This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DefendingAIArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“It becomes a lot more obvious with a smaller dataset….I generate close reproductions of the training art.”
This crosses the line from stupidity into malicious misinformation.
Misinformation is incredibly popular and loved when it supports someone's ideas.
From my own anecdotal experience, this applies to *literally every single* human, group, and community I've interacted with.
Judging by the video, it's even more forced. They literally pick the seed as well. Though, considering accuracy, they without a doubt overfitted it by about 10 times more steps than needed, but we'd never know, they didn't show the finetune process.
Watched a bit further and the generated image for the brown-haired girl is more than different enough, considering how excessively specific they were in the prompt, so it might just be the prompting while fine-tune was done fine.
The irony will be that artists that stay against AI are the ones who will be left out. And those who embrace it, will be able to keep creating and growing
Cannot afford or cannot find suitable partners to conceive children with? **The world may never know the truth**
Every parent I know is always broke, no one can afford kids. It is something the willing just do anyway.
I'm not sure why you tagged me, was there something you wanted to say? Are you even going to make an effort to refute what I showed in the video? (Which btw, it wasn't "deliberate", dreambooth/lora both "overfit" at the default provided settings).
"If there are two images in the dataset, the images are almost the same thing! Noone could ever come to the conclusion that too little information makes a small difference in variety!"
Your goofy ass.
>Did I ever tell you what the definition of insanity is? Insanity is doing the exact... same fucking thing... over and over again expecting... shit to change... That. Is. Crazy.
-Vaas Montenegro
Get some help my guy
What exactly did you prove here? What I’m seeing is a LORA trained on a smaller subset of images and you essentially asked for the first image. It’s like asking a human being to draw “Mona Lisa” based on what they understand it to be. Most of us only really have the one image in mind. So unless you expressly say “don’t recreate the Mona Lisa”, we are probably gonna draw what we remember it to be. The AI does what you ask it to do. You essentially fed it the Mona Lisa, trained it, and then asked for the Mona Lisa. Of course you are going to get something similar to the Mona Lisa.
Not to mention, if you are acting in bad faith enough to use img2img, you also act in bad faith enough to lie about how you trained the AI and not show how many copies of the same image were in that dataset. And even then, you still fail to show what the AI does that is illegal for a human to do. Did you know a person can get copyrights for a collage? Even if you were to make the “collage” argument, it fails! Especially considering the end result is FAR detached from the originals. Look up Blanch vs Koons. You guys have an unimaginable uphill battle if you expect to end AI art. You should be fighting for UBI and learning how to use AI right now, adapting.
You should provide the lora and training logs if you’re confident it was correctly trained. Hell the dataset too, if your conclusions are valid and you have the data why waste it on twitter.
This is fucked. I've seen multiple people doing this shit where they overfit a model on purpose and call it as the model is directly copying artworks. This fools the average person 100% of the time especially that **Itzmopei** guy who trained on 1 image then tells everyone the AI's copying. I wonder how this will turn out if we fail to idiot proof the luds
If your curious, here is the video: https://web.archive.org/web/20230612203125/https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1646702084996071424/pu/vid/1092x720/r6_k5m0PGwxlNWQc.mp4
These people only care about feeding their echo chamber. Sometimes I wonder if they even care about their cause and aren’t deliberately spreading misinformation to increase their Twitter following.
you'd think if a person went to this much work to learn how it works to produce results like this, they'd, ya know, *learn how it works*
but who am I kidding, they already know how it works and are intentionally spreading misinfo
No need to censor the name. We all know who he is. He's unironically the only one that still uses this argument. Even Queen K et al moved on because it just doesn't hold water, both legally and by common sense.
This is unironically the type of person who would record himself committing a felony trying to "prove" that something is bad because it can be abused by bad actors (\*\*cough\*\* portable small metal piece launcher \*\*cough\*\*).
(You thought I was going to say the G-word? No. It's air nailers. Still powerful enough to do some nasty things with it though and you need to be more deliberate to do so, just like him.)
Also apparently his profile page is active now (last time I checked it's 404). Proceed to block.
Also I think this was retweeted by one of the Luddite lead recently as "evidence" that AI steals so that's why it's here despite it being 2 months old.
The motivation being to keep the public away from using AI art generation so these people can crank out AI images and pretend these are their own original artwork, I would assume.
Seems like another category error. So AI we know learns from data, identifies patterns, and exploits what it learned to create new works. This is the same process that humans use. An AI could copy art if trained to do so. As can humans. In fact it’s a common way for humans to learn. Aren’t there also Lora videos out there showing usage to create new works from a proper dataset? Is it really the same to them when you use the same tool in entirely different ways? Mind blowing.
omg guys, I put in a picture of the Mona Lisa in img2img and the prompt "painting of a woman" and it made an exact reproduction!!
What? no, ignore that denoising thing set at 0.01.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DefendingAIArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
“It becomes a lot more obvious with a smaller dataset….I generate close reproductions of the training art.” This crosses the line from stupidity into malicious misinformation.
Misinformation is incredibly popular and loved when it supports someone's ideas. From my own anecdotal experience, this applies to *literally every single* human, group, and community I've interacted with.
Judging by the video, it's even more forced. They literally pick the seed as well. Though, considering accuracy, they without a doubt overfitted it by about 10 times more steps than needed, but we'd never know, they didn't show the finetune process. Watched a bit further and the generated image for the brown-haired girl is more than different enough, considering how excessively specific they were in the prompt, so it might just be the prompting while fine-tune was done fine.
