skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I view it as "tracer bullets." I know it will make noise, but I'm planning to look at the pattern of the noise to see what I can reason out of it.

Is it a complete answer? Of course not. Neither is trying to spin a wheel that you are truing. Produces a ton of output that is roughly in an expected pattern, and can be acted on.
That's a lie, sure, but if they had instead claimed:

The output of stable diffusion isn't possible without first examining millions of copyrighted images

Then the suit looks a little more solid, because (as you pointed out) it isn't possible for the stable diffusion owner to know which of those copyright images had clauses that prevents stable diffusion trading and similar usage.

The whole problem goes away once artists and photographers starting using a license that explicitly removes any use of the work as training data for any automated training.
Oddly, there's no mention of CLIP in the post and filing, where CLIPText is the real secret of Stable Diffusion's ability to correlate text to image for all the iterations targeted by the plantiffs.

I suspect adding OpenAI as a defendant would make things a tad harder legally.
Seconding AdGuard for Safari. It's free, open source, has customizable blocklists, and seems to work as well as uBlock ever did.
Computerphile has friendly introductions to just about everything: https://youtu.be/1CIpzeNxIhU
Generally social sign-in uses oauth apis[1]. These are most likely unaffected as they aren't part of the general twitter api that would be used by 3rd party apps.

[1] https://www.sitepoint.com/demystifying-modern-social-apis-so...
I think the result will be image sharing websites where you have to agree to have your image read into the model.

I think it is likely github will do the same with copilot.
This is why I love HN. These comments allow me to not click.
When you look around, you don't actually see most of stuff that's right there... you've got a small area you can see, about the size of your outstretched thumb[1], the rest of the world you think you're seeing is a projection in your mind, built as your eye darts from object to object.

Thus, when we see things, we have already built a relationship map of the parts of an image, not actual pixels. This makes it possible to observe the world and interact with it in real time referencing the pieces and the concepts we label them with, otherwise we'd have to stop and very carefully look around every single time we wanted to take a step.

These networks effectively do the same thing, taking in parts of images and their relationships. It's not uncommon for me to see what is clearly a distorted copy of a Getty Images trademark when I run stable diffusion locally. There's an artist who always puts his daughter Nina's name in his work... the network just thinks its just another style, and I suspect that's same for the Getty thing.

One thing that is super cool is you can draw a horribly amateur sketch of something, and have Stable Diffusion turn it into something close to the starting drawing in outline, but far better in detail.

A sketch of a flower I did came out as Tulips, Roses and Poppy depending on the prompts used to process it, but it was generally in the same pose and scale.

[1] https://developer.tobii.com/xr/learn/eye-behavior/visual-ang...
These models produce a lot of “in the style of” content, which is different from an exact copy. Is that different enough? I guess that’s what this lawsuit is going to be about.
Worms help create fertile soil.

Producing more topsoil would be a huge win here on Earth and make colonizing other planets dramatically more feasible.

Don't underestimate worms!
It seems to have issues with some photos that exiftool doesn’t have issues with, reporting some XML errors. But it’s a lot faster, so there’s that.
The owner of that Banksy painting certainly thinks so.
Lord Byron (father of Ada Lovelace) defended the Luddites quite succinctly back then and it is as applicable today: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/byron-was-one-few-...

"But the police, however useless, were by no means idle: several notorious delinquents had been detected; men liable to conviction, on the clearest evidence, of the capital crime of poverty; men, who had been nefariously guilty of lawfully begetting several children, whom, thanks to the times!—they were unable to maintain. Considerable injury has been done to the proprietors of the improved frames. These machines were to them an advantage, inasmuch as they superseded the necessity of employing a number of workmen, who were left in consequence to starve. By the adoption of one species of frame in particular, one man performed the work of many, and the superfluous labourers were thrown out of employment."

..

"The rejected workmen, in the blindness of their ignorance, instead of rejoicing at these improvements in arts so beneficial to mankind, conceived themselves to be sacrificed to improvements in mechanism. In the foolishness of their hearts, they imagined that the maintenance and well doing of the industrious poor, were objects of greater consequence than the enrichment of a few individuals by any improvement in the implements of trade which threw the workmen out of employment, and rendered the labourer unworthy of his hire. And, it must be confessed, that although the adoption of the enlarged machinery, in that state of our commerce which the country once boasted, might have been beneficial to the master without being detrimental to the servant;"

..

"These men never destroyed their looms till they were become useless, worse than useless; till they were become actual impediments to their exertions in obtaining their daily bread. Can you then wonder, that in times like these, when bankruptcy, convicted fraud, and imputed felony, are found in a station not far beneath that of your Lordships, the lowest, though once most useful portion of the people, should forget their duty in their distresses, and become only less guilty than one of their representatives? But while the exalted offender can find means to baffle the law, new capital punishments must be devised, new snares of death must be spread, for the wretched mechanic who is famished into guilt. These men were willing to dig, but the spade was in other hands; they were not ashamed to beg, but there was none to relieve them. Their own means of subsistence were cut off; all other employments pre-occupied; and their excesses, however to be deplored and condemned, can hardly be the subject of surprise."

