5 ms·

I'm not gonna lie, I'm quite disappointed by the wilful obstinance on HN whenever there is a discussion of anti-NSFW or anti-racism filters that are present on

I'm not gonna lie, I'm quite disappointed by the wilful obstinance on HN whenever there is a discussion of anti-NSFW or anti-racism filters that are present on today's artificial intelligence research. First, the filters are only on the interface. The research is public. That's why there has been an explosion of new implementations. You are welcome to run the code yourself and make the horniest model you like. But more importantly, this comes up every time, and everyone acts SO confused. But why? Artificial Intelligence is MASSIVE mainstream news. New advancements are arriving daily. Do you want the news stories to be dominated by whatever heinous shit some bad-faith giggly teenager with a call of the void to offend as much as possible (i know, i was one) is able to generate? Do you want the discourse to be dominated with "Won't someone think of the children?" blocking legitimate research and progress? Europeans always like to dunk on Americans for being "prudes", but only a tiny section of Western Europe is progressive enough to not mind random nipples on their bus ads and television. All of Eastern Europe, Africa, India, and China are culturally still fairly conservative about sex - at least out in the open. People think that preventing racist or sexual use of these models is indulging the prudish mores of America. But that itself is a very narrow perspective that ignores the perspectives of billions of people in the world.

Gigachad 4y ago
I think people can both understand the motives of the companies and even choose to do the same themselves, but still be disappointed in the state of society where this is required. I agree with you that this probably is required while the tech is new and then eventually won't be when everyone and their dog can run these things locally on their phone.
thfuran 4y ago
>Do you want the news stories to be dominated by whatever heinous shit some bad-faith giggly teenager with a call of the void to offend as much as possible (i know, i was one) is able to generate? How is that the only alternative?
- corysama 4y ago
  It’s not the only alternative. It’s the alternative that will absolutely will happen eventually. But, will happen later and to a lesser degree because of all of the crude, annoying, imperfect filters that have been holding it back so far.
joshcryer 4y ago
Stable Diffusion was released for free and open source with a totally unenforceable license (dont do anything illegal or unethical). People right now are likely generating the most heinous of things. Some piece of shit bully is almost certainly as we speak taking pictures of their target and making the worst compromising cruel thing imaginable. That discussion is over. You shouldn't care about a company trying to filter out bad shit on their own platform. Pandoras box has already been open.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
epups 4y ago
I can generate many violent prompts right now, and the model knows the face of hundreds of celebrities (you would think they would garble those to prevent PR disasters). It knows what the 9/11 attack was, it knows about nuclear bombs, horror, gore. Yet somehow it doesn't know what a blowjob is. This is 100% about narrow-minded, prudish conservative values. And yes, most of them come from the US right now, because these models are not being trained in Africa, India or China. Your argument is entirely descriptive. We know why they do this. What should be argued here is how stupid and sad it is to block progress due to nothing more than religious or moral values.
- deanCommie 4y ago
  Tell me, earnestly, what progress is being blocked by your inability to use AI to generate an image of a blowjob. I don't mean this in a moralistic sense. I have no qualms about images of blowjobs. I have no doubt that the porn industry has already deployed these models and is experimenting with this without filters. As a monetizable way to reduce the human costs, it's an entirely logical step, and adult performers should be as nervous as artists, and talking to lawyers. But PROGRESS???
  - epups 4y ago
    It's funny because you spell out a use case that can represent undeniable progress: artificial porn. Porn with no component of human suffering, yet realistic and personalized. A dream product, no doubt. By what metric is this not progress, except a puritanical/religious one? Moreover, sexuality is perhaps the most important theme in art, historically. It is a very legitimate thing to want to include in a tool such as this one. Its censorship is akin to "moral codes" of the past, completely regressive.
    - deanCommie 4y ago
      I'm not as sure that artificial porn is undeniable progress. While I am entirely pro liberty in terms of consumption of pornography, it is not a replacement for human interaction, and can be used in conjunction with other tools to dehumanize and isolate individuals. Some individuals that then make negative contributions to the rest of society at large. These are not isolated incidents, and they've been rising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogynist_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogynist_terrorism There are many kinds of porn - some that exploit women, some that empower them in their production. And there are also many kinds of products - ones that focus on a human connection (whether vanilla or kinky) and ones that don't. I would absolutely worry that artificial porn would be good enough to meet some of these demands but not most, and would ultimately be a net negative for society. > Moreover, sexuality is perhaps the most important theme in art, historically. I mean, it's demonstrably not, religious art imagery dominates by volume. But that's also not necessarily important - that's just who happened to be patrons of arts and had the means to commission them. I'm not gonna deny that humans are horny and want to make lots of sexy art. But you're also not going to get porn on basic cable. You have to seek that out extra for yourself, and that's going to be the case with AI-generated porn art also.
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
…and why should a company not based in one of those nations care about the views of all the billions of others not there?

