5 ms·

Looks like no, "The potential risks of misuse raise concerns regarding responsible open-sourcing of code and demos. At this time we have decided not to release

by wmfrov 4y ago

Looks like no, "The potential risks of misuse raise concerns regarding responsible open-sourcing of code and demos. At this time we have decided not to release code or a public demo. In future work we will explore a framework for responsible externalization that balances the value of external auditing with the risks of unrestricted open-access."

nomel 4y ago
> the risks of unrestricted open-access What exactly is the risk?
- tpmx 4y ago
  Really unpleasant content being produced, obviously.
- jimmygrapes 4y ago
  A variation on the axiom "you cannot idiot proof something because there's always a bigger idiot"
- varenc 4y ago
  See section 6 titled “Conclusions, Limitations and Societal Impact” in the research paper: https://gweb-research-imagen.appspot.com/paper.pdf https://gweb-research-imagen.appspot.com/paper.pdf One quote: > “On the other hand, generative methods can be leveraged for malicious purposes, including harassment and misinformation spread [20], and raise many concerns regarding social and cultural exclusion and bias [67, 62, 68]”
  - userbinator 4y ago
    But do we trust that those who do have access won't be using it for "malicious purposes" (which they might not think is malicious, but perhaps it is to those who don't have access)?
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
      It's not up to you. It's up to them, and they trust themselves/don't care about your definition of malicious.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- jtvjan 4y ago
  If the model is used to generate offensive imagery, it may result in a negative press response directed at the company.
- SamBam 4y ago
  "Make a photograph of Joe Biden in a hotel room bed with Kim Jong-un." Simply the ease at which people are going to be able to make extremely-realistic game photographs is going to do some damage to the world. It's inevitable, but it might be good to postpone it.
  - lawxls 4y ago
    The counter argument is that, by the time these models become available to the public, they will produce output that cannot be distinguished from real photos, so the damage will be even greater than if they became available today
  - nomel 4y ago
    > able to make extremely-realistic game photographs is going to do some damage to the world I don't understand why. If someone has gone to a blockbuster movie in the last 15 years, they're very familiar with the concept of making people, sets, and entire worlds, that don't exist, with photorealistic accuracy. Being able to make fictitious photorealistic images isn't remotely a new ability, it's just an ability that's now automated. If this is released, I think any damage would be extremely fleeting, as people pumped out thousands of these images, and people grow bored of them. The only danger is making this ability (to make false images) seem new (absolutely not) or rare (not anymore)!

by wmfrov 4y ago

nomel 4y ago

> the risks of unrestricted open-access What exactly is the risk?

tpmx 4y ago
Really unpleasant content being produced, obviously.
jimmygrapes 4y ago
A variation on the axiom "you cannot idiot proof something because there's always a bigger idiot"
varenc 4y ago
See section 6 titled “Conclusions, Limitations and Societal Impact” in the research paper: https://gweb-research-imagen.appspot.com/paper.pdf https://gweb-research-imagen.appspot.com/paper.pdf One quote: > “On the other hand, generative methods can be leveraged for malicious purposes, including harassment and misinformation spread [20], and raise many concerns regarding social and cultural exclusion and bias [67, 62, 68]”
- userbinator 4y ago
  But do we trust that those who do have access won't be using it for "malicious purposes" (which they might not think is malicious, but perhaps it is to those who don't have access)?
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    It's not up to you. It's up to them, and they trust themselves/don't care about your definition of malicious.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
jtvjan 4y ago
If the model is used to generate offensive imagery, it may result in a negative press response directed at the company.
SamBam 4y ago
"Make a photograph of Joe Biden in a hotel room bed with Kim Jong-un." Simply the ease at which people are going to be able to make extremely-realistic game photographs is going to do some damage to the world. It's inevitable, but it might be good to postpone it.
- lawxls 4y ago
  The counter argument is that, by the time these models become available to the public, they will produce output that cannot be distinguished from real photos, so the damage will be even greater than if they became available today
- nomel 4y ago
  > able to make extremely-realistic game photographs is going to do some damage to the world I don't understand why. If someone has gone to a blockbuster movie in the last 15 years, they're very familiar with the concept of making people, sets, and entire worlds, that don't exist, with photorealistic accuracy. Being able to make fictitious photorealistic images isn't remotely a new ability, it's just an ability that's now automated. If this is released, I think any damage would be extremely fleeting, as people pumped out thousands of these images, and people grow bored of them. The only danger is making this ability (to make false images) seem new (absolutely not) or rare (not anymore)!