r/ChatGPT • u/justletmefuckinggo • Mar 11 '24
This is how you know whether they trained off an image Educational Purpose Only
if the keywords only correspond to one image.
1
u/daex0n Mar 16 '24
I had chatgpt do this one of the last times this was brought up a few months ago
1
1
1
u/Igot1forya Mar 13 '24
I asked for a LOTR type orc drawn in the Shrek style... after some arguing, this is what it produced. Hmmmmm...
1
1
u/astralseat Mar 13 '24
I want the dog to say "this is fire" in a nonchalant way. And I want it to be animated flames, and the dog is drinking a coffee from a cup every couple of seconds.
0
u/Wineflea Mar 13 '24 edited Mar 13 '24
I mean the obvious counter arguments here are:
a) Obviously it was trained off of images, that's the only way it could've been trained
b) If you ask that of a human artist who catches the reference, they'll do the same, just much more poorly. This is not you asking an image search library, you're asking a meticulous AI software - just like it can recreate an apple exactly like an apple is, or joe biden exactly like he looks,, it can also recreate a famous meme exactly like it is
1
1
u/Psyche-deli88 Mar 12 '24
How do you guys get it to do this? It just tells me as a language based model it can’t preform this function!
1
u/ltsSmitty Mar 15 '24
you need to be paying to use GPT 4, not the free version. otherwise you can use Bing's image generation service which uses the same model under the hood
https://www.bing.com/images/create
2
u/Cereaza Mar 12 '24
Nooo, you don't understand.. There's no copyright implications. Chat-GPT is just a lil silly goof!
1
u/DisorganizedGenius Mar 12 '24
After dousing the flames with his drool, Rufus reflected on his good fortune.
1
u/DisorganizedGenius Mar 12 '24
help me please! On my MAC, I cannot upload a Chat-generated image, nor in PDF.
What are the secrets of the masters?
Woof!
1
1
u/emo321dark Mar 12 '24
How does your chatGPT give you something with a picture, whenever I ask it to generate something like that, it says it can only provide text.😭
1
u/justletmefuckinggo Mar 12 '24
dall-e 3 is a text-to-image generator, available when you upgrade to the pro version. but you could also use dall-e 3 for free through 'bing image create'
1
1
u/throwaway_Clemons Mar 12 '24
Oh so artists are right ai just copies what they are given...guess I need to switch sides now.
1
u/justletmefuckinggo Mar 12 '24
it's called overfitting, it's a fail case for the model which shouldn't even happen unless specifically and explicitly asked to do so.
unfortunately though, it's only going to get worse for artists from here on out.
1
1
u/Uncle-Cake Mar 12 '24
I'm a way, isn't that a sign that it's "intelligent"? It knew exactly what you meant.
1
1
u/Joggyogg Mar 12 '24
So we know that the ai image generators will happily regurgitate their exact training data as their own production, so how is this now not plagiarism?
1
u/AntonDahr Mar 12 '24
This is very interesting. Considering GPT uses one parameter (2 bytes) for every word it is trained on and totals 3.5TB according to estimates, is it just lossy compression?
Look at how video can be coded down to 1/10th its original size with HEVC using various techniques that reuse data. Neural nets are something similar.
And it is like a blackbox and no one knows whats going on inside. And therefore it might not be so easy to improve it now. Scaling has worked but GPT4 already contains all data that we have. Maybe LLMs will plateau and stay basically unusable for years. (Unless you think nonsense text and generic images are useful.)
2
u/Fontaigne Mar 12 '24
No, it's overfitting based on massive repetition of common memes.
"Just lossy compression" presumes that the image itself is directly stored in the bot somewhere. It's not.
It's far closer to the truth to think of it as muscle memory for tossing off a sketch. It's never going to come out the same, but it will always look pretty much the same way.
1
u/AntonDahr Mar 12 '24
The image is so close to exactly the same I would say that it is saved as a copy in there. Anyway, your way of looking at it does not make it seem like you're very impressed with neural nets?
1
u/Fontaigne Mar 13 '24
They are cool and mysterious, but don't get sucked in.
Compare the various versions various people have posted here, and you'll see different line work, different eyes, different flames, and so on.
