Sad to see. I mentioned it before that the work UD are doing, making much higher quality data sets [0], are likely to offer big gains over only using LAION datasets which are rather poor. Perhaps they'll find another type of donation scheme, such as a Stripe page.
At https://discord.gg/unstablediffusion people are already organizing around other platforms, such as, Patreon. I think this might even speed things up in the end.
Hello,
This is a message from Kickstarter's Trust and Safety Team. We're
writing to let you know that a project you recently backed, Unstable
Diffusion: Unrestricted Al Art Powered by the Crowd (Suspended), has
been suspended
As a result, your $30 00 pledge has been automatically canceled and
you will not be charged. No further action is needed.
We take the integrity of the Kickstarter system very seriously. We only
suspend projects when we find strong evidence that they are
misrepresenting themselves or otherwise violating the letter or spirit of
Kickstarter's rules. We may also suspend projects when they are the
subject of an unresolved intellectual property dispute and/or valid
intellectual property claim. As a policy, we do not offer comment on
project suspensions beyond what is stated in this message.
We know this isn't ideal. But we do sincerely hope to see you again
soon, backing one or more of the amazing projects that do cross the
finish line, without a hitch, each and every day
Best wishes,
Kickstarter Trust and Safety
So, if I get this right, the main issue that the artists have is that these AI's are trained on art that they haven't opted in to the dataset? What about having a dataset that was verified selected from public domain or creative commons photos and artwork? Would that be acceptable?
not only would that cause way less antipathy and backlash, i also tend to believe it would end up producing a tool that is far more useful for commercial purposes and actual working artists in the short/midterm. ethics and morality aside, one of the biggest problems with just scraping the whole of the internet for your training data is that there is a lot of artwork out that is simply not good. this is actually an existing problem for learning artists as well. if a student is looking to do master studies of a particular piece, any search for that painting tends to return a high volume of studies by other students and various other reproductions alongside scans of the original work, the difference often not obvious to untrained eyes. what you end up with are an endless series of faulty reproductions being trained on prior faulty reproductions. i tend to suspect that this kind of quality degeneration is fairly widespread within the current datasets which is why so many seo hacks are necessary to get them to produce consistent results.
As well, it may be possible to crowdsource a new reasonable quality dataset by just using photos taken by volunteers, along with some custom paid work by professional body models or actors. Redone quality photos of public artwork and architecture would probably be a great help too.
Call me cynical, but I have a feeling many people who are militantly anti-AI won't really care about the source of images used to create a data set. For a lot of these people the very concept of AI generated imagery is poison and a threat. Complete luddite nonsense, but those people exist and are often rather loud.
When electric cars first came out, Europe/Germany was quick to pass a law requiring artificially increased engine noise for pedestrian safety. South Korea on the other hand manages to enjoy the innate quietness of electric cars just fine.
AI does not even have such geographic boundaries. There will always be people training/releasing newer versions. We had better grasp this fact early and enjoy the benefits equally.
That is how I think too. Artists (or anyone feeling threatened by AI) should just embrace the new tools into their workflows.
We can work together with AI for faster results, more inspiration, more output.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33958037