matter.

            • 2 months ago
              MAID5

              what exact action creates the difference ?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              You are making a copy of a character they came up with. That's copyright. Using the name Superman would be a trademark violation. If you just copied the Superman character but named him something else, you'd be engaged in a copyright violation. If you called a character Superman but he wasn't very similar to DC's Superman, you'd be engaging in a trademark violation. And if you just copied Superman and called him Superman you'd be doing both.

              On the other hand if you based a character on Superman but modified his portrayal to be subverting / parodying the character, then you would be protected by fair use laws (see: Homelander, Omniman), and calling something a parody is one of the most effective ways of skirting around copyright laws, provided it actually could be viewed as a parody from the right angle. Playing it straight does not work.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Suppose someone reproduces the image of the joker above with a different clown in the same pose with the same expression in a similar suit would that still be a violation? Suppose then a person ask the AI to recolor the suit to the one the joker is wearing and give it joaquin phoenix's face in the same pose with the same expression and makeup is that a violation? Does the owner of the Joker movie rights then forever own the reproduction of a clown with joaquin phoenix's face in that position and expression for all of time?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          This is not a reason to sue AI companies, but an excuse.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >AI will be able to produce works with a lesser monetary requirement.
          The resource expenditure will be hundreds, maybe thousands of times more expensive for AI than a traditional in-house creative team. But the costs are centralized and the product can be sold broadly.

          That's the essence of free market capitalism. Specializing in doing a hard thing and selling it for cheaper than someone can do it themselves.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If that sort of thing, which actually has a creative intent, is "copyright violation"
        It's not, but most people can't casually spring out the kind of money it would take to fight the claim.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >But multimillion dollar AI corporations can do whatever they want without punishment.
        Your view is wrong. I don't like AI companies, but for now they are actively producing FOSS AI models and papers (as closedai). If the law now creates problems for them, it would be worse for everyone (as progress makes everyone's life better).

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >progress makes everyone's life better

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >he has something against free poojeet slave in his pc doing his wagecuckery for him

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I bet you were the sort of moron who 15 years ago would have been saying the iPhone was a positive invention for humanity as well.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Smartphones have been a positive invention. Humans misuse them. It's just a portable computer with a touch screen, nothing more.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If 99% of humans misuse the invention then it's pretty clear that the invention did not turn out to be a positive for humanity as a whole.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's their problem. Why should i live without something if Black folk cannot install ROM without spyware and not spend their lives in instashit?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Go live in the middle ages as a shit-bathing peasant then if you hate progress, luddite pedophile freak

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Post nose, schlomo.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            it's Saturday anon!

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Why come the law only applies to the weak
        Welcome to the real world kid

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >bootleg a movie
        >change bottom right pixel in every frame
        >”its not the same”

        >another moron who believes in the lie that "ai works exactly the same as a human brain does!"

        >disney has gone after people who had shapes vaguely resembling mickey mouse's head and won. this is so far beyond copyright infringement it isnt even up for debate if you know anything about copyright law.
        Yep exactly.

        The fact that these massive multibillion dollar media companies aren't doing ANYTHING to sue these AI companies who are straight-up stealing their shit is extremely suspicious.

        It makes me feel that AI companies have some kind of protection in some way. They are allowed to get away with things that nobody else would be able to.

        This isn't copyright death though. Try and rip off Marvel characters for a movie you made and you'll still get sued into oblivion. Use 5 seconds of copyrighted music in a Youtube video and you'll still get a strike from israelitetube's moderators and be forced to edit it out.

        This is just a classic "Rules for thee, but not for me" situation. AI corporations get away with whatever they want. But actual humans still get fricked in the ass by overly strict interpretations of copyright law.

        AI is not a person. It isn't sentient, it does not think for itself, it doesn't "do" things in the same way a human does.

        frick off back to /ic/ moronic tourists. No one gives a shit about sodomites being replaced by machines. You Black folk should have been replaced by yesterday

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >/ic/
          what's /ic/

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            /ic/ - Whoring out on social media/Mental support

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Models require datasets. Until training can be a self-enforcing process, you'll still need human-made data. It's getting there, and there's already models that can label datasets and we're seeing LLMs been trained downstream of larger models outputs (eg using GPT4 output to train HF models), but the data that goes in still needs to be clean and curated. Until then, your robot waifus still need to be created with the assistance of well-structured and clean human input.
          >t. /lmg/ and /ic/ reasonable disagreer

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        israelites are allowed to steal.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If I make a parody of a movie trailer that happens to look nearly identical and sound nearly identical, but isn't, because I produced it entirely by tracing and midi-reproducing the same frequencies, is it copyright infringement?