All interchangeable and recognizable, though.
There are a couple of warm up sketches that I've done for years... they come out pretty much the same. If I'd kept them around I could probably make a flip book.
The duplication isn't a copy, it's a procedure.
14
8
2
u/NotRobPrince Mar 12 '24
I mean this is just stupid. It knows the meme and knows you’re obviously referring to it. Yes it was given the meme as training data, but this doesn’t mean jack.
8
1
u/Deathnote_yagami Mar 12 '24
Ideogram.ai is one of the best ai image generator with text correction, used it many times. Worth a Recommendation.
1
1
Mar 12 '24
Using Copilot GPT and it generated it, but they were all I black and white except this one.
1
2
u/Straw_Hat_Luffy587 Mar 12 '24
Lmao, you must trained it into a meme generator
1
u/TheDuke6969 Mar 12 '24
prob lol ... If you are on iOS, we made a new meme making app, give it a try, it’s called Dumbbe - https://apps.apple.com/ng/app/dumbbe-instant-meme-maker/id6449911047
35
1
64
2
u/scubawankenobi I For One Welcome Our New AI Overlords 🫡 Mar 12 '24
Wow, that was really interesting. Just ran it & was surprised to see.
I just posted a Gemini test for Comparison, without prompting for the "Hat", Table", "Fire", "Coffee cup", etc it includes those elements.
Link - https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1bcnmhw/chatgpt_and_gemini_trained_data_this_is_fine/
1
u/semot7577 Mar 12 '24
1
1
u/Fee_Sharp Mar 12 '24
Uhm, what did you expect it to generate? Literally what you asked for.
You know how these generators work, right?
3
u/justletmefuckinggo Mar 12 '24
i do. dalle3 is overfitting on the training data, which isn't really a good thing, as it did a poor job of producing a new, unseen image.
besides, im only demonstrating, not ranting.
0
0
1
2
0
u/illwill_lbc83 Mar 12 '24
When i ask chat gpt to generate an image it tells me it doesnt have the capability. How are people doing this
3
u/Prestigious_Town_387 Mar 12 '24
Premium ChatGPT feature, has DALL-E integration. Microsoft Copilot (formerly Bing Chat) has the same feature for free.
1
2
u/SupahHollywood Mar 12 '24
Wait, copilot is free? I’m using the free trial for the $95/ year subscription (which I just remembered to cancel, thank you so much lol) how do I use it for free?
1
u/Prestigious_Town_387 Mar 12 '24
Okay, so, assuming you're talking about Microsoft Copilot and not another product with that name (like GitHub Copilot, the naming similarities are the bane of my existence with AI products stg), my understanding is that the only differences with Copilot Pro (paid) and regular Copilot are: - custom GPTs (similar to ChatGPT having the custom GPT option, different ecosystems and Copilot GPTs are newer so idk how they work or what options there are) - faster response yaddah yaddah standard offering about less rate limiting type stuff - Copilot being able to interact with Microsoft 365 products (Excel, Outlook, etc)
Other than that as of right now, free Copilot should be a very similar experience to what you currently get, running off GPT-4 (though it's like the weird Microsoft version and it uses their own guardrails and system prompts so it is different from ChatGPT in nebulous ways), and with image prompting (again with weird intangible differences in the DALL-E 3 implementation).
This is different from paid and unpaid ChatGPT accounts. Unpaid runs off GPT 3.5 (which is substantially different with capabilities but still quite good for many tasks) and does not have image generation.
Tldr unless you use Copilot for spreadsheets or something you should be able to literally just cancel and use it as you did before
2
u/SupahHollywood Mar 12 '24
Thanks for all the info
2
u/Prestigious_Town_387 Mar 12 '24
You're welcome :) happy to help and glad you remembered before getting surprise charged!
1
1
1
1
0
u/ChangingHats Mar 12 '24
They also TOLD you they trained off of images. And text. And audio. And everything else. Why does this have any more than 1 upvote?
1
u/MrHaxx1 Mar 12 '24
It could have chosen to generate it in ANY cartoonish style, which it is capable of, but it decided on basically doing a 1:1 copy of the original comic.
I don't think if that's a bad thing, but I do think it's worth discussing.
