48 ms·

Why we chose not to release Stable Diffusion 1.5 as quickly

298 points by dwynings 4y ago

jerpint 4y ago
Isn't the whole point of open source, so long as licenses and attributions are respected, that anyone is free to do whatever they please with these models and their redistribution?
- notacanofsoda 4y ago
  Sounds like they wanted to remove NSFW training data and re-train their models before release.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    They’re desperately trying to avoid the “stable diffusion makes child porn” articles from flowing
    - lbotos 4y ago
      Yep, they explicitly say it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/comment/it5kkic/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/com...
- eddiewithzato 4y ago
  That’s the FSF definition yea, but lots of developers nowadays don’t agree with the FSF. For example some people don’t want companies to use their open source libraries/code for a profit.
  - wyldfire 4y ago
    > some people don’t want companies to use their open source libraries/code for a profit. IMO the AGPL goes a long way to solving that problem. But if the AGPL is not for you, I suppose you could use some non-commercial license terms. It seems like "closed source" is a much better fit for folks who want a great deal of control over licensees. In practice, "closed source" code can be published for licensees to see but instead of granting terms to all comers you could force people to ask you for a license, review their use case and only then decide to grant a copyright license -- with or without source.
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      AGPL doesn't work for modern day problems. The problem you have is that you are developing an open source bit of infrastructure and your only method of profiting is your own hosted version giving people the option of getting it for free and managing hosting, or letting you do it for a small profit. Then Amazon comes in and sets up their own even easier hosting while providing none of the profits or development effort back to the original project. The AGPL is no problem because Amazon is fine to publish any changes they make, thats not an issue because the real product is the hosting and not the code.
      - ahtihn 4y ago
        That's not Amazon using open source code for profit. They make money from hosting. They don't make money from the code. The problem is releasing stuff as open source and expecting to profit off it while preventing others from doing the same. You fundamentally can't. Why bother with open source with an attitude like that?
        Gigachad 4y ago
        They don’t. That’s why they came up with a new license that still allows self hosting and viewing the source but doesn’t allow cloud providers to capture their income.
      - pmoriarty 4y ago
        "AGPL doesn't work for modern day problems. The problem you have is that you are developing an open source bit of infrastructure and your only method of profiting is your own hosted version giving people the option of getting it for free and managing hosting, or letting you do it for a small profit." AGPL is for code, not for infrastructure, and you can still profit off of AGPL-licensed code by: 1 - selling support for it 2 - getting donations 3 - asking for money in return for working on feature requests 4 - being paid by a corporations to work on an open source product they themselves use and profit from
      - wyldfire 4y ago
        > Then Amazon comes in and sets up their own even easier hosting while providing none of the profits or development effort back to the original project There's nothing particularly "modern" about this "problem". Redhat caused this problem with GPL and BSD-licensed code in 1993. It's a feature, not a bug. Some people probably didn't like it then either. If you resent companies and people making money from your work, you're not really embracing the ideals of open source. So just keep it closed source. Like I said earlier you can always reveal the source to licensees when they pay you, and you can prevent them from distributing the source.
  - seba_dos1 4y ago
    That's obviously not an open source code then.
pr337h4m 4y ago
"We’ve heard from regulators and the general public that we need to focus more strongly on security to ensure that we’re taking all the steps possible to make sure people don't use Stable Diffusion for illegal purposes or hurting people." "What we do need to do is listen to society as a whole, listen to regulators, listen to the community." "So when Stability AI says we have to slow down just a little it's because if we don't deal with very reasonable feedback from society and our own communities then there is a chance open source AI simply won't exist and nobody will be able to release powerful models." Looks like someone is leaning on them :(
- blueblimp 4y ago
  Plausibly OpenAI/etc. trying to get a competitor shut down.
  - icelancer 4y ago
    Or their investors now that they raised a ton of money.
- vasco 4y ago
  Two days ago: “Nobody has any voting rights except our employees — no billionaires, big funds, governments or anyone else with control of the company or the communities we support. We’re completely independent,” Mostaque told TechCrunch in a previous interview. “We plan to use our compute to accelerate open source, foundational AI.”
  - hansworst 4y ago
    Big funds and billionaires can influence those employees with hard cash, and governments can influence those employees with threats of incarceration.
minimaxir 4y ago
> At Stability, we see ourselves more as a classical democracy, where every vote and voice counts, rather than just a company. After taking $100M in venture capital and two distinct drama events due to disorganization, this is unlikely to last.
- jerpint 4y ago
  When that much money is at stake, it's hard to keep incentives aligned
notacanofsoda 4y ago
1) Who is Daniel Jeffries? There's no explanation of how he's related to Stability. 2) StabilityAI gave RunwayML compute time for them to train Stable Diffusion (they're also the creators of the original model). It's weird to categorize them as " other groups leak the model". They're the ones that created the model! (Source: https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5/discussions/1#6351a36ca9a9ae18220726c7 https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5/discus...)
- cactusplant7374 4y ago
  I looked at Jeffries twitter. That did not clear anything up.
- minimaxir 4y ago
  He is the very new CIO at Stability, apparently: https://twitter.com/Dan_Jeffries1/status/1575068030367059968 https://twitter.com/Dan_Jeffries1/status/1575068030367059968
  - ZephyrBlu 4y ago
    Why does an AI company have a Chief Investment/Information (?) Officer?
    - ZephyrBlu 4y ago
      I found out it's actually Chief Intelligence Officer.
lairv 4y ago
The discourse has already changed quite a bit since the first release, which was only 2 months ago, and is getting alarmingly close from OpenAI's "we must delay release of XXX for safety reasons". It was probably to be expected, OpenAI are not just morons who decided to freeze opensource progresses, there are likely legal reasons behind it. But adding to that last weeks dramas, I am not very bullish on StabilityAI, hope I'll be proven wrong
13of40 4y ago
Two thoughts I've had about Stable Diffusion: 1. The web UIs I have used are taking advantage of the same mental pathways as an electronic slot machine. Just like you can max out your bet on a slot machine and mash a button until you run out of credits, you can do the same on the hosted stable diffusion apps until you get a shareable hit. 2. Just like the dream you had last night, nobody wants to hear about it at breakfast, no matter how epic it was, because it's not backed by any meaning. That said, I love stable diffusion and am an addict to it almost every day.
- lysp 4y ago
  If you have a reasonable video card, you can run it easily locally using this repo: https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/ https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/ It is extremely active - author updates it 10-20 times per day.
  - ronsor 4y ago
    IMO the local UIs are still designed like a slot machine :)
  - 13of40 4y ago
    TBH, I bought a 3090 and it broke after a week so I sent it back. It was about $1200, and I'm down about $80 on the web site at this point, so... I have been pondering a cloud solution though, but haven't done the math all the way yet. It's a bit like buying a $15K boat and then just going out on it once a month.
    - danuker 4y ago
      > and it broke after a week Have you monitored its temperature while using it? Did your warranty cover it?
  - imhoguy 4y ago
    SD even runs fine, although slower, on MacBook Air M1 thanks to quite capable GPU which shares RAM as VRAM, I think soon to utilize Neural Engine Cores too. Announcement and discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/xbo3y7/oneclick_install_stable_diffusion_gui_app_for_m1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/xbo3y7/one...
thorum 4y ago
