[jstx1]

I get that the title is in the theme of this-x-does-not-exist but I don't think it's true in this case. Many of these look like existing models.

The amount of variation in sneakers is limited so when you have 50k training images you end up copying some of them with little to no change because if you deviate too much you end with something that doesn't pass as a sneaker at all.

[fxtentacle]

In most cases, GAN produces a random mixture of features extracted from real photos. That's also why you can tempt GitHub Copilot to regurgitate Carmack's swearing comment.

[FeepingCreature]

Sufficiently advanced random mixture of features extracted from real photos is indistinguishable from genuine understanding.

That's why I don't understand this argument. It's not true - you can make the AI generate specific samples, but most samples can not be found in the training data - but even if it was true, it wouldn't prove anything anyways, because you can always say "well the features it copies are just smaller" until the features are just combinations of pixels. It's unfalsifiable even for human artists.

[jstx1]

The usefulness of any of this generated stuff eludes me.

[pc86]

It depends on your definition of "useful." If you look at a single GAN-generated image in isolation it's almost certainly "useless" for most definitions. But if you need a bunch of faces, sneakers, buildings, whatever, and you want to be cognizant of people's privacy, and you don't mind the occasional weird image artifact or completely fake-looking image, these can be good alternatives to sourcing a large number of real images.

[sureglymop]

So, for example if i was creating art or designing something, say i could use one of these generated sneaker images instead of a stock photo (could be useful, right).

Now the question is, since the training material were images of copyrighted designs/shoes could this get me in trouble?

I feel like there are many cool uses for generated stuff such as generated music or generated code also, but ultimately the uses are held back by existing laws and regulations around copyright and so on. So it really doesn't solve anything that also wouldn't be solved by just getting rid of copyrights entirely.. (sorry, just thinking "out loud")

[pc86]

"Just" getting rid of copyrights entirely isn't going to happen so it's kind of pointless to speculate on that front...

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that generated images are subject to copyright even if the model's source images are copyrighted. You can make an argument that if all the source materials are subject to the same copyright, the generated images could be. But even in that case the copyright applies to the source. It doesn't apply to the next step (at least not explicitly). It depends on the legal definition of derivative work, if these images even qualify as a derivative work, etc.

[gregschlom]

Well the generated faces sure are useful to setup realistic fake online profiles on a large scale.

[nomel]

A muse come in any form. Some more direct than others.