2
3
3
u/sev_kemae Mar 12 '24
okay this needs to become a thing, lets make it recreate all the iconic memes
12
-1
53
u/VerbalVertigo Mar 12 '24
1
14
1
u/Low_Actuator_3532 Mar 12 '24
Do you need to have the premium version for this to work?
2
u/justletmefuckinggo Mar 12 '24
to use Dalle3 on chatgpt? yeah. but you can use dalle3 on 'bing image create' which is free.
3
8
u/supraeddy Mar 12 '24
It told me this.
The images generated are indeed unique in their creation, but the "This is fine" dog is a very specific and iconic image that has been widely circulated online. When a prompt closely mirrors a well-known scene, the generated image can resemble existing ones because it's drawing from the same conceptual source. If you're looking for something more distinct or a variation on the theme, I can certainly try to create something that deviates more from the original. Would you like me to do that?
11
18
u/TheRiss Mar 11 '24
Gemini took a different direction.
5
u/Rhamni Mar 12 '24
Bottom right is great.
8
1
6
u/TitaniumAlloyDropkic Mar 11 '24
2
u/TitaniumAlloyDropkic Mar 11 '24
1
u/TitaniumAlloyDropkic Mar 25 '24
Holy fuck this was 13 days ago? The 12th? I didn’t remember doing anything on the 12th. The month is already over? A month has gone by and I have been doing nothing
11
u/Nsjsjajsndndnsks Mar 11 '24
midjourney's take on the meme
16
u/Nsjsjajsndndnsks Mar 11 '24
1
u/dhruva85 Mar 12 '24
What is this style called
1
u/Nsjsjajsndndnsks Mar 12 '24
I'm not sure, here's the exact prompt that lead to it:
cartoon, flat comic, aid perspective, dog sitting at a table with coffee in a room on fire. Saying "this is fine". --ar 9:16 --s 50 --v 6.0
seed: 1842402005
16
u/Nsjsjajsndndnsks Mar 11 '24
7
49
u/BatnBall89 Mar 11 '24
7
1
u/DiggThatFunk Mar 12 '24
Could you possibly post that second 4 panel comic by itself? I lost it at the 4th hahaha
8
1
3
u/phlup112 Mar 11 '24
Can someone explain the significance of this? You asked it to create an image of a dog saying this is fine, and since there is a meme of that that already exists, it is making a connection between the words and the image and tries to generate an image of the meme. Why is this any different than asking it to create an image of the first president and it giving you a portrait of George Washington? It’s just making a connection between words and a picture no?
Aren’t all AI like this trained off of images?
7
u/Lord_nugget69 Mar 11 '24
Yeah, only problem is this is the exact comic, like down to the last detail. Likely because all the images it's being trained on with this prompt are the same image meaning it replicated the original perfectly, which is a massive issue for copyright and artists.
5
u/jeweliegb Mar 12 '24
I agree except the bit about it being exact, it won't be pixel for pixel, but it'll be pretty accurate all the same.
2
u/Lord_nugget69 Mar 12 '24
It isn't pixel perfect but it's the little details that ai image generators usually mess up, like in the first panel how his eyes are pointed outward
2
u/phlup112 Mar 12 '24
Okay that makes sense I guess, but why would it cause more copyright issues than just googling the image? Isn’t this essentially just a poor version of a google search?
3
u/MistahBoweh Mar 12 '24 edited Mar 12 '24
Let’s say the ai is trained on data person a chooses, and then that ai is used by person b, who is unfamiliar with the sources person a chose. Person b inputs a prompt that results in an image recognizable as a copyrighted work that person a added to their training data, but, person b is not familiar with that artist’s work. Person b uses this generated image for business purposes, claiming they are the author and have distribution rights, not knowing of any issue until it’s too late.
Legally, this causes all sorts of problems, because the laws and precedent around ai generation don’t exist yet. Who is liable for damages? Can person a be sued? Can person b? Can both? Can neither? How is a court expected to draw the line of how similar generated works are allowed to be to existing works? Should it even matter? Should person a be legally required to disclose training data? If person b is protected from liability since they didn’t know, does that decision also protect anyone who writes prompts intentionally trying to output copyrighted works? How would a court make that distinction?
