If somebody can't be fucked taking the time to write out their thoughts, why should they expect me to waste my time reading generated text? It's insulting.
Thanks for the link! I think I had in mind another one, where the UB fuckery happened at a lower level (I think you ended up with a semicolon/brace effectively "disappearing"?). But that's a good example too.
`x`, the value of the Vector access, only exists within the context of the first block. It does not exist in any other scope. This makes it impossible to access when the result is not valid.
> If Rust compiler would choke when "else" clause in your example is not present
The compiler won't choke, but it will stop you from accessing the value.
It doesn't matter if you omit the `else` clause or not, the type system ensures that you can't access invalid values.
there is also the narrative that these tests are designed by secret groups (ran by whom you ask?) to have such stack ranking to keep white people down and not realizing their true potential. i don't know how anyone sees racial IQ discussion and not realize it is always going to devolve into nazis.
> But I have very little sympathy for those perpetuating this tiresome moral panic (a small amount of actual artists, whatever the word "artist" means)
> A small amount of actual artists
It's extremely funny that you say this, because taking a look at the Trending on Artstation page tells a different story.
And ironically, the overwhelming majority of knowledge used by these models to produce pictures that superficially look like their work (usually not at all), is not coming from any artworks at all. It's as simple as that. They are mostly trained on photos which constitute the bulk of models' knowledge about the real world. They are the main source of coherency. Artist names and keywords like "trending on artstation" are just easily discoverable and very rough handles for pieces of the memory of the models.
I don't think the fact that photos are making up the vast majority of the training set is of any particular significance.
Can SD create artistic renderings without actual art being incorporated? Just from photos alone? I don't believe so, unless someone shows me evidence to the contrary.
Hence, SD necessitates having artwork in it's training corpus in order to emulate style, no matter how little it's represented in the training data.
SD has several separate parts. In the most simplistic sense (not entirely accurate to how it functions), one translates English into a semantic address inside the "main memory", and another one extracts the contents of the memory that the address refers to. If you prevent the first one (CLIP) from understanding artists names by removing the correspondence between names and addresses, the data will still be there and can be addressed in any other way, for example custom trained embeddings. Even if you remove artworks from the dataset entirely, you can easily finetune it on anything you want using various techniques, because the bulk of the training ($$$!) has already been done for you, and the coherency, knowledge of how things look in general, shapes, lighting, poses, etc is already there. You only need to skew it towards your desired style a bit.
Style transfer combined with the overall coherency of pre-trained models is the real power of these. "Country house in the style of Picasso" is generally not how you use this at full power, because "Picasso" is a poor descriptor for particular memory coordinates. You type "Country house" (a generic descriptor it knows very well) and provide your own embedding or any kind of finetuned addon to precisely lean the result towards the desired style, whether constructed by you or anyone else.
So, if anyone believes that this thing would drive the artists out of their jobs, then removing their works from the training set will change very little as it will still be able to generate anything given a few examples, on a consumer GPU. And that's only the current generation of such models and tools. (which admittedly doesn't pass the quality/controllability threshold required for serious work, just yet)
> The motivation for creating art isn't purely financial.
Yeah, but getting financial compensation can certainly help.
The opportunity cost of putting bread on the table means that the output of most professional artists today would drop significantly, if they needed to pick up another profession (especially full time).
> Plus, we humans all built our skills and works on the shoulder of giants. Artworks and cultural artifacts are never created in a vacuum. Maybe it's time to acknowledge that.
Financial compensation does help. But certain industries become marginalised or relegated to history given enough time. People then keep them alive because they choose to.
Where are the tears for horseback couriers? Or blacksmiths? Or thatchers?
I guess you didn't get my point which was: those industries died apart from specialists keeping them alive today and that's just the nature of the world.
The same thing will happen to human generated creative content whereby it becomes something that people are involved in because they want to be, not because it's a necessity/it's the only way to do it.
Yes the potential for future art work done by a human today will be erased in the future when it can be performed by a machine, but that has always happened & yet somehow it's surprising to people.
