I’m not sure he was thrilled about peanut butter choice, he basically had a breakdown

It’s the 4th largest country of origin for 4chan from what I can find. It doesn’t sound like you’re actually responding to what I said is being missed. Guess you don’t want to.

I think this sentiment is common but misses some important things. First: the UK is a big market of internet users, so losing it is not insignificant. Second: most people will not bother with a VPN because it’s annoying or costs money. Third: from the UK’s perspective, banning non-compliant sites is a good thing.

Recognising all this is important, because it’s part of resisting such censorious laws.

Potential arrest and imprisonment for failing to pay the fine, you mean? That would be a proven damage, wouldn’t it?

People don’t use Firefox because it doesn’t have a global tech company shoving it onto people

I work with this by feeling morally superior to people with un-nuanced opinions.

I wonder if I can start a movement…

I never even considered using All…

Those categories do exist but I’d say there’s a third important one which tries to achieve the first without sacrificing the second: blocking people for their attitude rather than their opinions.

Maybe for you this still comes under the first category

Since I’m on .world… Can you explain why they blocked the instance? I haven’t really paid much attention to the different instances.

Yeah, it can work, because it’ll trigger the recall of different types of input data. But it’s not magic and if you have a 25% chance of the model you’re using hallucinating, you probably end up still with an 8.5% chance of getting bullshit after doing this.

Ram usage today is insane, because there are two types of app on the desktop today: web browsers, and things pretending not to be web browsers.

The model we have at work tries to work around this by including some checks. I assume they get farmed out to specialised models and receive the output of the first stage as input.

Maybe it catches some stuff? It’s better than pretend reasoning but it’s very verbose so the stuff that I’ve experimented with - which should be simple and quick - ends up being more time consuming than it should be.

Stable Diffusion? The same Stable Diffusion sued by Getty Images which claims they used 12 million of their images without permission? Ah yes very non-secretive very moral. And what of industry titans DALL-E and Midjourney? Both have had multiple examples of artists original art being spat out by their models, simply by finessing the prompts - proving they used particular artists copyright art without those artists permission or knowledge.

Getting sued means Getty images disagrees that the use of the images was legal, not that it was secret, nor that it was moral. Getty images are included in the LAION-5b dataset that Stability AI publicly stated they used to create Stable Diffusion. So it’s not “intentionally obscuring” as you claimed.

I don’t care to drag the discussion into your opinion of whether artists have any ownership of their art the second after they post it on the internet - for me it’s good enough that artists themselves assign licences for their work (CC, CC BY-SA, ©, etc) - and if a billion dollar company is taking their work without permission (as in the © example) to profit off it - that’s stealing according to the artists intent by their own statement.

Copying is not theft, no matter how many words you want to write about it. You can steal a painting by taking it off the wall. You can’t steal a JPG by right-clicking it and selecting “Copy Image”. That’s fundamentally different.

An VLM could easily add attributes to images to assign source data used in the output

Oh yeah? Easily? What attribution should a model trained purely on LAION-5b add to an output image if prompted with “photograph of a cat”?

In other words, I’ll continue to treat AI art as the amoral slop it is. You are of course welcome to have a different opinion, I don’t really care if mine is ‘good enough’ for you.

You can do whatever you want (within usual rules) in your personal life, but you chose to enter into a discussion.

From that discussion it’s clear that your position is rooted in bias not knowledge. That’s why you can’t point out substantial differences between AI-generated images and other techniques which re-use existing imagery, why you make up intentions and can’t back them up, and why you prefer to dismiss academics as “tech bros” instead of engaging on facts.

Seems like you’re not very skilled at responding meaningfully.

I completely agree on pretty much the whole sweep of this. AI just exposes another way in which copyright law is insufficient for the digital age.

On a personal note, a couple of years ago I tried to use chatgpt to write a story. It was shit so I wrote my own. I’ve taken up drawing again and want to properly learn digital painting.

In my mind, AI doesn’t threaten any of this because the enjoyment I get from these things doesn’t depend on selling what I do. Artists have been stereotypically starving for a long time because the innate human desire to create exceeds the desire of people to pay.

Allowing people to satisfy that desire without literally starving should be a societal goal.

The original developers of Stable Diffusion and similar models made absolutely no secret about the source data they used. Where are you getting this idea that they “intentionally obscure the original works… to make [them] difficult to backtrace.”? How would an image generation model even work in a way that made the original works obvious?

Literally steal

Copying digital art wasn’t “literally stealing” when the MPAA was suing Napster and it isn’t today.

For cynical tech bros

Stable Diffusion was originally developed by academics working at a University.

Your whole reply is pretending to know intent where none exists, so if that’s the only difference you can find between collage and AI art, it’s not good enough.

There’s zero need to throw insults around; I made the context absolutely clear in my comment and it has nothing to do with what I do when at an art gallery or something.

Maybe some people are having an experience like they are looking at a Rembrandt when they scroll through /c/pics or something, but I’m not. Do you also shit on people for being unable to appreciate music because they put something on in the background? Is it only OK to go to concerts and immerse yourself in it? If you’re in a shop and a tune you like comes on, do you park your cart to really appreciate the depths of emotion it’s inspiring in you?

Of course you don’t.

I think AI art serves a different purpose from the art we talk about when we say “real art has heart” or “the process of creating the art affected me when I looked at it”.

I think about how I feel when I’m scrolling through pictures in some app on my phone - some will be memes, some will be cats, but then some will be there for artistic purposes. As I’m scrolling through, such a picture will spark a brief glimmer of emotion - “huh, that looks neat” for example. I’m not looking close and examining the brush strokes, not thinking about what troubles the artist went through, and not thinking about the process of its creation at all.

In that context I don’t think it makes much difference that it’s AI-generated. I’d kind of like to know, and I don’t want to see a dozen different outputs of the same prompt because whoever hit the button couldn’t even apply the modicum of effort require to pick their favourite, but AI-generated images are just as able to instigate that glimmer of “hey that looks cool” that any image can.

How is that any different from “stealing” art in a collage, though? While courts have disagreed on the subject (in particular there’s a big difference between visual collage and music sampling with the latter being very restricted) there is a clear argument to be made that collage is a fair use of the original works, because the result is completely different.

Option 3 still ends up with robots and no-one doing the jobs that the robots replaced.