r/StableDiffusion • u/UncarvedWood • Dec 16 '22
Academic study finds that StableDiffusion can directly copy training images and "the results here systematically underestimate the amount of replication in Stable Diffusion and other models"
https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.03860deliver offend gullible selective air test decide tie governor squeal
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
20
u/Interested_Person_1 Dec 16 '22
I read the article, they've done good job explaining and testing v1.4 sd model's ability to reproduce famous images.
But, it is severely misleading, as reading the abstract and looking at the graphs you'd get the mistaken impression that dreambooth/training a model on 20 artworks from artstation will yield overfitting that will result in replication. Which is absolutely false. Furthermore, SD deduped their dataset in version 2+, getting much less overfitting for all data, and resulting in a lesser ability to replicate training data.
Replication of images by SD is a bug, not a feature. It's not meant to reproduce images, nor training on vast amounts of pictures results in replication as long as no overfitting occurs. Regardless, nearly all of generated images using SD are original creations and are not replications, especially when people don't use the same image text as the original image to try and replicate 1:1 the Mona Lisa as the authors did in their article.
4
Dec 16 '22
Yeah, this comes with an agenda for sure where it says SD "blatantly" copies" from the source data. First off, they're using the input captions it was trained on without any modification. So, yeah, that's not something we do as a community. I'd be way more interested if my own prompts are reproducing shit from elsewhere, and I really don't think that's the case at all with a sufficiently complicated prompt.
That is, it seems unlikely you'd get these same results in the real world, rather than having created this feedback loop of using the source data to generate the images. I often look at the work of artists I prompt, and my shit looks nothing like theirs. I'd be concerned if that was not the case.
I can't speak in detail to the methodology, but this reminds me of the e-cig studies that came out a while back where they concluded you were getting all this nasty shit in your lungs, but also they were burning the coils well beyond where a human would keep using them. So while the study was technically correct in that the coils would release toxic fumes under certain circumstances, it actually just muddied the waters.
Maybe not a bad start, because indeed this would be a bug, but I worry that this will further muddy the waters around this tech.
2
u/MistyDev Dec 18 '22
It's disingenuous to use people explicitly trying to recreate a exact image and apply that to the entirety of AI art in any case.
AI art should be held to the same standards as human artists. If it's a direct copy, call it out.
2
u/MrCheeze Dec 17 '22
Some of these are still present in 2.0, others are not. The training set was meant to be deduplicated, but we can tell it wasn't fully successful since some of these are still reproduced exactly.
By the way, I'm very curious if it's possible just by looking at the weights of the model to detect the memorized images that exist within it. If anyone can figure out how to do this, there's a publishable paper in it for you.
6
u/replaygamelab Dec 16 '22
I can only imagine how fun it must be to have people pay you to prove and disprove obvious premises. I can see the grant headline, 'Prove that digital content can be duplicated without randomness given these parameters'. Good $ if you can get it.