Pretty much like Stable Diffusion and the grifters using it in general and they will never credit the artists and images that they stole to generate these images.
two wrongs don't make a right.
Of course you can see the original images (https://rom1504.github.io/clip-retrieval/), it was legal to collect them (they used robots.txt for consent just like Google Image Search) and it was legal to do this with them (but not using US legal principles since it's made in Germany).
"Crediting the artist" isn't a legal principle - it's more like some kind of social media standard which is enforced by random amateur artists yelling at you if you don't do it. It's both impossible (there are no original artists for a given output) and wouldn't do anything to help the main social issue (future artists having their jobs taken by AIs).
that's simply not going to happen. as in every technological development so far, this is just another tool.
1) artists create the styles out of thin air
2) artists create the images out of thin air
3) computers are just collectors of this data and do not actually originate anything new. they are just very clever copycats.
you're looking at an artist tool more than anything. sure, it's an unconventional one and a threatening one, but that's been true of literally every technological development since the Industrial Revolution.
Also, I'm not so sure that language models like SD, Imagen, GPT-3, PaLM are purely copycats. And I'm not so sure that most human artists are not mostly copycats either.
At some point biological humans will either merge with their technology or stop being the forefront of intelligence in our little corner of the universe. Either of those is perfectly acceptable as far as I am concerned and hopefully one or both of them come to pass. The only way they don't IMO is if we manage to exterminate ourselves first.
A vast number of species are no longer around, and we are relatively unusual in being a species that can even contemplate its own demise, so it's entirely reasonable that we would think about and be potentially concerned about our own technological creations supplanting us, possibly maliciously.
all of these assumptions miss something so huge that it surprises me that so many miss it: WHO is doing the art purchasing? WHO is evaluating the "value" of... well... anything, really? It is us. Humans. Machines can't value anything properly (example: Find an algorithm that can spot, or create, the next music hit, BEFORE any humans hear it). Only humans can, because "things" (such as artistic works, which are barely even "things", much more like "arbitrary forms" when considered objectively/from the universe's perspective) only have meaning and value to US.
> when we will all be killed off by our robot overlords
We won't. Not unless those robots are directed or programmed by humans who have passionate, malicious intent. Because machines don't have will, don't have need, and don't have passion. Put bluntly and somewhat sentimentally, machines don't have love (or hate), except that which is simulated or given by a human. So it's always ultimately the human's "fault".
Mostly money launderers, I've heard.
>we won't be killed off by AGI because humans don't have malicious intent
I wouldn't say malice is necessary. It's just economics. Humans are lazy, inefficient GI that farts. The only reason the global economy feeds 8 billion of us is that we are the best, cheapest (and only) GI.
e.g. SD2 prompted with "not a cat" produces a cat, and "1 + 1" doesn't produce "2".
It will indeed happen, though not to all artists.
> as in every technological development so far, this is just another tool.
Just like every other tool, it changes things, and not everyone wants to change. Those who embrace the new tech are more likely to thrive. Those who don't, less likely.
> 1) artists create the styles out of thin air > 2) artists create the images out of thin air
I understand what you're saying, but as an artist, I can't agree. No artist lives in total isolation. No artist creates images out of thin air. Those who claim to are lying, or just don't realize how they're influenced.
How artists are influenced varies, obviously, but for me I think that however I've been influenced, that influence impacts my output similarly to how the latest generation of AI driven image generation works.
I'm influenced by the collective creative output of every artist who's stuff I've seen. An AI tool is influenced by its model. I don't see a lot differences there, conceptually speaking. There are obvious differences about human experience, model training, bias, etc, but that's a much larger conversation. Those differences do matter, but I don't think they matter enough to change my stance conceptually they work the same in terms of leveraging "influence" to create something unique.
> 3) computers are just collectors of this data and do not actually originate anything new. they are just very clever copycats.
Stable Diffusion does a pretty damn good job of mixing artistic styles to the point where I have no problem disagreeing with you here. It comes as close to originating something new as humans do. You could argue about how it does it disqualifies its output as "origination", but those same arguments would be just as effective at disqualifying humans for the same reasons.
That all said, I agree with you that the tech is a disruptive tool. It's a threat the same way that cameras were a threat to portrait artists, or Autocad for architects, or CNC machines for machinists might be a threat. The idea that new tech doesn't take jobs is naive - it always does. But it doesn't always completely eliminate those jobs. Those who adapt and leverage and take advantage of the new tools can still survive and thrive. Those who reject the new tech might not. Some might find a niche in using "old" techniques (which in away still leverages the new tech - as a marketing/differentiation strategy).
For me, I've been using Stable Diffusion a lot lately as a tool for creating my own art. It's an incredibly useful tool for sketching out ideas, playing with color, lighting, and composition.
I don't think it will either, but artists think it will, so it's strange that their proposed solution "credit the original artists behind AI models" won't solve the problem they have with it.
It seems that he works coincidentally because CLIP associates his name with concept art.
In fairness this is an obscure Github page that <0.001% of people will be aware of. If creators of all these AI generating tools sat down and thought of consequences the author's names could have been watermarked by default and the license required to keep it unless allowed by the author for for example.
there clearly was no thought around mitigating any of these problems and we are having what we are having now with the storm around "robots taking artist's jobs" which they may (at least for some 90% of "artists" who are just rehashing existing styles) or may not, only time will tell.
This site is purely a marketing effort.