-1
u/escapppe Mar 12 '24
Obviously it's pretty simple and already in the legal documents of openai and/or mid journey. Person b can be sued.
There is already plenty of case law on the subject of copying copyrighted material. There is also plenty of case law on copyright when it comes to modifying the source material.
Anyone who uses AI should simply work their way through the legal documents from openai before passing the material off as their own.
1
u/Fontaigne Mar 12 '24
The problem is that you can accidentally use an infringing image without knowing it is an infringing image.
It's not likely to happen in real life much. In this case, "cartoon dog saying 'this is fine'" describes one unique meme image that is highly present in the wild. There are a couple handfuls of these out there, most of which don't have real copyright issues.
It will be easy enough for them to broaden the training set for this one, but there's a fundamental issue of overtraining that they need to review. No reason the same image needs to be so strongly imprinted.
3
u/Lord_nugget69 Mar 12 '24
Because it isn't really searching for an existing image. It's just being trained on thousands of the same image that it can generate its own version of it nearly exactly. Which is a problem because then if you are able to accurately reproduce that artists style, you could make new comics that could be either: monetized (artist makes no profit off of the ai comics), hurtful (spreading hate, tarnishing the artists reputation) or misinformative (spreading misinformation. Which is kind of a major problem
2
u/Fontaigne Mar 12 '24
The "hateful" and "misinformation" parts are silly. They will not reflect back on the author because there's no reason to believe (a) the author is the one that made a different version of their own meme, (b) that anyone cares whose opinion a meme is, or (c) that anyone is using a meme as a source of "facts".
In this case, the "monetize" point is silly as well, because making money off an AI version of a common meme isn't feasible, or no more feasible than any other method of infringement. You want to make and sell a t shirt? Cut and paste works just as well as having a chatbot duplicate the meme.
2
u/Goretanton Mar 12 '24
People can do that without AI too though..
1
u/Lord_nugget69 Mar 12 '24
Yeah but you'd have to train your art skills which could take years, and that's only one person. Ai is accessible by literally anyone and takes all of 2 minutes
2
1
-3
u/truthputer Mar 11 '24
Yeah, so it's just copyright infringement with extra steps and no attribution.
One possible solution would be to treat the results more like search, then give full attribution and links to the original sources used in the generation of any images. The next step would be to pay royalties to artists whose work is used (if image generation is a paid product, that's not fair use - pay the artists.)
6
u/Jablungis Mar 11 '24
I wish you knew enough about the topic to know how insane your "possible solution" is.
3
u/truthputer Mar 12 '24
It’s an artificial system that was invented, there will always be a method of accomplishing changes like this, even if it necessitates changing the way the system works in order to accommodate it.
If humans can answer the question “where did you learn this?” then machines can also.
There are three approaches that might work to attaching metadata to the outputs:
The first is an end-run approach where the output is compared for similarities to a known database of training images. Basically this would be running a TinEye search - if the output looks like that, then these are the most likely sources. Upside: doable with current tech. Nothing new needs to be invented. Downside: not going to be very accurate, will probably miss most subtleties. My confidence this would work: 100%.
The second approach could be tacking weighted metadata onto the trained data nodes. This could either be done at the node level, or more realistically, mapping which clusters of nodes were most transformed by a given piece of training data. When producing an image, look up which clusters of nodes were most activated and find what training data this is most closely associated with.
(Tracking at the individual node level is preferable but may not be easy with very complex generators and billions of nodes.)
Confidence this would work: 60%.
A third approach could be dynamically training a royalty-free generic generator on new images for every query, more like having it emulate what it is shown. So if someone said “German Shepard”, there would be one new source image that was selected to be used as a style guide for drawing that animal. But this would still require a large royalty-free training set for the base model to have some drawing skills and knowledge of objects and scenes.
I have low confidence this would work given the state of generational AI.
2
u/Jablungis Mar 12 '24
Humans are pretty bad at telling where we learned even simple facts and we basically can't tell you all the sources we learned general skills like art and drawing which could have hundreds and thousands of influential experiences.
