zlacker

>>zacwes+(OP)
> Sta­ble Dif­fu­sion relies on a math­e­mat­i­cal process called dif­fu­sion to store com­pressed copies of these train­ing images, which in turn are recom­bined to derive other images. It is, in short, a 21st-cen­tury col­lage tool.

Just no, that's not how any of that works.

I guess that lie is convenient to legitimate the lawsuit.

>>realus+S2
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.

>>lelant+05
> 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.

A license which should be opt-in, not opt-out.

Of course, it’s opt-out because they know, fundamentally, that most artists would not want to opt-in.

>>iamacy+C9
> A license which should be opt-in, not opt-out.

I dunno if it matters that the opt-in has to be at the legislation level.

After all, once Creative Commons adds that clause to their most popular license, it's game over for training things like Stable Diffusion.

I'm thinking that maybe the most popular software licenses can be extended with a single clause like "usage as training data not allowed".

Of course, we cannot retroactively apply these licenses so the current model will still be able to generate images/code; they just won't be able to easily use any new ones without getting into trouble.