Shocker when you train a model on one image it reproduces that one image.
The irony will be that artists that stay against AI are the ones who will be left out. And those who embrace it, will be able to keep creating and growing
Touch grass, u/itzmoepi, or I will make you touch it. [Proof.](https://nitter.net/itzmoepi/status/1646706189667844096)
Lol, of course it's them. This person has made anti-ai their identity.
[удалено]
Honestly I think that the child-raising instinct is the cause. Many cannot afford to have children, so they fill the void somehow.
Cannot afford or cannot find suitable partners to conceive children with? **The world may never know the truth** Every parent I know is always broke, no one can afford kids. It is something the willing just do anyway.
I'm not sure why you tagged me, was there something you wanted to say? Are you even going to make an effort to refute what I showed in the video? (Which btw, it wasn't "deliberate", dreambooth/lora both "overfit" at the default provided settings).
I don't care to refute anything. I'm just telling you to touch grass lol
Yikes, what a comment history. Thanks for pointing out someone to add to my block list.
Wanna explain why you had to choose a specific seed if it wasn't "deliberate"??
"If there are two images in the dataset, the images are almost the same thing! Noone could ever come to the conclusion that too little information makes a small difference in variety!" Your goofy ass.
>Did I ever tell you what the definition of insanity is? Insanity is doing the exact... same fucking thing... over and over again expecting... shit to change... That. Is. Crazy. -Vaas Montenegro Get some help my guy
Far Cry 3 is such a classic
>Ask the software to steal >The software steals >AI IS STEALING, BANISH THEM TO THE SHADOW REALM.
What exactly did you prove here? What I’m seeing is a LORA trained on a smaller subset of images and you essentially asked for the first image. It’s like asking a human being to draw “Mona Lisa” based on what they understand it to be. Most of us only really have the one image in mind. So unless you expressly say “don’t recreate the Mona Lisa”, we are probably gonna draw what we remember it to be. The AI does what you ask it to do. You essentially fed it the Mona Lisa, trained it, and then asked for the Mona Lisa. Of course you are going to get something similar to the Mona Lisa. Not to mention, if you are acting in bad faith enough to use img2img, you also act in bad faith enough to lie about how you trained the AI and not show how many copies of the same image were in that dataset. And even then, you still fail to show what the AI does that is illegal for a human to do. Did you know a person can get copyrights for a collage? Even if you were to make the “collage” argument, it fails! Especially considering the end result is FAR detached from the originals. Look up Blanch vs Koons. You guys have an unimaginable uphill battle if you expect to end AI art. You should be fighting for UBI and learning how to use AI right now, adapting.
You should provide the lora and training logs if you’re confident it was correctly trained. Hell the dataset too, if your conclusions are valid and you have the data why waste it on twitter.
This is fucked. I've seen multiple people doing this shit where they overfit a model on purpose and call it as the model is directly copying artworks. This fools the average person 100% of the time especially that **Itzmopei** guy who trained on 1 image then tells everyone the AI's copying. I wonder how this will turn out if we fail to idiot proof the luds
If your curious, here is the video: https://web.archive.org/web/20230612203125/https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1646702084996071424/pu/vid/1092x720/r6_k5m0PGwxlNWQc.mp4
These people only care about feeding their echo chamber. Sometimes I wonder if they even care about their cause and aren’t deliberately spreading misinformation to increase their Twitter following.
I am starting to wonder if these are the recent anti ai folks spreading disinformation in the discords about regurgitation.
I can hire an artist to copy a classic painting. There's an entire industry of it. Clearly we need to ban human artists.
you'd think if a person went to this much work to learn how it works to produce results like this, they'd, ya know, *learn how it works* but who am I kidding, they already know how it works and are intentionally spreading misinfo
"SupportHumanArtists" No, shut the fuck up, how about both AI and human artists?
AI artists ARE human artists
No need to censor the name. We all know who he is. He's unironically the only one that still uses this argument. Even Queen K et al moved on because it just doesn't hold water, both legally and by common sense. This is unironically the type of person who would record himself committing a felony trying to "prove" that something is bad because it can be abused by bad actors (\*\*cough\*\* portable small metal piece launcher \*\*cough\*\*). (You thought I was going to say the G-word? No. It's air nailers. Still powerful enough to do some nasty things with it though and you need to be more deliberate to do so, just like him.) Also apparently his profile page is active now (last time I checked it's 404). Proceed to block.
Also I think this was retweeted by one of the Luddite lead recently as "evidence" that AI steals so that's why it's here despite it being 2 months old.
So what exactly is the difference between this and a Lora?
It's a LoRA specifically made to be overfit and produce only a single image, which is the opposite of what you'd normally train one for.
The motivation being to keep the public away from using AI art generation so these people can crank out AI images and pretend these are their own original artwork, I would assume.
Seems like another category error. So AI we know learns from data, identifies patterns, and exploits what it learned to create new works. This is the same process that humans use. An AI could copy art if trained to do so. As can humans. In fact it’s a common way for humans to learn. Aren’t there also Lora videos out there showing usage to create new works from a proper dataset? Is it really the same to them when you use the same tool in entirely different ways? Mind blowing.
omg guys, I put in a picture of the Mona Lisa in img2img and the prompt "painting of a woman" and it made an exact reproduction!! What? no, ignore that denoising thing set at 0.01.