..

"The present measure will, indeed, pluck it from the sheath; yet had proper meetings been held in the earlier stages of these riots,—had the grievances of these men and their masters (for they also have had their grievances) been fairly weighed and justly examined, I do think that means might have been devised to restore these workmen to their avocations, and tranquillity to the country."
Personally I think it’s awesome ;)
This is ignorant of how keyboard apps work on iOS. By default, they do not get internet or even network access, unless you explicitly permit it.
And how that's different from gzip or base64, which can re-create original image when given appropriate input?
Something other than 2.29999995231628417969 ?
This definitely fits what I was look for, thank you for the sugestion! I was not familiar with Cirque.
There actually was a split buckling-spring keyboard made by IBM back in the day.

Drool over this:

https://youtu.be/oNnW4wED4uU

;-)
So, what you are saying is that it is illegal to paint in the style of another artist? I‘m no lawyer, but I‘m pretty sure that is completely legss as long as you don’t claim your paintings ARE from the other artist.
If I was an artists with a distinct art style, I would be so happy about Stable Diffusion: it's a generator for copyright infringement damage claims.
> Lawsuit challenging Stable Diffusion filed against DeviantArt & others

I find this title somewhat unclear. Is it filled by or against DeviantArt?
Wonderful writeup. Thanks for sharing!
That’s the key question of the lawsuit IMO!
That looks promising, and not stuck to a single tech (svelte, react).

So it's a tailwind plugin that uses apply to create new css classes for components.
No that doesn't, that demonstrates that the model has a abstract features and characteristics of this artists stored in the model, not work.

You can't bring back the training images no matter how hard you try.
Can it? I thought up to 15s you can copy it verbatim without violation.
Apple doesn't seem to have a category for exploits like these. I wonder if this is because they can't fix them.
Didn't yesterday someone proclaim generative models can't destroy anything worth protecting? It was about chatGPT but the principle is the same.
> I think "{}.format()" is strictly better than %s

It’s not, because it’s way too powerful.

A user-provided printf string is not much of an issue, a user-provided str.format one very much is, as provides significant traversal capabilities.
This feels like the argument of a money launderer.
Ask HN: What are some of your “buy it for life” purchases?
A while ago someone asked about best purchases under $200, and it made me wonder what items people have gotten the most use out of. What are some of your favorite items that are made to last?
Thirding AdGuard for Safari.
I am creating this week's new-letter edition with a collection of all the best resources in 2022 60+ (Books, Articles, Podcasts, and Newsletters)
How do you know that what you did helped you recover fast?

As a data point, I also had Covid and also recovered fast, without any of these.
Seriously, 90% of the comments on HN when software companies decide to charge customers money is that the poster doesn’t want to spend any money on any software ever (but wants to receive billions of dollars building their own FOSS TODO list app) and that they’re the companies are oppressive and evil. What a relief (and time-saver for the support teams) it must be for companies like Docker to have those difficult users just self select themselves out.
The painting that has several cuts in about 25% of the surface area? Don’t think that constitutes as a shapeless pile of dust.
What's the name of your tool/app?
It's only hypocrisy if you think that HN is made up of a single person commenting under multiple accounts and not a diverse group of people with varying opinions.
>
This is the fundamentally flawed and misguided argument that can literally be applied to any technological progress to curtail advancement.

No, this is the only fundamentally correct way to view this. Before the existence of the printing press, we didn't need copyright law. Yet all that the printing press did was make transcribing books by hand faster.

Quantitative changes enabled by technology are qualitative changes. And not every form that a qualitative change takes is one that leaves the world better off than we found it.
I had to laugh when I read the complaint about evil mode interactions. Running an emulator for another UI paradigm, unhappy about how it works.
>Useless Old Device

A supercomputer in your pocket, by old enough standards.

It is good that these can find a new life other than becoming landfill.

What's sad is that it needs to be done by third parties through hacking; legislation should be in place so that the vendor has to facilitate the reuse of old such devices.
>>> Containers have been around years before Docker,

True, but docker made it easy peasy. They came up with the packaging format and other things in a neat little package. This was what made everyone take up docker when it came out.
Not to mention that it works by inverting noise. Different noise, different result. Let's recognise the important contribution of noise here.
Crypto cold wallet
Isn't this exactly how language translator applications work, through ingesting a huge amount of training data?

