If you want to mess with Omnigen it was designed for this kind of thing. The code and model were released a few days ago.

You’re killing it with these gens.

Fair use isn’t a loophole, it is copyright law.

Don’t believe this dog, for it only tells lies.

Here’s a video explaining how diffusion models work, and this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF.

Your comment made my day. Thanks.

Anyone spreading this misinformation and trying gatekeep being an artist after the avant-garde movement doesn’t have an ounce of education in art history. Generative art, warts and all, is a vital new form of art that’s shaking things up, challenging preconceptions, and getting people angry - just like art should.

I still only see half a dog.

What dogs? There isn’t a single complete dog on here.

Entertainment.

I haven’t tried it, but the outputs are pretty oversaturated, but don’t look that bad. It also should be more easily trainable than Flux, since they released models that weren’t distilled. You can see what people have uploaded to Civitai so far if you filter by SD 3.5.

It’s not a computer playing, a person plans out the run and then executes the plan with the help of slow motion, save states, and frame-by-frame play. Seeing things that no human could possibly pull off unassisted is entertaining too.

If you want to run local AI stuff, the more VRAM and muscle you’ve got, the better.

It feels like all SAI models are poisoned in some way. I wonder what’s wrong with this one?

I’m about to install it too. I just switched to SwarmUI.

Their policy could never stop anyone in the first place.

Works should not have to be licensed for analysis, and Cory Doctorow very eloquently explains why in this article. I’ll quote a small part, but I implore you to read the whole thing.

…counting words and measuring pixels are not activities that you should need permission to perform, with or without a computer, even if the person whose words or pixels you’re counting doesn’t want you to. You should be able to look as hard as you want at the pixels in Kate Middleton’s family photos, or track the rise and fall of the Oxford comma, and you shouldn’t need anyone’s permission to do so.

This open letter by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, further expands on the pitfalls of this kind of thinking and the implications for broader society. I know it’s a lot, but these are wonderfully condensed explanations of the deeper issues at hand.

Why not sell it? Because chances are the things it was trained off of were stolen in the first place and you have no right to claim them

Why not claim it’s yours? Because it is not, it is using the work of others, primarily without permission, to generate derivative work.

They explain what’s wrong with these two statements.

Can you specify with quotes what we’re talking about exactly? Just so we’re on the same page. I don’t want to end up talking past each other.

This is a really complex subject and what I linked covers the issues thoroughly, better than I can.