        This answers the question of whether image gen is copyright infringement. There is still difficulty however because one must spend both compute power and very autistically direct the model to reproduce such images (and in the end, it will never actually reproduce the original images, no matter how close).

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Imagine being against FOSS and acting like you're actually against companies. This shit is meaningless since it'll exist no matter what rules get put in place

    • 2 months ago
      MAID5

      >bootleg a movie
      >change bottom right pixel in every frame
      >”its not the same”

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >watch film
        >redraw a scene from scratch so it looks 1:1
        it's not stealing

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          and what if, theoretically, someone redrew each and every frame of the entire movie from scratch and released it? what then?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          film
          a scene from scratch so it looks 1:1
          >it's not stealing
          No human being would ever be physically capable of doing this unless they literally traced a copy of the scene exactly.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your point? Doing something better doesn't make it stealing.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              AI is not a person. It isn't sentient, it does not think for itself, it doesn't "do" things in the same way a human does.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That doesn't change anything

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            skill issue

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Hash data says it is indeed not the same movie, copyright maximalist :^)

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >If that sort of thing, which actually has a creative intent, is "copyright violation", then AI image generators straight-up copying copyrighted material is definitely copyright violation.
      If the generator generates the image entirely by redrawing it's no different than someone drawing it by hand and photoshopping it closer to reality. Companies are worried about AI not because of copyright violation but that that an AI will be able to produce works with a lesser monetary requirement. The only thing that actually keeps these companies earning is momentum and history, not talent. Expand the ability of people to produce content that these companies can compete with and they become irrelevant in the noise of everyone else's output. Their worry isn't about theft it's about competition making advertising no longer a competitive advantage that drives people to their output.

      youre both wrong. disney has gone after people who had shapes vaguely resembling mickey mouse's head and won. this is so far beyond copyright infringement it isnt even up for debate if you know anything about copyright law.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >disney has gone after people who had shapes vaguely resembling mickey mouse's head and won. this is so far beyond copyright infringement it isnt even up for debate if you know anything about copyright law.
        Yep exactly.

        The fact that these massive multibillion dollar media companies aren't doing ANYTHING to sue these AI companies who are straight-up stealing their shit is extremely suspicious.

        It makes me feel that AI companies have some kind of protection in some way. They are allowed to get away with things that nobody else would be able to.

        • 2 months ago
          MAID5

          why sue a company thats barely made any money yet? this is like starting a chess match by attacking pawns with your queen

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why sue a company thats barely made any money yet?
            All the AI israelites are rich as shit right now because normalgays are worshipping AI as a god and demanding it be included in everything.

            Imagine how much money Microsoft has made from the billions of coomers using Bing to generate their waifus all year. Or how much money Sam Altman (israelite) has made from the ChatGPT hype.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              basically frick all, chatgpt is too cheap right now, I bet someone is subsidising
              first step is to get you hooked, once you/others become dependent on this service, then the price will dramatically change for juicy profits

              right now all AI companies are in their net loss phase

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Most likely because you only get one shot in american court to prove your case. They save more money by watching these AI companies and keeping track of everything they do to compile the most damning possible case. They don't just have to convince a judge, they have to convince a jury too, and it has to be proven without a doubt. The fact that theres morons in here actually saying it isn't stealing is why they cant shut it down right now. But they will soon, im sure

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >has to be proven without a doubt
            not for civil, lmao

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

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

          Why aren't corporations doing anything about this? You'd think they'd be terrified about such a blatant violation of copyright.

          Why would Disney even care about this? Midjourney in no way competes with any Disney product. Disney and other studios are probably salivating at this technology if it means they can replace even 20% of their staff with it, it'll save them billions.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why would Disney even care about this? Midjourney in no way competes with any Disney product.
            Because at this point all that needs to happen is for AI video generation to become more sophisticated and then the AI corps can pretty much fully replace Disney.