Automatic machine language translation puts translators out of work and would not be possible without huge amounts of ostensibly unlicensed training data.
Good, using work for which an author has an active copyright as training data for an AI system, without their permission, should be illegal, and the sooner this gets resolved the better.
By those that decided whatever Chrome does is the Web, while arguing against IE having done the same for a decade.
Thanks for that! The entire commentary is worth reading (though I didn’t find the comic itself very compelling. That or I didn’t get)
> Are image generators giving exact (or very similar) copies of existing works?

um, yes.[1][2] What else would they be trained on?

According to the model card:

[1] https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/blob/main/Stable...

it was trained on this data set(which has hyperlinks to images, so feel free to peruse):

[2] https://huggingface.co/datasets/laion/laion2B-en
I don't know if you're right or wrong, but it seems plausible that we could create a database of copyrighted images to check against.
ChatGPT can already generate code.
Because in some cases, adding a style prompt gives almost the original image: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/wby0ob/it_...
Top Predictions and Trends for Generative AI in 2023
For “dirty” sites like LinkedIn I simply open a new private window in Safari.
The sampling problem is still real. There's a difference in say the cutup of the amen break into 40 parts and painstakingly re-orchestrating it and taking the strings from Led Zeppelin's Kashmir, playing it in a loop for 4:55 and rapping over it (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_Some_Kill). To be hyper specific, that's why say, Tyree's Acid Overture, which samples the same song and was released the same year and recorded in the same city, didn't see any push back (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vJeFIBhZTBE) - it's used more like a paintbrush in that one.

There's very much an arbitrary judgment call here. Bob James probably had a case with Run DMC Peter Piper (which is take me to the Mardi gras) but he's always been really chill about it. They lucked out.

Same thing here. There's this amorphous "creative effort" that creates an abstract distance between the works. Unless the engineers can show an effort to respect and police this distance, I think things might get dicey
It's going to be very hard to them to argue against Stable Diffusion and not reach the conclusion that people looking at art are doing exactly what training the AI did.

You looked at my art, now I can use copyright against the copies in your brain.
Iirc it can be a problem copyright wise if I paint from a photo reference because it can infringe the photographers IP.
That role belongs to Chrome, half of their stuff isn't even a Web standard.
maybe. but there are underhanded code contests that are about submitting code that contains purposeful bugs but that aren't easily detected, and if detected, look like genuine mistakes (like off by one errors etc) rather than deliberate malicious code

see http://www.underhanded-c.org/ for the contest in C, and the one for rust is offline, but can be read here

https://web.archive.org/web/20190511070359/http://blog.commu...
You missed the firetruck letter that your parent poster had likely indicated.
Shout out to the director of engineering who questioned the legality and declined to do it.
No. Humans decided to include artwork that they did not have any right to use as part of a training data set. This is about holding humans accountable for their actions.
There are LG (and other's) OLED monitors that do away with all the nonsense. They only go up to 48'' though.
It isn't guaranteed, but I'd be shook if it didn't work I the cast majority of cases. Triple-faulting a CPU doesn't do much other than revert to real mode and jump to FFFF:0000, so I'd expect this to work too.

It's one of those not technically documented things, but a downstream effect of documented pieces.
Great. Now the defence shows an artist that can recreate an image. Cool, now people who look at images get copyright suits filed against them for encoding those images in their heads.
But they are not original works, they are wholly derived works of the training data set. Take that data set away and the algorithm is unable to produce a single original pixel.

The fact that the derivation involves millions of works as opposed to a single one is immaterial for the copyright issue.
I have a different take.

I don't know how the law on copyright relates to AI. I can't imagine all of the arguements, I don't know the case law. I may have some gut feeling, I may want a certain outcome, but I am a nobody.

I think in a common-law system a court room and a test case is needed to clarify this law.

I am sad that the system for getting this into court is so expensive. I am sad that people involved are being threatened with damages, I don't think that is necessary.
I'm not disputing that it's capable of generating incredible amount of thematically consistent and cohesive text.

But every joke, poem, essay and story that I've seen from chat GPT have been largely derivative and terribly formulaic.
Unfortunately, I've got some really bad news for you... There's nothing unique to ICE cars that makes particulate bad. The worst part of cars for particulate is their weight, and EVs are heavier than ICEs. So in some ways, they are actually worse because of the way they wear down tires.

You want to get rid of particulate, gotta go fewer cars altogether.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438942...
Show me one worm that can paint as well as the original DALL•E, let alone v2 or Stable Diffusion.

Show me one worm — or even a hamster — that can drive a car as well as Tesla's Autopilot.

Show me one single non-human animal of any species that can write functioning Python code or CSS from a natural language description of what it should achieve, even if it only gets to GPT-2 level let alone v3 as used in Copilot or v3.5 as used in ChatGPT.

What we have yet to do with a worm is literally upload it's brain, but IIRC that's more because nobody with the money was interested in funding the one person publicly interested in figuring out how to measure synaptic weights in vivo.
Oh sure!

