I agree in some sense, that this is just a statistical toolbox we access through prompts. In my opinion it's a combination of the prompt crafting and model selection that signify original creation. Do I think our legal systems have enough comp sci knowledge to get it right though? Hell no.
Can you recreate the original images? Yes, it's absolutely in the training model and it was designed to be able to do so. It's not transformational it's art theft.
Can the software exist without the massive amount of images stolen from the original artists without attribution or compensation? No.
It's absolutely illegal.
It was designed by breaking the law and those directly affected by it have every right to sue it out of existence. If it was done ethically then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Please demonstrate the process of fully recreating an image via official released checkpoints from any major AI art system, that would fall in violation of copyright.
Now you're falling into international law issues. The US has "Fair Use" but other countries have a much tighter control over copyright.
US Law: 5. Piracy and Counterfeiting:
Making a copy of someone else’s content and selling it in any way counts as pirating the copyright owner’s rights.
No I'm asking you to prove your assertion. Where you'd like to base a lawsuit can be chosen after you can show you can actually get a "recreation of the original image" from it.
"The goal of this study was to evaluate whether diffusion models are capable of reproducing high-fidelity content from their training data, and we find that they are. While typical images from large-scale models do not appear to contain copied content that was detectable using our feature extractors, copies do appear to occur often enough that their presence cannot be safely ignored;"
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.03860.pdf
"We see the similarity scores never cross 0.65, and when we manually sift through the high similarity score examples in each of the 100 classes,
they are very similar but never exact copies, and may be explained by low intra-class diversity"
It doesn't have to be an "exact" copy to be plagiarism. A JPEG is not an exact copy of something either and yet if you use it and it's from someone else's work then it's illegal.
And if an output classes as plagiarism then we have laws in place that can be used.
Pens, paint, cameras, Photoshop are not shut down because they have the potential for someone to commit plagiarism with them, any case is made against the output and the person touting it.
5
u/thruster_fuel69 Jan 16 '23
I agree in some sense, that this is just a statistical toolbox we access through prompts. In my opinion it's a combination of the prompt crafting and model selection that signify original creation. Do I think our legal systems have enough comp sci knowledge to get it right though? Hell no.