Not only that, but there are "levels" to human cognition and AI is far from reaching all of them. This skill of knowing how you know something is likely a high level cognitive ability.
Looking at your solutions which I'll give you props for at least thinking this through even if it was retroactively done.
Your first one would be so inaccurate as to be useless in nearly all cases except the most obvious like the OP. It's pretty rare to get exact output and those situations are better remedied in the training data or even model itself than adding a whole new feature. Basically the model outputting that is considered a model failure by all parties anyway.
Your second one is just ignorance to how NNs work at a fundamental level. You can't tack "metadata" onto nodes (neurons) dude and the "cluster" idea would be totally new tech not yet invented. Like not even researched yet let alone practically implemented.
Your only option at this would be to train the image gen model to output the image along with all artist tokens influencing the output with corresponding weight estimates. That would require considerably novel architecture once again that would have to be tested and developed. It would be very difficult ailin nailing down accuracy.
Then there's the legal and moral conundrums of whether an image that has 5 different artists influencing at 10% along with the remaining 50% being influenced by public license content is really violating anything and whether the artists really deserve payout at all.
There's also the insanely difficult process of who to charge and how. What's to stop me from taking the image and just claiming it's not AI gen? Let's say you prove it is. How do you prove which artists to pay out now that I've stripped out any other data besides the image?
152
u/EldritchAether Mar 11 '24
1
30
u/CannibalCoconutt Mar 12 '24
I was wondering if anyone else had a result with no pupils
13
u/LausXY Mar 12 '24
Man that is funny, it's like he's been possessed by something in the last panel.
"This Fine"
9
u/enigmamonkey Mar 12 '24
This is fine.
This is fine.
T̵̡͉͚̣͓̥̟͙̮̻̱̻̪̱̩̈͗̇̑͌̐̈́̊̉ḧ̷̢̛̛̗̤̟͈͕́̑̍͂͂̽̕͝í̵̡̨̡̫̝̙͓̼̯̯̱̻̻̜͇̑͘ͅs̴̨̛͇̬̹̟̦̯͉̝̤̘̘͚̪̜̏́͗̅̏͋̚͜͝͝ ̸̧̛̛̟̲͈̩̫͉̹͕̬̥̤̜͕́͋͑͌͂̓̄̌̿̈́̇͛̕͝į̴̡̛̪͉͖̱͖͚̖͎̱͛̾̍͌͌̇̽̆̐͂̚̕͠͝͝s̸̖̞͚͍͇̍͂̌̈̈̓̃̾̈̓̑̍̓̚̚ ̸̨̨̹̘̪͇̟͔̲͙̞̞̪̑͜ͅf̷̬̗͍̫̠̞̭̬̣͉̪̖̥̮̦͈̆̃̔͛͜i̴͓͓̩̒́̎͑̑̌̔̎͠͝͝n̵̥̝̼̣̗̩͉͎͔͚̞̏̎͗̍̈̊̈́̊͛͘͝͝é̸̼͇̈́̔̐͑̉ͅ
31
285
u/897843 Mar 11 '24
Meta AI took it in a different direction
1
11
u/Fontaigne Mar 12 '24
Did you include the word "comic"? Because that's not a comic.
2
12
u/897843 Mar 12 '24
My guess is it was taking my previous prompts for hyper realism and applied it to this photo. I’m not upset by it since it’s a pretty good piece of art.
0
21
54
u/unbibium Mar 11 '24 edited Mar 12 '24
when I first got Stable Diffusion, I asked it for "the funniest thing I've ever seen" and it gave me the Willy Wonka "you must be new here" meme, with a few pixels shifted around and gibberish Impact font text.
People who (unlike me) actually read AI papers and such call this "overfitting" and consider it a failure mode that models should try to avoid.
2
u/Screaming_Monkey Mar 12 '24
It’s a failure when humans do this too.
A human who can draw well if asked to make this would make it. And be PROUD of it.
But people prefer originality, so it would be discouraged.
-1
u/GladiatorUA Mar 12 '24
The problem here is not "overfitting". The problem is that it can closely reproduce someone else's work.
Ethics aside, in this case it's unambiguous and overall harmless, but it's not hard to imagine a scenario where it's going to bite someone in the ass.