An artist being indignant towards machine generated art yet using mass produced tools, eating food farmed by mechanised equipment, wearing clothing woven by automatic looms, taking a digital photo themselves instead of hiring a portrait painter, owning a car instead of a horse that supports many sub-industries, sending emails instead of letters is just hypocrisy.
Technology has always brought us forward and these new AI powered tools will assist us as the tools we produce have always assisted our species. And as always those who refuse to change will eventually be left behind.
And yes, if this was happening to the industry I'm in I would currently be going through the 5 stages of grief about it, too. But then I'd just have to change up what I'm doing to reflect the changing times. As she herself said, it still doesn't capture what she puts into her art & so there is still that avenue to pursue.
The model size:training image ratio seems more like an implementation detail more than anything.
The fact that people are writing prompts with named artists, and phrases such as "Trending on Artstation"- yeah, I'm not sure if you can just handwave that away.
“Trending on Artstation” is a genre curated just like Bauhaus or Romanticism. Just the wider populace votes instead of old noble families and wealthy bankers.
I don’t see the moral significance of the former genres versus the latter
In some ways it’s just a coincidence that those prompts do something. You can use names of artists that don’t exist and those work just as well, once you’ve figured out what they mean.
Also, even if the model didn’t come with knowledge of an existing artist someone could fine-tune it in, and it’s possible the model can learn about your art style without seeing any of your images anyway.
Others have alluded to this, but I'll make a larger claim: human artists actually are doing very little that is original. The styles, composition, and subjects are all derivative works. That means their "essence" can be recreated without them.
Another fascinating consideration, if artists names were excised from future models, either by law or by choice, the "mirror" artists (fake) could be the ones which become famous and the humans forgotten.
AI could become more generalized or there may be millions of models, doing specific things, strung together like with APIs. Either way, if an artist or trademark owner chooses some kind of explicit blocking, from the input side, it is possible that it would be the equivalent of your keyword censored from Google's index, Google Maps, Amazon, and so on. Disney? I don't recognize that word.
Good grief, I wish people would stop pointing to a particular subset of an ethnic group to try to "prove" that people are "wrong" to get offended.
1. Videos are easily selectively edited
2. Within an immigrant ethnic group, different subgroups will have different feelings due to their experiences. For example, 1st generation immigrants tend to be less cognizant of this sort of stuff.
Here's a bit of a rant for you- as an Asian person, I find these Asian jokes pretty fucking unfunny. It absolutely shits me when people will ask an Asian person from Asia what they think about some hot-topic issue within the Western sphere- yeah no shit they'll find it trivial. They're so geographically and politically disconnected from the issue it makes no sense to ask them.
They experience none of the effects, understand very little of the context and have very little stake in the matter, the only reason people would ask them for their opinion on these issues is so they can point to a foreign face and tell people like me "why can't you be as well behaved as them".
I agree with your sentiment, but isn't it a bit ironic that you made a point of emphasizing heterogeneity among ethnic subgroups, but then sort of took that away from what was more specifically mocking Chinese and North Korean stereotypes, rather than broadly Asian? If you were Filipino and got mad about a joke that poked at Chinese materialism culture, wouldn't that be a bit of a reach? Surely within Asian cultures, different stereotypes abound in regional humor, especially is it's taboo to joke about regional cultural differences
> isn't it a bit ironic that you made a point of emphasizing heterogeneity among ethnic subgroups, but then sort of took that away from what was more specifically mocking Chinese and North Korean stereotypes, rather than broadly Asian?
Yeah a bit. I chose not to mention specific ethnicities and omit detail to keep my comment short. Regional humor has it's place, but in more nuanced contexts. A Chuck Lorre production isn't the first place I'd look to find anything thoughtful and nuanced, to be frank.
Main reason I used the broad brush for "Asian" is because in western society, 1+n generation Asian diaspora are less likely to segregate themselves by lines of national grievances back in Asia proper.
In addition to that, nationality is rarely the deciding factor on whether an individual is subjected to racial jokes (from outside personal circles), it's their appearance. I've been jokingly accused of being a Chinese spy, despite not being ethnically Chinese.
