The way the author summarizes his own study in this thread borders on misinformation. You could actually take their findings and write the opposite headline, which would more accurately reflect their actual research results:
"Critics claim that models such as Stable Diffusion act like modern collage tools, recreating copyrighted and sensitive material.
Yet, our new paper shows that this behaviour is exceedingly rare, recreating copies in less than 0,00006% of 175M test cases."
"Critics claim that models such as Stable Diffusion act like modern collage tools, recreating copyrighted and sensitive material.
Yet, our new paper shows that this behaviour is exceedingly rare, recreating copies in less than 0,00006% of 175M test cases."