Reminder that the author of Glaze, Ben Zhao, a University of Chicago professor stole open source code to make a closed source tool that only targets open source models. Glaze never even worked on Microsoft, Midjourney, or OpenAI’s models.

It’s so bad, but the ending is worth looking up.

Here’s one. Did they overfit their model and think they could block the bad prompts?

Music copyright is such a shitshow. It doesn’t surprise that they would try this.

Edit: I just heard the generated songs that are part of the lawsuit. They’re pretty fucked if this is true,

If it’s the same one from a few months ago, the wording is so vague that only huge companies with legal departments will be able to navigate the compliance maze they’ve set up.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/07/generative-ai-policy-must-be-precise-careful-and-practical-how-cut-through-hype

The model should be capable of much better than this, but they spent a long time censoring the model before release and this is what we got. It straight up forgot most human anatomy.

Have you read this article by Cory Doctorow yet?

You’ve got it backwards. Glaze and Nightshade aren’t FOSS and Ben Zhao, the University of Chicago professor behind them stole GPLv3 code for glaze. GPLv3 is a copyleft license that requires you share your source code and license your project under the same terms as the code you used. You also can’t distribute your project as a binary-only or proprietary software. When pressed, they only released the code for their front end, remaining in violation of the terms of the GPLv3 license.

Moreover, Nightshade and Glaze also only works against open source models, because the only open models are Stable Diffusion’s, companies like Midjourney and OpenAI with closed source models aren’t affected by this. Attacking a tool that the public can inspect, collaborate on, and offer free of cost isn’t something that should be celebrated.

What do you mean?

I can’t believe it’s been almost ten years since I dropped this show.

https://simonwillison.net/2024/May/29/training-not-chatting/

I guess Mashima Hiro is just going to pretend this one didn’t end.

This article didn’t elaborate much further than what was in the headline. I feel duped.

Get una-thebeagle-7b-v1.Q4_K_M. I found it looking at this guide.

What about this?

I was asking about creativity, not art. It’s possible for something to be creative and not be art.

How is intentionality integral to creativity?

How that preclude these models from being creative? Randomness within rules can be pretty creative. All life on earth is the result of selection on random mutations. Its output is way more structured and coherent than random noise. That’s not a good comparison at all.

Either way, generative tools are a great way for the people using to create with, no model has to be creative on its own.

What does that mean, and isn’t that still something people can employ for their creative process?