The author (Stability.AI’s CIO) did an impromptu AMA on Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/stability_ais_take_on_stable_diffusion_15_and_the/ https://reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/stabili... His comments regarding RunwayML’s release of 1.5 were especially interesting: > “No they did not. They supplied a single researcher, no data, not compute and none of the other reseachers. So it’s a nice thing to claim now but it’s basically BS. They also spoke to me on the phone, said they agreed about the bigger picture and then cut off communications and turned around and did the exact opposite which is negotiating in bad faith.” > “I’m saying they are bad faith actors who agreed to one thing, didn’t get the consent of other researchers who worked hard on the project and then turned around and did something else.”
- mzs 4y ago
  Thank you, I think this is the root of everything: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/comment/it5kkic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/com... >We want to crush any chance of CP. If folks use it for that entire generative AI space will go radioactive and yes there are some things that can be done to make it much much harder for folks to abuse and we are working with THORN and others right now to make it a reality.
  - camdenlock 4y ago
    This is utterly ridiculous. Even if the generated content is repulsive, it’s still generated; no one is being harmed. Stop this babysitting nonsense.
    - trap_goes_hot 4y ago
      Its not really black/white. Deepfakes can be traumatizing to the victims.
  - jimbob45 4y ago
    Isn’t the dream to use this stuff to generate virtual CSAM? Could you not kill the CSAM market overnight by flooding it with AI-generated material?
Satam 4y ago
Based on a Reddit post [1], the author of this is Stability AI's chief information officer. My very rough take on the situation: the company gained their notoriety by building on OpenAI's pioneering research but with an important twist of releasing their models as unneutered open source. Now, their openness is starting to falter due to strong pressure from outside forces. If they're unable to continue playing the hardball game they themselves invented, I think their glory days will end as fast as they started. The competitive advantage was always their boldness. If they lose that, quickly others will take their place. In general, I don't think tech that's as open, powerful and easily reproducible as these language models can be stopped. Sure, maybe regulations will delay it a bit, but give it a few years and any decent hacker or tinkerer will be dabbling with 5x better tech with 5x less effort. [1] https://archive.ph/Z5sU3 https://archive.ph/Z5sU3
- machina_ex_deus 4y ago
  You're missing an important vulnerability of this tech. The model was trained on copyrighted material. There are enormous pressures to close and stop this. You can't predict future legislation. Intellectual property legislation (which is an absolute cancer IMO) can outlaw models and their results. It can outlaw distribution of the data sets, the training, the models. Tech companies already acted way beyond the requirements of the law and effectively censured open source projects like popcorn time. Can they prevent a determined hacker which already got everything? No. Could this be the last model to be trained on a wide dataset, available to the public? Yes. Could they make it a living hell where getting these tools in the future will only be from untrustworthy websites where half the download buttons give you an exe, and all your less tech savvy friends won't bother? Easily. Could this tool become impossible for companies to use without risking litigation? Very easily. People tend to forget those making the rules do not have their interests at heart, and every single intellectual property law is designed to leave companies and not people holding all the rights. And those laws can absolutely do damage. Do not underestimate the power of legislation.
  - kmeisthax 4y ago
    You're thinking copyright liability[0], but the real worry, straight from the mouths of the Stability people[1], is AI-generated CSAM. That will make the whole field of generative art legally radioactive. At least with copyright law, there's an argument for training being fair use. If generative art becomes a notorious market for CSAM, everyone in the field goes to jail. [0] Also, I'd like to know what your opinion is on GitHub Copilot. A lot of people decry Copilot for stealing code but love Stable Diffusion for being public, even though they're the same concept and trained in the same quasi-ethical way. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/comment/it5kkic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/com...
machina_ex_deus 4y ago
I'm not a data hoarder, but from the moment Stable Diffusion was released I had a gut feeling that I should download everything available while it's there. Somewhat similar gut feeling to when popcorn time was released, although it might not be exactly the same. While I really wish I'm wrong, my gut tells me that broadly trained machine learning models available to the general public won't last and that intellectual property hawks are going to one day cancel and remove these models and code from all convenient access channels. That somehow international legislation will converge on the strictest possible interpretation of intellectual property, and those models will become illegal by the mere fact they were trained on copyrighted material. So reminder to everyone: Download! Get it and use it before they try to close the Stable doors after the horses Diffused. Do not be fooled by the illusion that just because it's open source it will be there forever! Popcorn time lost a similar battle. Get it now when there are trustworthy sources. Once these kinds of things go underground, it gets much harder to get a trustworthy version.
- Satam 4y ago
  Wow, thank you. That's a very interesting take. You mention Popcorn time. I wonder if torrents in general could be a great example of how something like this plays out? Torrenting took the world by storm and had an amazing "product-market fit" for the early internet days. Of course, downloading copyrighted material was always illegal but that didn't stop many. Over time, legal but paid alternatives rose up: Spotify, iTunes, Netflix. These players found their place in the market by balancing the interest of copyright holders and the needs of users looking for cheap and easy access to entertainment. Just as Netflix acquired large content libraries, same here. With enough money, large training datasets could be acquired in a legally solid manner. It's interesting to think where this analogy might fail as well, and how the paths of these technologies could differ. For one, torrenting was mostly for entertainment, and thus impacted B2C first. On the other hand, language models are more so for media _creation_ and the B2B sphere.
  - machina_ex_deus 4y ago
    They can and do fight dirty. They don't only use legal tactics, they use legal options to get the information off from trustworthy sources. Like torrents, you first have to resort to random websites who get randomly taken down as they acquire reputation. If a person takes the face and responsibility for something, he gets litigated into oblivion. So you get to the point where trustworthy and untrustworthy sources are indistinguishable . Now what they do is create untrustworthy sources. Like time for popcorn. Sow discord. Fork several times, create intentionally malwared versions of both the program and the website. Keep kicking off the trustworthy sources of search engines, while magically skipping takedown requests for the less trustworthy websites. Find ways to break old versions if possible, just to force them to keep moving. (they can make gradio randomly change APIs just to break the old trustworthy versions) All of this can happen.
dang 4y ago
We replaced the title, which has a whiff of corporate press release about it, with what appears to be a representative phrase from the article body. If there's a more representative phrase, we can change it again.
charcircuit 4y ago
>NSFW policies Ugh. It feels like so many of these models are trying to censor NSFW material.
- blueblimp 4y ago
  Imagine if Photoshop were deemed somehow unsafe without a mechanism to prevent the user from creating NSFW images. The panic around image generation models is absurd.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  The NSFW images coming out of SD are hilarious. Nude people with 3 arms. Another torso coming out of the neck, etc.
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  Nobody making or studying AI wants to hear "your model is being used to generate copious amounts of CSAM". That's basically a death sentence for the technology - even moreso than "your model is just an unattributed search index of stolen art and code". The easiest way to avoid this is to just ensure the model refuses to generate anything NSFW.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    It's not a death sentence and journalists will just find a reason to hate on your project for clicks no matter what you do. Also no children, or adults, are sexually abused when an NSFW image is generated.
