3 ms·

Oh please, all the creators of these image AIs (OpenAI, Google, Midjourney, SD, etc) are being very very cautious with this stuff. It’s not going to end humanit

Oh please, all the creators of these image AIs (OpenAI, Google, Midjourney, SD, etc) are being very very cautious with this stuff. It’s not going to end humanity, but it could easily lead to some really gross content that would paint the responsible organization in a bad light.

kaoD 4y ago
Can you elaborate? Would Adobe be painted in a bad light if someone committed a crime using Photoshop? Honestly it just feels weird. I've read the license restrictions and I can't see why they are there out what they're preventing.
- tirpen 4y ago
  Photoshop doesn't have an automatic "Generate image of Obama selling weapons to Putin" function.
  - kaoD 4y ago
    But anyone with enough time to learn (or money) can do it anyways without much effort. (I'm trying to understand the exact difference here.) So it boils down to democratization? That anyone can do it regardless of skills acquired?
    - pronlover723 4y ago
      It boils down to who's doing it. An artist in photoshop the artist is responsible. An AI asked to do it likely the people that made the AI is responsible (until AI can think for itself). Take it out of drawing. If you write a program to control elevators and it breaks the elevators aren't you, the person that wrote the program, responsible? Why would Adobe be responsible for something someone else draws? Or let's take an easier more close example. If you just made a character generator. Here's one https://www.numuki.com/game/mii-creator/ https://www.numuki.com/game/mii-creator/ And there was a "randomize" button that one out of 100% made a very pornographic image. Who would get the blame? The person that pushed the button or the person that created the project?
      - Vetch 4y ago
        Perhaps it's the use of the AI moniker but this thing is a computer program under the control of a human, who is the person responsible. It takes time and effort to use and is very much not like automated elevator control. In order of difficulty: 1) figuring out how to rejig the prompt to get what you'd like, adjusting seeds and tuning configuration options. The more control you want, the more complex and manual the pipeline of backing software will be. All it does is amplify everyone's innate artistic talent. 2) Coming up with a good prompt. This relies on the person's imagination, facility with words and familiarity of limitations of the image generating software and its training datasets. 3) Selection. This can be a frustrating experience that tries one's patience. > made a very pornographic image. Who would get the blame? You would, it's not like the software automatically distributes all its generations. The vast majority of images these software generate are not good enough to be shared and aren't. You made the conscious decision to share it. Even if it were an AGI, you would be responsible. It's very much possible to commission a ninja from a human artist and get something very pornographic on a famous celebrity and you would be held responsible for choosing to share it, you had the choice not to.
p-e-w 4y ago
True, they are all very cautious not to let bad actors generate bad content. Where "bad actors" are defined as "people who disagree with us", and "bad content" is defined as "things we don't want to see". Needless to say, the list of bad actors never includes the authors themselves, and the list of unacceptable applications never includes anything the authors had in mind.
- MattRix 4y ago
  They are not cautious at all to prevent bad actors. It is very very easy to bypass their filters. They are just doing the basic due diligence to make sure that the average casual user doesn’t make something that grosses themself out.

kaoD 4y ago

Can you elaborate? Would Adobe be painted in a bad light if someone committed a crime using Photoshop? Honestly it just feels weird. I've read the license restrictions and I can't see why they are there out what they're preventing.

tirpen 4y ago
Photoshop doesn't have an automatic "Generate image of Obama selling weapons to Putin" function.
- kaoD 4y ago
  But anyone with enough time to learn (or money) can do it anyways without much effort. (I'm trying to understand the exact difference here.) So it boils down to democratization? That anyone can do it regardless of skills acquired?
  - pronlover723 4y ago
    It boils down to who's doing it. An artist in photoshop the artist is responsible. An AI asked to do it likely the people that made the AI is responsible (until AI can think for itself). Take it out of drawing. If you write a program to control elevators and it breaks the elevators aren't you, the person that wrote the program, responsible? Why would Adobe be responsible for something someone else draws? Or let's take an easier more close example. If you just made a character generator. Here's one https://www.numuki.com/game/mii-creator/ https://www.numuki.com/game/mii-creator/ And there was a "randomize" button that one out of 100% made a very pornographic image. Who would get the blame? The person that pushed the button or the person that created the project?
    - Vetch 4y ago
      Perhaps it's the use of the AI moniker but this thing is a computer program under the control of a human, who is the person responsible. It takes time and effort to use and is very much not like automated elevator control. In order of difficulty: 1) figuring out how to rejig the prompt to get what you'd like, adjusting seeds and tuning configuration options. The more control you want, the more complex and manual the pipeline of backing software will be. All it does is amplify everyone's innate artistic talent. 2) Coming up with a good prompt. This relies on the person's imagination, facility with words and familiarity of limitations of the image generating software and its training datasets. 3) Selection. This can be a frustrating experience that tries one's patience. > made a very pornographic image. Who would get the blame? You would, it's not like the software automatically distributes all its generations. The vast majority of images these software generate are not good enough to be shared and aren't. You made the conscious decision to share it. Even if it were an AGI, you would be responsible. It's very much possible to commission a ninja from a human artist and get something very pornographic on a famous celebrity and you would be held responsible for choosing to share it, you had the choice not to.

p-e-w 4y ago

True, they are all very cautious not to let bad actors generate bad content. Where "bad actors" are defined as "people who disagree with us", and "bad content" is defined as "things we don't want to see". Needless to say, the list of bad actors never includes the authors themselves, and the list of unacceptable applications never includes anything the authors had in mind.

MattRix 4y ago
They are not cautious at all to prevent bad actors. It is very very easy to bypass their filters. They are just doing the basic due diligence to make sure that the average casual user doesn’t make something that grosses themself out.