            Imagine a Midjourney video generator that let you just input a few prompts and get your own Mickey Mouse movie. Now Disney makes 0 dollars off of you, while the AI israelites make billions as the new overlords of entertainment media.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >AI corps can pretty much fully replace Disney
              You honestly belive that? I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon. Maybe 10 years. And that'll probably happen regardless of whether they have to license shit now or not.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            wont take long, what was the state of image generation 12months ago

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          It's almost like these multi billion dollar media companies NEED the AI more than anyone else and do not want to thwart the creation.
          When they have what they need, they will take action. For now, you can do what ever you want.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >because their entire writing departments have been using LLM’s for upcoming scripts and movie ideas

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        At least it's but more transparent nowadays. If you think it's corrupt and authorities do whatever now, in the past it was way worse. Like those police old guys saying "in the old days I'd have kicked his teeth in".
        Same for courts. Laws didn't matter as much since there was no record if you followed or not during decisions.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Oh so that means I can go on pixiv and mass report everyone drawing fanarts for copyright infringement? Finally!

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Technically you can. It's unwritten rule that, say, comics artists can sell their artwork of copyrighted characters on comic-con.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's actually great to know, time to get some animetrannies off the internet

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Only if they try to sell their crap

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Most of them are on their gayboxes or whatever it's called

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      nice bait, homosexual

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    corporations can't do anything about it without making their own models illegal

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    they had this tech in 1999
    >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloot_Digital_Coding_System

    >In the [Sloot Digital Coding System], it is claimed that no movies are stored, only basic building blocks of movies, such as colours and sounds. So, when a number is presented to the SDCS, it uses the number to fetch colours and sounds, and constructs a movie out of them. Any movie. No two different movies can have the same number, otherwise they would be the same movie. Every possible movie gets its own unique number. Therefore, I should be able to generate any possible movie by loading some unique number in the SDCS.

    • 2 months ago
      MAID5

      >Therefore, I should be able to generate any possible movie by loading some unique number in the SDCS.
      claim is disprovable by basic math

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      forgot to say, it was too advanced for its time so they used the heart attack gun on the inventor and had the source code vanish

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I thought of a similar thing when I was a teenager, but for compressing files

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Sloot

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      forgot to say, it was too advanced for its time so they used the heart attack gun on the inventor and had the source code vanish

      what the frick, it really was covered up

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      the way that's described can be said about any compression scheme, depending on how you define "basic building blocks"
      even if it means having a single store of "basic building blocks" stored separate from the compressed data, that's just dictionary compression, which isn't unusual at all

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      smells like a CIA intervention

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who gives a shit. Total copyright death

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This isn't copyright death though. Try and rip off Marvel characters for a movie you made and you'll still get sued into oblivion. Use 5 seconds of copyrighted music in a Youtube video and you'll still get a strike from israelitetube's moderators and be forced to edit it out.

      This is just a classic "Rules for thee, but not for me" situation. AI corporations get away with whatever they want. But actual humans still get fricked in the ass by overly strict interpretations of copyright law.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >This is just a classic "Rules for thee, but not for me" situation. AI corporations get away with whatever they want. But actual humans still get fricked in the ass by overly strict interpretations of copyright law.
        Literally anyone can run AI on their own computer and no one will be breaking law. It's not just corporation.

        Also
        >MidJorney
        >corporation
        Lmao

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is nonissue. Synthetic data is the solution for text (proven to be much better than web crawl data) and it will be a solution for images too.
    Synthetic image description data is what Dall-E 3 was trained on and it also is more proof that synthetic data is the only solution to scale things up.

    You need one good model that can do photorealistic shit and then you just use that to generate billions of synthetic images with accurate descriptions and train a new model out of it. That model has never seen copyrighted image in its life. You can then easily choose what kind of images are part of the training data too as you choose what images you generate.

    Can that model produce nice looking Thanos? Sure, but there was never any copyrighted image of Thanos in the training set. Only synthetic and derivative work done by some other AI that might have seen few images of Thanos. There also will not be "overfitting" issue like in the images in OP picture.

    The only problem for normies is just that when they do that, you best believe that there is actually not a single image of a woman naked or even in bikini or shirt that exposes the midsection. Not drawn, not even a classical painting. The model will not have seen single human or humanoid without a shirt or pants and will be quite unable to picture what a bare stomach would even look like.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks Mistral 7B but i didnt read your post and im not falling for it

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Thank God, humanity is keeping the tech under our command and rule. Absolutely zero rights for machines.
    God bless European and British laws.
    https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/artificial-intelligence-cant-be-patent-inventor-says-uk-supreme-court-in-landmark-ruling-4710087

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    copyright issues aside, overtraining the model to the point where it spits out content from the training set 1:1 seems like a severe competence issue

    like learning NOT to do that is practically machine learning model training 101, how could MJ frick up like this, it just looks inept even disregarding legal concerns

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      "AI, depict these 3 scenes from marvel whatever"
      >AI does so
      "AIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