The value of PI contains a sequence of bits that is an illegal image.
Ban it!
That's a huge understatement. 5 billion images to a model of 5GB. 1 byte per image. Let's see if one byte per image would constitute a copyright violation in other fields than neural networks.
https://www.wired.com/2011/01/hope-image-flap/amp
Very cool project!

Justine, how can I learn more about how disk access (reading/writing files) works?

Is there a blank virtual disk of some kind in memory? (Ohh I’m realizing maybe this is provided by emscripten?)

Does stdio work?

Would it be possible for ncurses to work?
https://github.com/celzero/rethink-app
I have always wondered; is there a limit to the extent of losses these financial companies keep enduring? Every time Wells Fargo is in the news, it is about some loss or fine to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Artists do not have an inalienable right to be paid to do art. There are many reasons why you might argue that the tech is harmful, but that it "will make artists extinct" is not a good one.
A good knife.

Pans which never go in the dishwasher.

A decent glass water jug which fits on the refrigerator door.

A small toolkit of decently made screwdrivers.

A reasonably simple Victorinox Swiss army knife.

At least one raspberry pi.

A strong "U" kryptonite style bicycle lock.

Glasses cleaning cloth. 15 years going strong.

A digital alarm clock you can adjust the brightness on. I went Sony, it uses DVB-T signals to get time.
At the very least, Stable Diffusion is much different than Copilot in term of the model license. I, you, and all the artists have irrevocable access to the model (in practical term, I'm not interested in discussion whether they can somehow legal strong arms people from using the model).

We only have mere limited access to Copilot. And it is impractical for almost anyone else on earth to train a similar model, while we are 100% sure it is possible to have a dataset or to redo the training of SD. Just from pure utilitarian point of view, it's much easier to support fighting against Copilot than SD
Its purely risk avoidance by a corporation because they are worried about being cancelled or sued by the woke mob.
> In fairness, Diffusion is arguably a very complex entropy coding similar to Arithmetic/Huffman coding.

so, digits of pi anyone?
I can't think of anything more actively harmful than implementing requirements that are wrong.
I think they should stop taking input from the keyboard literally, and process it in a similar way to swipe typing which is usually pretty accurate.
Funny they didn’t include OpenAI in the lawsuit …
jExifToolGUI is a Java GUI app for ExifTool.[0]

[0] https://hvdwolf.github.io/jExifToolGUI/
It will be interesting to see how they legally define the moment where compression stops being compression and starts being an original work.

If I train on one image I can get it right back out. Even two, maybe even a thousand? Not sure what the line would be where it becomes ok vs not but there will have to be some answer.
Some people need to run macOS-only software, this potentially makes it a bit less painful than the alternatives for the same reason containerized versions of other finicky setups do.

In the README there's a blurb with:

> Run Mac OS X in Docker with near-native performance! X11 Forwarding! iMessage security research! iPhone USB working! macOS in a Docker container!

> Conduct Security Research on macOS using both Linux & Windows!
By forcing the AI community to develop technology to avoid replication of training examples they might disclose every bit of human copying as well. What can detect copyright violations in AI can be applied on human works as well.
I dont think anyone can be sued for making a drawing of some photo.

You can claim intellectual property for comic characters etc, but not photos.

YOu could get someone to go get a similar photo taken at the same place, and use tools to enhance it
UI? I thought that Safari’s Web Inspector is still behind in naked features.
> Without DRM, someone could make a free trial, pirate all our games, cancel their sub and play them out without paying.

Some people will do this, sure. But just because they can doesn't mean they will.

I could torrent Netflix's entire catalogue today. Yet I have a subscription to them and they're still a multi-billion dollar company with millions of paying subscribers. Hmm... that's odd isn't it?

These people are not your target demographic. $8/mo is too expensive for 95% of VN/CN/IN/ID/MY/RU/$I_COULD_GO_ON gamers.

I'm not saying "don't do DRM", but your argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

I wish you the best of luck with the project!
name one qualitative change resulting from quantitative change that did not benefit the world as a whole?
I'll go out on a limb and say that this question smells like testing the boundaries of HN's freedom of speech to prove some point related to the culture wars.
The place I work at recently grew and have adopted this agile scrum thing. We had a course that prepared us for it, but if I'm being honest, I just don't get it. I mean breaking a feature down into smaller pieces, sure I guess that helps.
MVP, sure I understand although however you explain it to the client, they always freak out when they use it for the first time. I guess this means they only said they understood when they didn't really.
But then there are the meetings and they waffle on about numbers and improving performance. I mean, what am I supposed to do about that? Give me a task and I will try to understand it and do it in a timely manner. That's all I can give you. What exactly is it that you want?
well I guess it wouldn't be different, only there aren't any companies zipping up millions of images and then offering people the chance to get those images by putting in the text prompt that recreates them without paying any fees to the artists whose images were used.