221

Greg Rutkowski Was Removed From Stable Diffusion, But AI Artists Brought Him Back - Decrypt (decrypt.co)

submitted 11 months ago by trashhalo@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

249 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Greg Rutkowski, a digital artist known for his surreal style, opposes AI art but his name and style have been frequently used by AI art generators without his consent. In response, Stable Diffusion removed his work from their dataset in version 2.0. However, the community has now created a tool to emulate Rutkowski's style against his wishes using a LoRA model. While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski's art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5. The debate highlights the blurry line between innovation and infringement in the emerging field of AI art.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Pulse@dormi.zone 2 points 11 months ago

Because that is what they're doing, just with extra steps.

The company pulled down his work, fed it to their AI, then sold the AI as their product.

Their AI wouldn't work, at all, without the art they "clicked on".

So there is a difference between me viewing an image in my browser and me turning their work into something for resell under my name. Adding extra steps doesn't change that.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago

The company pulled down his work, fed it to their AI, then sold the AI as their product.

If you read the article, not even that is what's going on here. Stability AI:

Removed Rutkowski's art from their training set.
Doesn't sell their AI as a product.
Someone else added Rutkowski back in by training a LoRA on top of Stability's AI.
They aren't selling their LoRA as a product either.

So none of what you're objecting to is actually happening. All cool? Or will you just come up with some other thing to object to?

[-] Pulse@dormi.zone 3 points 11 months ago

But they did.

(I'm on mobile so my formatting is meh)

They put his art in, only when called out did they remove it.

Once removed, they did nothing to prevent it being added back.

As for them selling the product, or not, at this point, they still used the output of his labor to build their product.

That's the thing, everyone trying to justify why it's okay for these companies to do it keep leaning on semantics, legal definitions or "well, back during the industrial revolution..." to try and get around the fact that what these companies are doing is unethical. They're taking someone else's labor, without compensation or consent.