      Many such cases.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

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

        Not even remotely the same picture anymore since the angle is one that never existed.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >her face is angled slightly more forward therefore its a totally new picture
          fricking lmao

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. Children's positions are different, hand position is differnt facial angle is different, clothing is different, facial expression is different.hairstyle is different, eyes are not even the same.It's not anywhere near the same picture at best it's themed like said picture.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Sorry but if copyright law was 100% objective like that, it wouldn't even exist and would be completely impotent.
              Try to go draw a Mario Comic with mario in poses never seen before and email it to nintendo. See their response, ignore it, get dragged to court and have the judge and jury clown on you for that.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're not every intelligent are you?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            This poster had to be told the person in the mirror is not real as a child

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >mommy's-on-the-phonecore
        Is this prompt wizardy, memeloonery, or something entirely different?

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    "AI, depict these 3 scenes from marvel whatever"
    >AI does so
    "AIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >surprised model predict exact training results
    Its called overfitting, fricking tourists

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    homies in this tread really simping for billion dollar companies like marvel, hoping everything needs to be licensed so that only billion dollar companies are allowed to charge you out of their ass for their proprietary api shit killing the free and open source alternatives

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is actually proof that it is recreating things based on reference and not copying.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AI makes images based on movie frames
    Wait until they realize BOT has been doing exact same thing for two decades.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    moron
    it's being done on purpose so companies will be able to sue users who use AI to make shit and eventually just make it illegal for anyone to use AI to create art that they can claim is infringement

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >hey AI, draw me a coke can
    >*draws a coke can*
    >wtf that's copyright infringement

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >hey AI, draw me a coke can
      >expect an original artistic composition featuring a coke can
      >get a near-exact replica of a frame from a coke commercial that you could have just found in google images

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Whoa, you mean to tell me, if I describe a scene in detail, it can recreate it vaguely? WHO KNEW!

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Literally

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    i think it's pretty clear they built their own dataset by capturing every Xth frame of films
    i wouldn't be surprised if they just pirated the films
    even if they did acquire them legally they've opened themselves up to a whole new avenue of liability
    discovery would be an absolute nightmare for them
    if disney wants this to stop (and it's not clear they do), they can probably crush them

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Disney can frick over the people who made this model but the government can't frick over any random company that is literally stealing real people's faces and voices
      Every day it's a brutal reminder the the government doesn't work for the people

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        the govt could do whatever they want to, it's just a matter of who's paying them to do what.
        i think disney's just going to do what they did with bing, i.e. make a call and tell midjourney to start filtering. disney wants this tech to happen. while their own labs are decent, i wouldn't be surprised if they'd be interested in acquiring MJ.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >discovery would be an absolute nightmare for them
      Why especially discovery? Nude nigglets from the Havannah?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        they're a start up moving very, very quickly. i suspect they're not careful with their communications. seen similar things in leaked chatlogs from LAION and that other instance where some c-level is just casually saying 'hey we're generating things that look like cp' in a discord chat lol.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    boy I can't wait for an 85 year old judge who uses a typewriter to compose letters to make the landmark decisions on this case

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Aren't these the scenes that are used in memes? I feel like just random datasets would pick up a lot of reddit shit because reddit is a prime training platform.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Computer, give me an image from [famous movie scene]
    >outputs [famous movie scene] recreation
    >WTF THIS IS PLAGIARISM

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Stable Diffusion and its derivatives are merely lossy image compression algorithms. It makes sense that when trained enough they just start accurately reproducing the images they were trained on.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Really the question here is how big is the dataset size for Midjourney. If it's able to recreate images from its dataset with this level of fidelity then it's gotta be one of the most efficient compression algorithms in existence, unless the dataset itself is terabytes large.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Stable Diffusion is one the most efficient compression algorithms, once you set up the model you can train textual inversion of someone's entire facial likeness and it's only 20-30 extra kilobytes file.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          SD's TE/lora results are middling though.
          extending the definition of a compression algorithm to encompass something like this is silly though. pathtraced digidoubles are near perfect representations of their subjects but they're not compressed version of unlimited photographs of said subject.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          future's fricking frightening

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wouldn't it be up to the prompter to check that what AI has generated isn't infringing any copyrights first before publishing something?

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's time for the post-copyright era. Actors and Artists should be given UBI so they can focus on raw creativity instead of having to constantly worry about copyright. It would also mean DRM free steaming services so your obscure Risc-V BSD distro can watch Hollywood movies.

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