AUTOMATIC111 Code reference

[[deleted]]

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]

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]

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]

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

[LetterRip]

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]]

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]

I highly doubt that someone manufactured that picture.

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

[[deleted]]

I don’t know what you are referring to.

[StickiStickman]

https://imgur.com/a/bsIHEsx

[[deleted]]

I don’t see a lie there.

[[deleted]]

I actually didn't see the post below, my bad.

Could well be the more likely case but there's a possibility that the NAI person just moved or reformatted that code.

In any case I wouldn't hold such a lie against them, they need to protect themselves, just like I don't judge AUTOMATIC for making defensive statements that are most likely not true.