    - pmoriarty 4y ago
      "no children, or adults, are sexually abused when an NSFW image is generated" True, but that might not matter to the general public, legislators, or judges. I just read a new article on the BBC related to this: "Deepfaked: 'They put my face on a porn video'"[1] The person in question was not physically abused. Only a fake porn video with her face on it was released. But she was still emotionally distraught over it, and said: "You start thinking about your family," she says, holding back tears. "How would they feel if they saw this content?" This is a real concern to a lot of people, and I doubt they'll be swayed by people pointing out that they weren't physically abused. So, yeah, there'll likely be a massive backlash against some AI-generated content and the software that generates it, and laws will likely be made against it in some countries. But in other countries and on the dark web it'll still exist. There's ultimately no way of stopping it, and eventually people will come to terms with its existence and widespread availability, no matter what the law of some countries says. [1] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62821117 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62821117
Beaver117 4y ago
So you want it to be open source, but not too open, because then bad people will use it. Good luck with that. If you want to filter everything behind a SaaS like OpenAI go ahead, but then you can't call it open source. And maybe that would have been the right choice. But Pandora's box is open now.
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  Exactly, that cat is out of the bag. Right now the hard part is not using the models but creating the models. It requires a significant commitment in resources and there are only a handful of companies with those resources. And you need some skilled people to babysit the software and the algorithms. However, that will inevitably spread to include more and more companies and will also start happening outside the US. All the research around this is being published and there's a lot of open source code that facilitates this. So, it's just a matter of people optimizing and improving that and hardware getting cheaper. I expect that once that market is big enough, you'll see cloud providers step up with provisioning infrastructure for this stuff. It will still be expensive to use but it won't have a lot of limitations. AI driven porn is basically the obvious use-case where there are some big companies with lots of money operating in that space and plenty of incentive to make this happen. Morally that might actually be preferable to exploiting people as is their current way of operating. The likes of OpenAI won't be able to do much to stop that.
aortega 4y ago
Powerful people are pulling strings to control AI everywhere. OpenAI is exactly the opposite of open. Now someone is pushing on Stability AI to close it up, I believe those models are more powerful or dangerous than they seem, and it got some people scared in some way. I read than when some guys from 4chan started running the leaked NovelAI model, they generated porn non-stop for 20 hs or more, no sleep, no eating.
- zaptrem 4y ago
  This is not at all unusual behavior for 4Chan users.
- blackoil 4y ago
  >Powerful people Even without conspiracy theories, these models cost upto 10s of millions to generate, no suprise investors wouldn't like if you are giving it all for free, there should be some revenue model.
  - emikulic 4y ago
    I thought Emad said it cost $600k in GPU time.
- SanderNL 4y ago
  To be fair, that's the novelty factor and when this hits "the public" it is not unthinkable that there'll be some "productivity issues". IMO it is like finding a computer in a world without them. It is mind-blowing and it will take over your mind if you let it. For some folks that results in lots of porn, for others it'll be fear. My guess is that it'll wear off eventually.
fsociety999 4y ago
While they frame the post as if this is a positive and something they want to do, reading between the lines, it sounds to me like something has them rattled. They mentioned regulators here, and I would be curious to hear the story behind that. Don’t want to go too tin foil hat, but it makes you wonder if a certain other AI company that claims to be “open” may be afraid of a company that actually is open and is applying political pressure.
- dougmwne 4y ago
  Oh that's a certainty. They said regulators twice. It was no accident, they are telegraphing just how hard they got smacked behind the scenes. Extremely likely that the FAANG lobbyists went into overdrive. The big guys know this will be an extremely important industry for the coming decades and don't want a new competitor swooping in with nothing to lose when established companies are forced to be cautious.
yellow_lead 4y ago
> We are forming an open source committee to decide on major issues like cleaning data, NSFW policies and formal guidelines for model release. I don't see how NSFW photos can easily be stopped from being generated, with the model being open source. Maybe the model could be heavily pre-filtered to remove any photos that could possibly be used for NSFW images.
- lbotos 4y ago
  My understanding is it was trained on this dataset: https://rom1504.github.io/clip-retrieval/?back=https%3A%2F%2Fknn5.laion.ai&index=laion5B&useMclip=false https://rom1504.github.io/clip-retrieval/?back=https%3A%2F%2... Which has a LOT of NSFW images in it. I suspect if you removed them from the training set it would go a long way to curb NSFW output but as you say people could easily train their own NSFW latent diffusion model.
  - kmeisthax 4y ago
    My experience with Stable Diffusion is that it has a habit of tripping the NSFW filter - as in, it actually generated NSFW images - on prompts that were entirely innocuous. Would not be surprised if Stability has a huge "how do we get it to stop spitting out porn so easily" problem.
pabs3 4y ago
I wouldn't call Stable Diffusion "Open Source AI", the training data isn't publicly released under open source licenses. I like the Debian Deep Learning Team's Machine Learning policy for evaluating these things: https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy
icelancer 4y ago
His answers on reddit are downvoted and the redditors are correctly pointing out that most of these "protections" smack of the fact that his investors want to stop giving things away and to close up source / resources for better monetization strategies.
- ycombinete 4y ago
  Reddit upvotes also doxxed the wrong person in the Boston Bombing.
Retr0id 4y ago
Depending on how the legislation plays out, I can foresee a "pirate bay for ML models" popping up.
jaimex2 4y ago
Looks like the fun police arrived. Seriously, fire any coward lawyers erroring on the side of caution and get some that are versed in the NRA playbook.
TheArcane 4y ago
>Help us make AI truly open, rather than open in name only. That has to be a dig at OpenAI
yieldcrv 4y ago
I think Daniel Jeffries believes everything they just wrote. Their new handlers can do anything to the contrary and are incentivized to curb release as well. The market is saying their new handlers are going to do that. So we enjoy you proving us wrong!
seydor 4y ago
Have to find a way for content makers to make money/jobs through the system. Google search solved that by providing ad revenue to content makers, or else they 'd have removed all their content by now.
moneycantbuy 4y ago
download while you can. i really hope this isn’t the beginning of the end for stable diffusion or true open ai. it’s too good to not piss off powerful people. we must keep real open source ai alive, otherwise it’ll only be billionaires like zuck and elon force-feeding us poisonous saccharine.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ggm 4y ago
This appears to be BOTH an IPR statement and a social policy statement. I tend to thinking they are co-joined, but clarity helps. I think the social harms side, they need to be careful to under-promise and over-deliver. The likelihood of preventing social harms is frankly close to zero, what they can do is make it more complicated. Think like this: use stable diffusion to make one "actor" dance a lambada in the left field and save it. in a new state, make a different "actor" dance a lambada in the "right" field. Now using alpha masks combine the two actors. Can this represent sexy dancing? you bet your sweet bippy. Promising not to release "two person sexy dancing" in this situation would be over-promising. Sure, it was done outside of the AI by masks. Will the law makers care? (for actor and lambada and sexy dance, substitute whatever contextually means "harm" in a two-actor situation, semantically)
- visarga 4y ago
  AIs, Photoshop, pen and paper are just tools that are handled by people, you can't preemptively prevent people from doing illegal things.
chatterhead 4y ago
So if someone buys the rights to an artists work and that artist is dead can they start using Stable Diffusion to create new works of art they can claim as "by the artist"?
- wnkrshm 4y ago
