5 ms·

For people complaining that they can't play with the model... I work at Google and I also can't play with the model :'(

by discmonkey 4y ago

make3 4y ago
I mean I don't know how that makes it any better from a reproducibility stand point lol
arthurcolle 4y ago
How does that make you feel?
- quickthrower2 4y ago
  Probably like an employee
karmasimida 4y ago
I mean inference on this cost not small money. I don't think they would host this for fun then.
hathym 4y ago
off-topic: as a google employee do you have unlimited gce credits?
octocop 4y ago
is your team/division hiring?
- Firmwarrior 4y ago
  Every tech megacorp is always hiring people who can jump through the flaming code hoops just right
interblag 4y ago
I think they address some of the reasoning behind this pretty clearly in the write-up as well? > 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. I can see the argument here. It would be super fun to test this model's ability to generate arbitrary images, but "arbitrary" also contains space for a lot of distasteful stuff. Add in this point: > While a subset of our training data was filtered to removed noise and undesirable content, such as pornographic imagery and toxic language, we also utilized LAION-400M dataset which is known to contain a wide range of inappropriate content including pornographic imagery, racist slurs, and harmful social stereotypes. Imagen relies on text encoders trained on uncurated web-scale data, and thus inherits the social biases and limitations of large language models. As such, there is a risk that Imagen has encoded harmful stereotypes and representations, which guides our decision to not release Imagen for public use without further safeguards in place. That said, I hope they're serious about the "framework for responsible externalization" part, both because it would be really fun to play with this model and because it would be interesting to test it outside of their hand-picked examples.
- Siira 4y ago
  > harmful stereotypes and representations So we can't have this model because of ... the mere possibility of stereotypes? With this logic, humans should all die, as we certainly encode some nasty stereotypes in our brains. This level of dishonesty to not give back to the community is not unexpected at this point, but seeing apologists here is.
  - MattSayar 4y ago
    I think it's more that they don't want people creating NSFW images of copyrighted material. How do you even begin to protect against that litigation?
    - fomine3 4y ago
SemanticStrengh 4y ago
Is brocoliman standing in the way? :(
kvetching 4y ago
Good thing there is a company committed to Open Sourcing these sorts of AI models. Oh wait. Google: "it's too dangerous to release to the public" OpenAI: "we are committed to open source AGI but this model is too dangerous to release to the public"

For people complaining that they can't play with the model... I work at Google and I also can't play with the model :'(

make3 4y ago

I mean I don't know how that makes it any better from a reproducibility stand point lol

arthurcolle 4y ago

How does that make you feel?

quickthrower2 4y ago
Probably like an employee

karmasimida 4y ago

I mean inference on this cost not small money. I don't think they would host this for fun then.

hathym 4y ago

off-topic: as a google employee do you have unlimited gce credits?

octocop 4y ago

is your team/division hiring?

Firmwarrior 4y ago
Every tech megacorp is always hiring people who can jump through the flaming code hoops just right

interblag 4y ago

I think they address some of the reasoning behind this pretty clearly in the write-up as well? > 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. I can see the argument here. It would be super fun to test this model's ability to generate arbitrary images, but "arbitrary" also contains space for a lot of distasteful stuff. Add in this point: > While a subset of our training data was filtered to removed noise and undesirable content, such as pornographic imagery and toxic language, we also utilized LAION-400M dataset which is known to contain a wide range of inappropriate content including pornographic imagery, racist slurs, and harmful social stereotypes. Imagen relies on text encoders trained on uncurated web-scale data, and thus inherits the social biases and limitations of large language models. As such, there is a risk that Imagen has encoded harmful stereotypes and representations, which guides our decision to not release Imagen for public use without further safeguards in place. That said, I hope they're serious about the "framework for responsible externalization" part, both because it would be really fun to play with this model and because it would be interesting to test it outside of their hand-picked examples.

Siira 4y ago
> harmful stereotypes and representations So we can't have this model because of ... the mere possibility of stereotypes? With this logic, humans should all die, as we certainly encode some nasty stereotypes in our brains. This level of dishonesty to not give back to the community is not unexpected at this point, but seeing apologists here is.
- MattSayar 4y ago
  I think it's more that they don't want people creating NSFW images of copyrighted material. How do you even begin to protect against that litigation?
  - fomine3 4y ago

SemanticStrengh 4y ago

Is brocoliman standing in the way? :(

kvetching 4y ago

Good thing there is a company committed to Open Sourcing these sorts of AI models. Oh wait. Google: "it's too dangerous to release to the public" OpenAI: "we are committed to open source AGI but this model is too dangerous to release to the public"