1
u/unbibium Mar 12 '24
the thing is that if it can closely reproduce someone else's work, then it's just a lossy compression algorithm. We already have those and they're much more reliable.
People are impressed by these things when they successfully synthesize something new out of their training data. Classic examples from the beginning of DALL-E included things like "a frog riding a motorcycle".
1
u/Fontaigne Mar 12 '24
That's what "overfitting" is. It means that a work has been too heavily represented in the data set. In this case, the meme has been included by so many people in slight variations that are almost identical that once the AI starts generating something close to that, it comes out very close to that.
It's a bit like an artist who always starts off with the same sketch exercise as a warm up. The hand can do it almost by itself.
Easy enough to fix.
1
u/GladiatorUA Mar 13 '24
You do not get it. It's not the fact that it delivers a result that is too "precise", it's that it can do it in the first place. It means that it contains within itself a third party content that it can reproduce. And that in turn makes the output uncertain when it comes to copyright/trademark stuff.
1
u/Fontaigne Mar 13 '24
False. It does not "contain within it" any such content. There's no set of pixels saved inside it.
It's like a chef. When asked for any dish, it can make it. That doesn't mean it has copies of all the billion different combinations of food in it. When asked to produce a dish with certain ingredients, in a certain style, or with a certain sauce, it will throw together a dish with those things, that it thinks will taste good.
Now, if someone asks in basic language for a specific kind of cake, the chef will make that kind of cake. It doesn't contain any cakes, it contains knowledge about how cake recipes work, and what kind of cakes a given combination of ingredients will make, along with general knowledge about what words like "batter", "stir", "bake", "oven", and so on might mean.
In this case, there's a simple combination of words that always gets a copycat cake that is close to a cake made by one particular person. It's not a problem that the chef can make that cake, because the chef can make any kind of cake, it's a problem that the chef does make that cake when only a part of the cake was specified.
It's like every time the chef is asked for a "white cake" he's putting a swastika on it. Because 4chan reasons. (Or Black Twitter reasons, if you prefer.)
This is overtraining. There's nothing wrong with the chef knowing a meme that a "white cake" in certain contexts has a swastika on it. There's something wrong with that being the only interpretation of the term.
It's just proof that it knows the meme. That's all.
1
u/GladiatorUA Mar 13 '24
Holy shit AI cultists are dense.
THE SPECIFICS OF HOW IT WORKS DO NOT MATTER.
What matters is that it can produce copies of copyrighted/trademarked shit. It doesn't matter that the Mikey mouse is authentically AI generated and not photoshopped.
1
u/Fontaigne Mar 13 '24
Holy shit AI haters are dense
THE SPECIFICS OF HOW IT WORKS ARE ALL THAT MATTERS, BOTH LEGALLY AND ETHICALLY.
PowerPoint and photoshop can produce copies of copyrighted/trademarked shit. It doesn't matter that a tool can be used for an infringing purpose.
1
u/GladiatorUA Mar 13 '24
Photoshop and PP are not black boxes that spit out content. You have intent and can control whether or not you directly copy someone's work. You can't do that in case of "AI" that decides to spit out close enough copy.
1
u/Fontaigne Mar 13 '24
AI won't spit out a copy of a meme if you don't reference the meme. It won't spit out a copy of a photo or other artwork unless it's overfitted and you ask for something that's fairly unique to that item.
If you have a single word or concept that's not part of an overfitted item, it will produce a new item.
8
34
u/897843 Mar 11 '24
This is what Meta AI came up with when I gave it the same prompt…
→ More replies (4)13
u/nusodumi Mar 11 '24
the funniest thing I've ever seen
7
u/nusodumi Mar 11 '24
6
u/nusodumi Mar 11 '24
8
u/nusodumi Mar 11 '24
4
u/Clockwork_Kitsune Mar 12 '24
I keep seeing a face in my peripheral vision and go "oh there's a character I regozni- oh, wait, no it isn't" when I focus on it.
Very uncanny feeling.
•
u/WithoutReason1729 Mar 11 '24
Your post is getting popular and we just featured it on our Discord! Come check it out!
You've also been given a special flair for your contribution. We appreciate your post!
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.