  You can claim it but the emperor is naked, except if the artist actually made generative models that you can run, then the model can produce new art - but I feel it still would have been made by the original creator, not by whoever buys the model.
- whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  Hollywood is about to start buying actor image rights and performance data to continue producing movies staring them after death so very likely legislation will be made that does make these things part of the artist canon.
  - chatterhead 4y ago
    If they bring Chris Farley back I'm going to be very very angry.
habibur 4y ago
This should have been expected. Open source or not they are funded. And that funding needs to generate profit one way or the other. This first release gave them the popular attention which they needed. It was successful.
rafaelero 4y ago
And so it starts...
diebeforei485 4y ago
> We’ve heard from regulators Who are these regulators?
- nnx 4y ago
  It's quite concerning indeed. Is there any country with a regulator for opensource software now? AI?
imhoguy 4y ago
Well, models will be taken down anyway (at least attempted), save whatever you can put hands on. It is happening, govt is just catching up with this rapid situation: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/13/2022-21658/implementation-of-additional-export-controls-certain-advanced-computing-and-semiconductor https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/13/2022-21... (AI mentioned 4 times) https://eshoo.house.gov/sites/eshoo.house.gov/files/9.20.22LettertoNSCandOSTPonStabilityAI.pdf https://eshoo.house.gov/sites/eshoo.house.gov/files/9.20.22L... (at the very end "export controls" are mentioned multiple times)
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  Keep in mind that the last link points to a letter that's (allegedly) only from one member of the House of Representatives. What people need to understand is that the bar for worryingness shouldn't be "government looking into it". Governments look into things all the time, and in such a diverse environment as the U.S legislative branch, we cannot just pack every opinion of every member into a single "government" momolith. That is why, in fact, we even have legislative systems with different representatives from different parties at all. This isn't an undesirable effect, this is how it's supposed to work, and in a good way.
jackblemming 4y ago
Guys I'm going to release an invention called the car, but my security team needs to make sure it's safe and won't be abused by drunk drivers. Next I plan to release an invention called the gun, but please hold your horses, because it could be abused. I need to double check and make sure it's safe to release this piece of equipment.
julienreszka 4y ago
I really want to be kind but all I see in this article is some corpo speech.
fxtentacle 4y ago
I think the most important part is this comment: https://danieljeffries.substack.com/p/why-the-future-of-open-source-ai/comment/9884263 https://danieljeffries.substack.com/p/why-the-future-of-open... The people that he discredits as "leak the model in order to draw some quick press to themselves" are the researchers that are named in the Stable Diffusion paper. Yes, Stability.AI gave them lots of money. But no, they are not leaking the model, they are publishing their own work. It's university researchers, after all. And Stability.AI does NOT own the model.
- wyxuan 4y ago
  No I think this is runway.ml who run a video editing startup based on AI and helped with the development. This is the link https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5 https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5
- ComodoHacker 4y ago
  More context: https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y99yb1/a_summary_of_the_most_recent_shortlived_so_far/ https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y99yb1/a_s... ============================= RunwayML, who co-authored the StableDiffusion paper and funded CompVis together with StabilityAI, have unilaterally released the newest model of StableDiffusion, version 1.5. It seems that this was done without StabilityAIs consent, who so far have held the finished model back to supposedly prune it of NSFW stuff. This is criticized by many and accusations exist that they are only doing this to make more money as the 1.5 model has been available for quite some time on their own website against a usage fee. Do note however that the 1.5 model has only very minor improvements over the 1.4 model. The link to the model can be found here: https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5 https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5 The release was accompanied by the following tweet from RunwayML: https://twitter.com/runwayml/status/1583109275643105280 https://twitter.com/runwayml/status/1583109275643105280 This was followed by an accusing statement by a - now confirmed to be fake - account claiming to be Patrick Esser: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1023643945319792731/1032745835437502625/unknown.png https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1023643945319792731... The model was released under the following license which indicates that RunwayML were legally allowed to release the model: Use-based restrictions as referenced in paragraph 5 MUST be included as an enforceable provision by You in any type of legal agreement (e.g. a license) governing the use and/or distribution of the Model or Derivatives of the Model, and You shall give notice to subsequent users You Distribute to, that the Model or Derivatives of the Model are subject to paragraph 5. This provision does not apply to the use of Complementary Material. You must give any Third Party recipients of the Model or Derivatives of the Model a copy of this License; You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; You must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Model, Derivatives of the Model. You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions - respecting paragraph 4.a. - for use, reproduction, or Distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivatives of the Model as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and Distribution of the Model otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License. Trademarks and related. Nothing in this License permits You to make use of Licensors’ trademarks, trade names, logos or to otherwise suggest endorsement or misrepresent the relationship between the parties; and any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by the Licensors. The license can be found here: https://huggingface.co/spaces/CompVis/stable-diffusion-license https://huggingface.co/spaces/CompVis/stable-diffusion-licen... This was followed by a takedown notice from StabilityAI: Company StabilityAI has requested a takedown of this published model characterizing it as a leak of their IP While we are awaiting for a formal legal request, and even though Hugging Face is not knowledgeable of the IP agreements (if any) between this repo owner (RunwayML) and StabilityAI, we are flagging this repository as having potential/disputed IP rights. The takedown notice can be found here: https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5/discussions/1 https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5/discus... This was followed by a statement from RunwayML in that same thread: Hi all, Cris here - the CEO and Co-founder of Runway. Since our founding in 2018, we’ve been on a mission to empower anyone to create the impossible. So, we’re excited to share this newest version of Stable Diffusion so that we can continue delivering on our mission. This version of Stable Diffusion is a continuation of the original High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models work that we created and published (now more commonly referred to as Stable Diffusion). Stable Diffusion is an AI model developed by Patrick Esser from Runway and Robin Rombach from LMU Munich. The research and code behind Stable Diffusion was open-sourced last year. The model was released under the CreativeML Open RAIL M License. We confirm there has been no breach of IP as flagged and we thank Stability AI for the compute donation to retrain the original model. Emad, CEO of StabilityAI, has come forward on the official StableDiffusion discord stating that they are okay with the release and have taken down the takedown notice: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1015751613840883735/1032752575495278652/unknown.png https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1015751613840883735... https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1015751613840883735/1032752888222597201/unknown.png https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1015751613840883735... Emad also says they didn't send the takedown request: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1032745835781423234/1032760016064761897/Screenshot_20221020_215922.jpg https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1032745835781423234/1...
machinekob 4y ago
