this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023

223 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

technology@beehaw.org

43,559 readers

1,928 active

298 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago

moderators

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

Greg Rutkowski Was Removed From Stable Diffusion, But AI Artists Brought Him Back - Decrypt (decrypt.co)

submitted 3 years ago by trashhalo@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

246 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Greg Rutkowski, a digital artist known for his surreal style, opposes AI art but his name and style have been frequently used by AI art generators without his consent. In response, Stable Diffusion removed his work from their dataset in version 2.0. However, the community has now created a tool to emulate Rutkowski's style against his wishes using a LoRA model. While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski's art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5. The debate highlights the blurry line between innovation and infringement in the emerging field of AI art.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] selzero@syzito.xyz 10 points 3 years ago* (25 children)

@raccoona_nongrata @fwygon

Rutowski, Monet, and Rockwell could also not create without human art.

All creativity is a combination of past creativity.

Even Monet.

Even Shakespeare.

Even Beethoven.

parent

hideshow 25 child comments

[+] raccoona_nongrata@beehaw.org 21 points 3 years ago (9 children)

[deleted]

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] selzero@syzito.xyz 10 points 3 years ago (8 children)

@raccoona_nongrata

Actually. It is necessary. The process of creativity is much much more a synergy of past consumption than we think.

It took 100,000 years to get from cave drawings to Leonard Da Vinci.

Yes we always find ways to draw, but the pinnacle of art comes from a shared culture of centuries.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[+] raccoona_nongrata@beehaw.org 12 points 3 years ago (7 children)

[deleted]

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] selzero@syzito.xyz 2 points 3 years ago (6 children)

@raccoona_nongrata

A machine will not unilaterally develop an art form, and develop it for 100,000 years.

Yes I agree with this.

However, they are not developing an art form now.

Nor did Monet, Shakespeare, or Beethoven develop an art form. Or develop it for 100,000 years.

So machines cannot emulate that.

But they can create the end product based on past creations, much as Monet, Shakespeare, and Beethoven did.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[+] raccoona_nongrata@beehaw.org 7 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

[deleted]

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] selzero@syzito.xyz 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

@raccoona_nongrata

Actually this is how we are training some models now.

The models are separated, fed different versions of the source data, then we kick off a process of feeding them content that was created by the other models creating a loop. It has proven very effective. It is also the case that this generation of AI created content is the next generations training data, simply by existing. What you are saying is absolutely false. Generated content DOES have a lot of value as source data

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] selzero@syzito.xyz 1 point 3 years ago

@raccoona_nongrata

In fact, generating content purely for the purpose of training itself is one of the core techniques in training machine learning models.

parent

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 3 points 3 years ago (2 children)

No, humans create and develope styles in art from "mistakes" that AI would not continue pursuing. Because they personally like it or have a strange addiction to their own creative process. The current hand mistakes for example were perhaps one of the few interesting things AI has done...

Current AI models recreate what is most liked by the majority of people.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

And what if the human running the AI likes one of these "mistakes" and tells the AI to run with it?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 1 point 3 years ago

But that's still not how it works for an artist. I don't mean stumbling upon an accident and using it in your work but deliberately creating something that's not liked and perfect the way you do it. For someone who just instructs a tool and generates images in rapid speed they go a very different path.

parent

[–] glenatron@dice.camp 13 points 3 years ago (14 children)

@selzero @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon But human creativity is not ONLY a combination of past creativity. It is filtered through a lifetime of subjective experience and combined knowledge. Two human artists schooled on the same art history can still produce radically different art. Humans are capable of going beyond has been done before.

Before going too deep on AI creation spend some time learning about being human. After that, if you still find statistical averages interesting, go back to AI.

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] selzero@syzito.xyz 5 points 3 years ago* (13 children)

@glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon

I mean, yes, you are right, but essentially, it is all external factors. They can be lived through external factors, or data fed external factors.

I don't think there is a disagreement here other than you are placing a lot of value on "the human experience" being an in real life thing rather than a read thing. Which is not even fully true of the great masters. It's a form of puritan fetishisation I guess.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] glenatron@dice.camp 8 points 3 years ago (12 children)

@selzero @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon I don't think it's even contraversial. Will sentient machines ever have an equivalent experience? Very probably. Will they be capable of creating art? Absolutely.

Can our current statistical bulk reincorporation tools make any creative leap? Absolutely not. They are only capable of plagiarism. Will they become legitimate artistic tools? Perhaps, when the people around them start taking artists seriously instead of treating them with distain.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] selzero@syzito.xyz 6 points 3 years ago (11 children)

@glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon

This angle is very similar to a debate going on in the cinema world, with Scorsese famously ranting that Marvel movies are "not movies"

The point being without a directors message being portrayed, these cookie cutter cinema experiences, with algorithmically developed story lines, should not be classified as proper movies.

But the fact remains, we consume them as movies.

We consume AI art as art.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] glenatron@dice.camp 3 points 3 years ago

@selzero @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon I try not to consume it as art. There is plenty of original art by real artists. The averages of that dataset are less interesting to me than the original data points.

parent

[–] aredridel@kolektiva.social 1 point 3 years ago (9 children)

@selzero @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon And thousands of people's creativity is in the Marvel movie, but one person hammering out a prompt on the AI art. They're still vastly different. Even the most banally corporate movie is still a work of staggering human creativity and _working together_.

Stable diffusion image generators are not.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] selzero@syzito.xyz 1 point 3 years ago (8 children)

@aredridel @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon

Humans are also machines, biological machines, with a neurology based on neurons and synapse. As pointed out before, human "creativity" is also a result of past external consumption.

When AI is used to eventually make a movie, it will use more than one AI model. Does that make a difference? I guess your "one person" example is Scorsese's "auteur"?

It seems we are fetishizing biological machines over silicon machines?

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] aredridel@kolektiva.social 1 point 3 years ago (7 children)

@selzero @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon no. Human relationships of cocreation over purely extractive ones. It’s not the biology (though humans have human relevant social drives simple algorithms don’t), it’s the relationships.

It’s obscuring that as if these clusters of Gpus care about creating and form relationships based on them that is so offensive.

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] selzero@syzito.xyz 1 point 3 years ago (6 children)

@aredridel @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon

I don't understand, can you elaborate please. How is it not biological?

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] aredridel@kolektiva.social 1 point 3 years ago (5 children)

@selzero @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon it’s biological the way zoology is physics. Technically true but so deeply ignorant of the orders of magnitude of history and emergent complexity for that also to not be relevant. It’s a profoundly reductive way to look at things to the point of missing their fundamental nature.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] selzero@syzito.xyz 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)

@aredridel @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon

So, a human being a link in the chain of this historical cultural development of creation, is "more valuable" than a machine doing that?

Who makes these rules?

There is some kind of value structure at play here that I have not been made privy to?

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[+] doug@union.place 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

[deleted]

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] selzero@syzito.xyz 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

@doug @aredridel @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon

So Doug what you are saying is one of these things takes in external data, processes it, synergies it, and exports a derivative version, and the other thing is the machine?

No wait, the other thing is the human?

... Wait...

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] selzero@syzito.xyz 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

@doug @aredridel @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon

Imagination *IS* the processing of retained information to create a derivative.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] aredridel@kolektiva.social 2 points 3 years ago

@selzero @doug @glenatron @raccoona_nongrata @fwygon not just: it’s about relationships. Nearly all art is social.

parent