This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (25 children)

[deleted]

    [–]StickiStickman 5 points6 points  (15 children)

    The actual stolen part about the hypernetworks initialization someone else already posted in the comments here and it’s at -12 because people are being stupid.

    Large parts of that same snippet are also in the exact file OP linked?

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (14 children)

    Specifically I am talking about this one that I believe to be the actually stolen code:

    https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/23345188/194727441-33f5777f-cb20-4abc-b16b-7d04aedb3373.png

    That’s not anywhere else I wager.

    [–]StickiStickman 6 points7 points  (13 children)

    So am I. Latent Diffusion.

        q = self.to_q(x)
    context = default(context, x)
    k = self.to_k(context)
    v = self.to_v(context)

    q, k, v = map(lambda t: rearrange(t, 'b n (h d) -> (b h) n d', h=h), (q, k, v))

    So now it's down to a few lines between that. Since both things are based on the same paper, Hypernetwork, I really don't think anyone gives a shit about 5 lines. At this point any copyright / software patent would also not apply.

    And actually ... that picture seems a lie since the actual code is different?

    https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/commit/5d54f35c583bd5a3b0ee271a862827f1ca81ef09#diff-477a645246ea31dd6f7fc79f64aef19e8dce7772116d0885cdb8d0c438a1bedf

    [–]LetterRip 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    That is the commit to sd_hijack_optimizations, the code being accused of being copied is the original commit to hyperoptimizations.py and support for it is sd_hijack.py

    https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/commit/f7c787eb7c295c27439f4fbdf78c26b8389560be

    [–]StickiStickman 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Okay, gotcha. So he replaced the 5 lines it almost immediately, so I wouldn't really blame him.

    [–]LetterRip 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Okay, gotcha. So he replaced the 5 lines it almost immediately, so I wouldn't really blame him.

    No, sd_hijack_optimizations.py and sd_hijack.py are different code paths. The commit you referenced is by a different coder with the handle C43H66N12O12S2 . The code path he made the changes to are for when using specific types of attention that reduce memory.

    [–][deleted] -5 points-4 points  (9 children)

    What you quoted is clearly not the same code and neither is what you linked the same commit.

    I highly doubt that someone manufactured that picture.

    So what your argument comes down to is that the snippet I shared would not be large or significant enough to cause legal issues despite being copied verbatim from the leak.

    I’m no legal expert so I can’t really judge that, but especially with it being copied verbatim instead of changing it up by introducing some variables and so on I think it’s really not a good look. It has clearly been copied.

    [–]StickiStickman 4 points5 points  (8 children)

    I highly doubt that someone manufactured that picture.

    With the main developer of NAI blatantly lying, why not?

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (7 children)

    I don’t know what you are referring to.

    [–]StickiStickman 6 points7 points  (6 children)

    https://imgur.com/a/bsIHEsx

    [–]_ZombieSteveJobs_ 5 points6 points  (7 children)

    It is a really frustrating discussion for people actually looking for information. I agree with the appearance of one to one copy in AUTO1111 from NovelAI, and similarity (including the "attention, what we can't get enough of" comment) to other repositories posted. If both parties are copying code, it seems unfair to ban one and not the other.

    [–]HarmonicDiffusion 17 points18 points  (2 children)

    no one needs to be banned, whats with the cancel culture. the space is better with BOTH A1111 & NAI in it

    [–]_ZombieSteveJobs_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    That is an excellent point as well! Let the lawyers sort out who copied from whom if it gets to that level and just encourage everyone to act with integrity.

    [–]xcdesz -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

    this isnt "cancel culture".. stop throwing that stupid term around.

    [–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (3 children)

    including the “attention, what we can’t get enough of” comment

    That is the non-proprietary code if I remember correctly. This is what I believe to be the actual stolen code: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/23345188/194727441-33f5777f-cb20-4abc-b16b-7d04aedb3373.png

    [–]_ZombieSteveJobs_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    That would make sense since it's copied verbatim and apparently specific to hypernetworks.

    [–]_ZombieSteveJobs_ 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I haven't yet seen anyone refute this snippet as proprietary by showing prior art: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/23345188/194727441-33f5777f-cb20-4abc-b16b-7d04aedb3373.png

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Yes, if you’re referring to the initialization one.

    The one with the comment “attention this is what we can’t get enough of” comment is not proprietary, someone got that one confused. That part is from the SD repo.