All this is PR talk after few dramas with immoral activities. They got 100mil USD in founding and I feel like pressure squeeze them hard as they are trying to monetise models, but how you monetise open source models when someone can just fine-tune your weights and make better/faster/cleaner model and software without losing 10mil+ on training original. You are always few mil behind rivals and after past few weeks which was PR nightmare they lost most of the "community driven" advantage. I fell like they are extremely desperate for attention (drama was artificially created cause it clicks conspiracy) or they are just so chaotic and lack proper leaders that everything is burin.
- passion__desire 4y ago
  Emad mentioned about governing Stability AI as a DAO of DAOs. If they can't even run a traditional company properly, forget about the DAOs chaos.
- d3nj4l 4y ago
  Can you provide any context on the "past weeks" drama? Haven't been following this space closely so I don't know what happened. Honestly surprised about this turn because I used to follow Emad on twitter and he was always strongly for open models.
  - lbotos 4y ago
    There are local WebUIs. Someone named AUTOMATIC1111 has a popular one. They added in a "leaked" model. Stability.ai, banned AUTO from their discord and accused him of "stealing/promoting piracy". Community enflamed. They then apologized and let him back in. Stability.ai took over the /r/stablediffusion subreddit. Community enflamed. They then turned the subreddit back over to the community Stability.ai delayed 1.5 model. And now sent this justification. Community enflamed.
roel_v 4y ago
Is there any work being done on trust-less (or maybe trust web) distributed model training? The main problem today is that training the model is being gatekept (is that a word?) by actors with 100's of k's of $. If there would be a way to run a client, like SETI@home, that will train models, then a few thousand unsophisticated users with 30x0's and some weeks/months of time will do to model training what bittorrent did to mp3 distribution. But for this to work, you need some way to feed images to users, ensure that images aren't re-used, somehow guard against malicious actors injecting faulty data etc.
can16358p 4y ago
> Help us make AI truly open, rather than open in name only.
obert 4y ago
all these companies being responsible and protecting us from “bad AI” are just delaying the inevitable. With hardware prices going down and new GPUs and better algorithms coming to light, it’s only a matter of few years until anybody will be able to train custom versions as powerful as today’s AI, without protections, probably biased, etc. Sure, they will be 5-10 years behind big corps, but it won’t matter once poorman AI will be good enough to matter.
c7b 4y ago
Realistically, those guys are facing a choice between an option for a very comfortable early retirement and getting roadblocked / litigated into oblivion. Can you really blame them?
Roark66 4y ago
As always in such cases this is 100% bull**. Either something is not working out for them and they have to delay in which case they could've just said so, or this is some sort of pretense to show how "responsibility minded" they are. The reality is that bad actors have the resources to train their own stable diffusion on a dataset of whatever they want to deep fake and such delays do not slow them down one bit. What it does slow down is normal people using those models. From the smallest thing like mobilenetv3 through whisper, stable diffusion, CodeGen, and bloom those are huge productivity equalisers between the huge corpos and the little guy. Also the same thing can be said about frameworks like huggingface's. Just recently I was looking for a way to classify image type (photo or not photo[clip art, cartoon, drawing]) in an android app. Of course first hits on Google stear towards Microsoft Azure's paid API service. I was unhappy with having to use an over-the-Internet-API (with potentially sensitive end user's private pictures) so in one day of work I managed to download a pretrained MobileNetV3. A couple of 10k+ image datasets and I wrote <50 lines of python to tweak the last layer and fine tune the network. On rtx 2070 training took 10 minutes. Resulting accuracy on real data? 90%+. The model loads and infers in few hundreds of ms on modern phones(instantiating and loading takes longer than the inference BTW).This is priceless and 100% secure for end users. For thilose interested in the details I use ncnn and vulkan for gpu(mobile!) inference. Every commercial model maker's wet dream is to expose the model through an API, lock it behind a firewall and have people pay for access. This is not just hugely inefficient. It is insecure by design. Take copilot by example. I'm perfectly happy for all my hobby-grade code to be streamed to Microsoft, but no chance in hell I'll use it on any of my commercial projects. However faux pilot run locally is on my list of things to try. The first AI revolution was creation of those super powerful models, the second is the ability to run them on the edge devices.
p3opl3s 4y ago
Y/ou can't comment unless you pay to subscribe.. lol - isn't that a company blog post? Anyways.. this shit grinds me.. yet another "open source" AI proejct pretending to be fo rthe people.. finally get a massive valuation and now it's all "we must be security concious".. Hypocrtyes and here is an interview with the founder of Stable Diffusion stating the exact opposite approach by "having faith in people"! https://youtu.be/YQ2QtKcK2dA?t=704 https://youtu.be/YQ2QtKcK2dA?t=704
- moralestapia 4y ago
  He just says what he need to at any given moment to maximize his profit. People nowadays are like the chicken from that (alleged) Stalin anecdote.
theknocker 4y ago
f0e4c2f7 4y ago
Once upon a time there was a company called OpenAI that was going to do for AI what open source did for software. I think OpenAI changing their revenue model and corporate structure to better reflect how much money they were about to make really left a mark on the internet around trust in the AI space. The default is going to be to assume that AI companies like stability have sold out, to that end it would not surprise me if even this minor incident leads to a splitting and a new open model that becomes popular. I understand the point the author is trying to make. I understand what OpenAI is getting at with safety. I understand what the regulators are getting at. But it is too late. The genie is already out of the bottle and granting wishes. What are you going to ban at this point? Math education? It's time to accept that it's not that hard to come up with a few a100s and train models for harm if thats your goal. You can write code that harms people too. The answer is not to ban code. The answer is not to heavily regulate AI (not all countries will regulate it, it will be like banning gunpowder or electricity) As for this particular release - what is being implied they were going to wait for? Figuring out the model? Regulation? The internet to start acting calm and reasonably? We don't even know what these models fully do yet. It's hard to imagine what you could know in 6 months vs now that would allow you to release with a big thumbs up. More and more I'm realizing how politically controversial AI will become. Already today we're starting to see that on various axies. I think weirdly in a few years it may be a top issue.
oth001 4y ago
Still don't see them trying to use a dataset that they own the licenses to...
muaytimbo 4y ago
This guy already sounds, in his own words, "neutered". "We have to listen to regulators, we have to listen to the community, etc" there are no regulations, and even if there were, imagine if Uber, Lyft, AirBnB, Tesla, or other startups had taken this position. Listening to regulators / the community / anyone without a stake in the company is literally the quickest way to get killed by regulators captured by incumbent competitors.
fleddr 4y ago
"So when Stability AI says we have to slow down just a little it's because if we don't deal with very reasonable feedback from society and our own communities then there is a chance open source AI simply won't exist..." Yeah, you can stop pretending that the neutering is the right thing to do, clearly it's something you somehow are forced to do, due to some serious threat your received.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
marmada 4y ago
My hope (for codex, stable diffusion, etc.) is that the models become so popular that it will be impossible to legislate them for issues like copyright. I think there might be a limited window before legal repercussions start happening -- so hopefully the models are in extremely wide spread use by then
ok123456 4y ago
I'm really tired of this infantilizing garbage. People are always going to use new technologies in ways the people didn't anticipate. So, they're going to delay their release so that if you type a naughty word it won't make a naughty image. You know what happens within hours? Someone releases a modified version of the weights that over corrects it back and makes it even more naughty.
Genghis_9000 4y ago
isitmadeofglass 4y ago
Its weird they don’t mention their horrendously failures or attempts to take over all the independent social media groups. I expect that slowed them down quite a bit as well.
lilboiluvr69 4y ago
bgi_909 4y ago
seeks

