You can literally take a photo right now, upload it, and it will find similar photos from the SD dataset.
Re:Stable Attribution
by Aransentin on Monday February 06, 2023 @08:09AM
(#34676764)
As an obvious example, I uploaded a photograph I took of a painting I have by Julie Hagen-Schwarz* that's been in private possession since 1882 and never put online: https://www.stableattribution.com/?image=7730efac-bf52-4077-...
It still finds ostensible "source images" for the art. So, yes, it's clear this service is pretty much bogus.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Wilhelmine_Hagen-Schwarz
Why do you close the space for people who are pro-ai AND pro-attribution? The entire ai space wreaks of this divisiveness, and is likely why it will continue to die out as another "art-fad". There is seemingly little willingness to integrate into the existing art world in good faith.
Re:Stable Attribution
by vintermann on Tuesday February 07, 2023 @03:16AM
(#34690122)
I close the space for liars, whether they are pro or anti, and this service lies about attribution. Lying about attribution will just make everything worse.
I carefully did not mention this service, but rather pointed it to your sentiment which AGAIN seems to be binary in this pro/anti idea which is unnecessarily rigid and resistant to furthering discussion on the topic.
It has more in common with using an AI language model as a "bullshit generator" than it has with human attribution. Which isn't a coincidence, since nearest neighbour similarity searches ARE a type of machine learning, just a much simpler one than SD.
Anti AI people who are upset about attribution, should learn the technology and try to create an actual attribution model: one that has a notion of causality, which could say who influenced who.
Causal model requires causal assumptions, but you can probably get far with the simple assumption that "works from the future do not influence works from the past".