Gigachad 4y ago

I think people can both understand the motives of the companies and even choose to do the same themselves, but still be disappointed in the state of society where this is required. I agree with you that this probably is required while the tech is new and then eventually won't be when everyone and their dog can run these things locally on their phone.

thfuran 4y ago

>Do you want the news stories to be dominated by whatever heinous shit some bad-faith giggly teenager with a call of the void to offend as much as possible (i know, i was one) is able to generate? How is that the only alternative?

corysama 4y ago
It’s not the only alternative. It’s the alternative that will absolutely will happen eventually. But, will happen later and to a lesser degree because of all of the crude, annoying, imperfect filters that have been holding it back so far.

joshcryer 4y ago

Stable Diffusion was released for free and open source with a totally unenforceable license (dont do anything illegal or unethical). People right now are likely generating the most heinous of things. Some piece of shit bully is almost certainly as we speak taking pictures of their target and making the worst compromising cruel thing imaginable. That discussion is over. You shouldn't care about a company trying to filter out bad shit on their own platform. Pandoras box has already been open.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

epups 4y ago

I can generate many violent prompts right now, and the model knows the face of hundreds of celebrities (you would think they would garble those to prevent PR disasters). It knows what the 9/11 attack was, it knows about nuclear bombs, horror, gore. Yet somehow it doesn't know what a blowjob is. This is 100% about narrow-minded, prudish conservative values. And yes, most of them come from the US right now, because these models are not being trained in Africa, India or China. Your argument is entirely descriptive. We know why they do this. What should be argued here is how stupid and sad it is to block progress due to nothing more than religious or moral values.

deanCommie 4y ago
Tell me, earnestly, what progress is being blocked by your inability to use AI to generate an image of a blowjob. I don't mean this in a moralistic sense. I have no qualms about images of blowjobs. I have no doubt that the porn industry has already deployed these models and is experimenting with this without filters. As a monetizable way to reduce the human costs, it's an entirely logical step, and adult performers should be as nervous as artists, and talking to lawyers. But PROGRESS???
- epups 4y ago
  It's funny because you spell out a use case that can represent undeniable progress: artificial porn. Porn with no component of human suffering, yet realistic and personalized. A dream product, no doubt. By what metric is this not progress, except a puritanical/religious one? Moreover, sexuality is perhaps the most important theme in art, historically. It is a very legitimate thing to want to include in a tool such as this one. Its censorship is akin to "moral codes" of the past, completely regressive.
  - deanCommie 4y ago
    I'm not as sure that artificial porn is undeniable progress. While I am entirely pro liberty in terms of consumption of pornography, it is not a replacement for human interaction, and can be used in conjunction with other tools to dehumanize and isolate individuals. Some individuals that then make negative contributions to the rest of society at large. These are not isolated incidents, and they've been rising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogynist_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogynist_terrorism There are many kinds of porn - some that exploit women, some that empower them in their production. And there are also many kinds of products - ones that focus on a human connection (whether vanilla or kinky) and ones that don't. I would absolutely worry that artificial porn would be good enough to meet some of these demands but not most, and would ultimately be a net negative for society. > Moreover, sexuality is perhaps the most important theme in art, historically. I mean, it's demonstrably not, religious art imagery dominates by volume. But that's also not necessarily important - that's just who happened to be patrons of arts and had the means to commission them. I'm not gonna deny that humans are horny and want to make lots of sexy art. But you're also not going to get porn on basic cable. You have to seek that out extra for yourself, and that's going to be the case with AI-generated porn art also.

BeFlatXIII 4y ago

…and why should a company not based in one of those nations care about the views of all the billions of others not there?