298 points by dwynings 4y ago

Isn't the whole point of open source, so long as licenses and attributions are respected, that anyone is free to do whatever they please with these models and their redistribution?

notacanofsoda 4y ago
Sounds like they wanted to remove NSFW training data and re-train their models before release.
- bombcar 4y ago
  They’re desperately trying to avoid the “stable diffusion makes child porn” articles from flowing
  - lbotos 4y ago
    Yep, they explicitly say it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/comment/it5kkic/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/com...
eddiewithzato 4y ago
That’s the FSF definition yea, but lots of developers nowadays don’t agree with the FSF. For example some people don’t want companies to use their open source libraries/code for a profit.
- wyldfire 4y ago
  > some people don’t want companies to use their open source libraries/code for a profit. IMO the AGPL goes a long way to solving that problem. But if the AGPL is not for you, I suppose you could use some non-commercial license terms. It seems like "closed source" is a much better fit for folks who want a great deal of control over licensees. In practice, "closed source" code can be published for licensees to see but instead of granting terms to all comers you could force people to ask you for a license, review their use case and only then decide to grant a copyright license -- with or without source.
  - Gigachad 4y ago
    AGPL doesn't work for modern day problems. The problem you have is that you are developing an open source bit of infrastructure and your only method of profiting is your own hosted version giving people the option of getting it for free and managing hosting, or letting you do it for a small profit. Then Amazon comes in and sets up their own even easier hosting while providing none of the profits or development effort back to the original project. The AGPL is no problem because Amazon is fine to publish any changes they make, thats not an issue because the real product is the hosting and not the code.
    - ahtihn 4y ago
      That's not Amazon using open source code for profit. They make money from hosting. They don't make money from the code. The problem is releasing stuff as open source and expecting to profit off it while preventing others from doing the same. You fundamentally can't. Why bother with open source with an attitude like that?
      - Gigachad 4y ago
        They don’t. That’s why they came up with a new license that still allows self hosting and viewing the source but doesn’t allow cloud providers to capture their income.
    - pmoriarty 4y ago
      "AGPL doesn't work for modern day problems. The problem you have is that you are developing an open source bit of infrastructure and your only method of profiting is your own hosted version giving people the option of getting it for free and managing hosting, or letting you do it for a small profit." AGPL is for code, not for infrastructure, and you can still profit off of AGPL-licensed code by: 1 - selling support for it 2 - getting donations 3 - asking for money in return for working on feature requests 4 - being paid by a corporations to work on an open source product they themselves use and profit from
    - wyldfire 4y ago
      > Then Amazon comes in and sets up their own even easier hosting while providing none of the profits or development effort back to the original project There's nothing particularly "modern" about this "problem". Redhat caused this problem with GPL and BSD-licensed code in 1993. It's a feature, not a bug. Some people probably didn't like it then either. If you resent companies and people making money from your work, you're not really embracing the ideals of open source. So just keep it closed source. Like I said earlier you can always reveal the source to licensees when they pay you, and you can prevent them from distributing the source.
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  That's obviously not an open source code then.

pr337h4m 4y ago

"We’ve heard from regulators and the general public that we need to focus more strongly on security to ensure that we’re taking all the steps possible to make sure people don't use Stable Diffusion for illegal purposes or hurting people." "What we do need to do is listen to society as a whole, listen to regulators, listen to the community." "So when Stability AI says we have to slow down just a little it's because if we don't deal with very reasonable feedback from society and our own communities then there is a chance open source AI simply won't exist and nobody will be able to release powerful models." Looks like someone is leaning on them :(

blueblimp 4y ago
Plausibly OpenAI/etc. trying to get a competitor shut down.
- icelancer 4y ago
  Or their investors now that they raised a ton of money.
vasco 4y ago
Two days ago: “Nobody has any voting rights except our employees — no billionaires, big funds, governments or anyone else with control of the company or the communities we support. We’re completely independent,” Mostaque told TechCrunch in a previous interview. “We plan to use our compute to accelerate open source, foundational AI.”
- hansworst 4y ago
  Big funds and billionaires can influence those employees with hard cash, and governments can influence those employees with threats of incarceration.

minimaxir 4y ago

> At Stability, we see ourselves more as a classical democracy, where every vote and voice counts, rather than just a company. After taking $100M in venture capital and two distinct drama events due to disorganization, this is unlikely to last.

jerpint 4y ago
When that much money is at stake, it's hard to keep incentives aligned

notacanofsoda 4y ago

1) Who is Daniel Jeffries? There's no explanation of how he's related to Stability. 2) StabilityAI gave RunwayML compute time for them to train Stable Diffusion (they're also the creators of the original model). It's weird to categorize them as " other groups leak the model". They're the ones that created the model! (Source: https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5/discussions/1#6351a36ca9a9ae18220726c7 https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5/discus...)

cactusplant7374 4y ago
I looked at Jeffries twitter. That did not clear anything up.
minimaxir 4y ago
He is the very new CIO at Stability, apparently: https://twitter.com/Dan_Jeffries1/status/1575068030367059968 https://twitter.com/Dan_Jeffries1/status/1575068030367059968
- ZephyrBlu 4y ago
  Why does an AI company have a Chief Investment/Information (?) Officer?
  - ZephyrBlu 4y ago
    I found out it's actually Chief Intelligence Officer.

lairv 4y ago

The discourse has already changed quite a bit since the first release, which was only 2 months ago, and is getting alarmingly close from OpenAI's "we must delay release of XXX for safety reasons". It was probably to be expected, OpenAI are not just morons who decided to freeze opensource progresses, there are likely legal reasons behind it. But adding to that last weeks dramas, I am not very bullish on StabilityAI, hope I'll be proven wrong

13of40 4y ago

Two thoughts I've had about Stable Diffusion: 1. The web UIs I have used are taking advantage of the same mental pathways as an electronic slot machine. Just like you can max out your bet on a slot machine and mash a button until you run out of credits, you can do the same on the hosted stable diffusion apps until you get a shareable hit. 2. Just like the dream you had last night, nobody wants to hear about it at breakfast, no matter how epic it was, because it's not backed by any meaning. That said, I love stable diffusion and am an addict to it almost every day.

lysp 4y ago
If you have a reasonable video card, you can run it easily locally using this repo: https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/ https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/ It is extremely active - author updates it 10-20 times per day.
- ronsor 4y ago
  IMO the local UIs are still designed like a slot machine :)
- 13of40 4y ago
  TBH, I bought a 3090 and it broke after a week so I sent it back. It was about $1200, and I'm down about $80 on the web site at this point, so... I have been pondering a cloud solution though, but haven't done the math all the way yet. It's a bit like buying a $15K boat and then just going out on it once a month.
  - danuker 4y ago
    > and it broke after a week Have you monitored its temperature while using it? Did your warranty cover it?
- imhoguy 4y ago
  SD even runs fine, although slower, on MacBook Air M1 thanks to quite capable GPU which shares RAM as VRAM, I think soon to utilize Neural Engine Cores too. Announcement and discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/xbo3y7/oneclick_install_stable_diffusion_gui_app_for_m1/ https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/xbo3y7/one...

thorum 4y ago

The author (Stability.AI’s CIO) did an impromptu AMA on Reddit: https://reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/stability_ais_take_on_stable_diffusion_15_and_the/ https://reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/stabili... His comments regarding RunwayML’s release of 1.5 were especially interesting: > “No they did not. They supplied a single researcher, no data, not compute and none of the other reseachers. So it’s a nice thing to claim now but it’s basically BS. They also spoke to me on the phone, said they agreed about the bigger picture and then cut off communications and turned around and did the exact opposite which is negotiating in bad faith.” > “I’m saying they are bad faith actors who agreed to one thing, didn’t get the consent of other researchers who worked hard on the project and then turned around and did something else.”

mzs 4y ago
Thank you, I think this is the root of everything: https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/comment/it5kkic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/com... >We want to crush any chance of CP. If folks use it for that entire generative AI space will go radioactive and yes there are some things that can be done to make it much much harder for folks to abuse and we are working with THORN and others right now to make it a reality.
- camdenlock 4y ago
  This is utterly ridiculous. Even if the generated content is repulsive, it’s still generated; no one is being harmed. Stop this babysitting nonsense.
  - trap_goes_hot 4y ago
    Its not really black/white. Deepfakes can be traumatizing to the victims.
- jimbob45 4y ago
  Isn’t the dream to use this stuff to generate virtual CSAM? Could you not kill the CSAM market overnight by flooding it with AI-generated material?

Satam 4y ago

Based on a Reddit post [1], the author of this is Stability AI's chief information officer. My very rough take on the situation: the company gained their notoriety by building on OpenAI's pioneering research but with an important twist of releasing their models as unneutered open source. Now, their openness is starting to falter due to strong pressure from outside forces. If they're unable to continue playing the hardball game they themselves invented, I think their glory days will end as fast as they started. The competitive advantage was always their boldness. If they lose that, quickly others will take their place. In general, I don't think tech that's as open, powerful and easily reproducible as these language models can be stopped. Sure, maybe regulations will delay it a bit, but give it a few years and any decent hacker or tinkerer will be dabbling with 5x better tech with 5x less effort. [1] https://archive.ph/Z5sU3 https://archive.ph/Z5sU3

machina_ex_deus 4y ago
You're missing an important vulnerability of this tech. The model was trained on copyrighted material. There are enormous pressures to close and stop this. You can't predict future legislation. Intellectual property legislation (which is an absolute cancer IMO) can outlaw models and their results. It can outlaw distribution of the data sets, the training, the models. Tech companies already acted way beyond the requirements of the law and effectively censured open source projects like popcorn time. Can they prevent a determined hacker which already got everything? No. Could this be the last model to be trained on a wide dataset, available to the public? Yes. Could they make it a living hell where getting these tools in the future will only be from untrustworthy websites where half the download buttons give you an exe, and all your less tech savvy friends won't bother? Easily. Could this tool become impossible for companies to use without risking litigation? Very easily. People tend to forget those making the rules do not have their interests at heart, and every single intellectual property law is designed to leave companies and not people holding all the rights. And those laws can absolutely do damage. Do not underestimate the power of legislation.
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  You're thinking copyright liability[0], but the real worry, straight from the mouths of the Stability people[1], is AI-generated CSAM. That will make the whole field of generative art legally radioactive. At least with copyright law, there's an argument for training being fair use. If generative art becomes a notorious market for CSAM, everyone in the field goes to jail. [0] Also, I'd like to know what your opinion is on GitHub Copilot. A lot of people decry Copilot for stealing code but love Stable Diffusion for being public, even though they're the same concept and trained in the same quasi-ethical way. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/comment/it5kkic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y9ga5s/com...

machina_ex_deus 4y ago

I'm not a data hoarder, but from the moment Stable Diffusion was released I had a gut feeling that I should download everything available while it's there. Somewhat similar gut feeling to when popcorn time was released, although it might not be exactly the same. While I really wish I'm wrong, my gut tells me that broadly trained machine learning models available to the general public won't last and that intellectual property hawks are going to one day cancel and remove these models and code from all convenient access channels. That somehow international legislation will converge on the strictest possible interpretation of intellectual property, and those models will become illegal by the mere fact they were trained on copyrighted material. So reminder to everyone: Download! Get it and use it before they try to close the Stable doors after the horses Diffused. Do not be fooled by the illusion that just because it's open source it will be there forever! Popcorn time lost a similar battle. Get it now when there are trustworthy sources. Once these kinds of things go underground, it gets much harder to get a trustworthy version.

Satam 4y ago
Wow, thank you. That's a very interesting take. You mention Popcorn time. I wonder if torrents in general could be a great example of how something like this plays out? Torrenting took the world by storm and had an amazing "product-market fit" for the early internet days. Of course, downloading copyrighted material was always illegal but that didn't stop many. Over time, legal but paid alternatives rose up: Spotify, iTunes, Netflix. These players found their place in the market by balancing the interest of copyright holders and the needs of users looking for cheap and easy access to entertainment. Just as Netflix acquired large content libraries, same here. With enough money, large training datasets could be acquired in a legally solid manner. It's interesting to think where this analogy might fail as well, and how the paths of these technologies could differ. For one, torrenting was mostly for entertainment, and thus impacted B2C first. On the other hand, language models are more so for media _creation_ and the B2B sphere.
- machina_ex_deus 4y ago
  They can and do fight dirty. They don't only use legal tactics, they use legal options to get the information off from trustworthy sources. Like torrents, you first have to resort to random websites who get randomly taken down as they acquire reputation. If a person takes the face and responsibility for something, he gets litigated into oblivion. So you get to the point where trustworthy and untrustworthy sources are indistinguishable . Now what they do is create untrustworthy sources. Like time for popcorn. Sow discord. Fork several times, create intentionally malwared versions of both the program and the website. Keep kicking off the trustworthy sources of search engines, while magically skipping takedown requests for the less trustworthy websites. Find ways to break old versions if possible, just to force them to keep moving. (they can make gradio randomly change APIs just to break the old trustworthy versions) All of this can happen.

dang 4y ago

We replaced the title, which has a whiff of corporate press release about it, with what appears to be a representative phrase from the article body. If there's a more representative phrase, we can change it again.

charcircuit 4y ago

>NSFW policies Ugh. It feels like so many of these models are trying to censor NSFW material.

blueblimp 4y ago
Imagine if Photoshop were deemed somehow unsafe without a mechanism to prevent the user from creating NSFW images. The panic around image generation models is absurd.
Gigachad 4y ago
The NSFW images coming out of SD are hilarious. Nude people with 3 arms. Another torso coming out of the neck, etc.
kmeisthax 4y ago
Nobody making or studying AI wants to hear "your model is being used to generate copious amounts of CSAM". That's basically a death sentence for the technology - even moreso than "your model is just an unattributed search index of stolen art and code". The easiest way to avoid this is to just ensure the model refuses to generate anything NSFW.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  It's not a death sentence and journalists will just find a reason to hate on your project for clicks no matter what you do. Also no children, or adults, are sexually abused when an NSFW image is generated.
  - pmoriarty 4y ago
    "no children, or adults, are sexually abused when an NSFW image is generated" True, but that might not matter to the general public, legislators, or judges. I just read a new article on the BBC related to this: "Deepfaked: 'They put my face on a porn video'"[1] The person in question was not physically abused. Only a fake porn video with her face on it was released. But she was still emotionally distraught over it, and said: "You start thinking about your family," she says, holding back tears. "How would they feel if they saw this content?" This is a real concern to a lot of people, and I doubt they'll be swayed by people pointing out that they weren't physically abused. So, yeah, there'll likely be a massive backlash against some AI-generated content and the software that generates it, and laws will likely be made against it in some countries. But in other countries and on the dark web it'll still exist. There's ultimately no way of stopping it, and eventually people will come to terms with its existence and widespread availability, no matter what the law of some countries says. [1] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62821117 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62821117

Beaver117 4y ago

So you want it to be open source, but not too open, because then bad people will use it. Good luck with that. If you want to filter everything behind a SaaS like OpenAI go ahead, but then you can't call it open source. And maybe that would have been the right choice. But Pandora's box is open now.

jillesvangurp 4y ago
Exactly, that cat is out of the bag. Right now the hard part is not using the models but creating the models. It requires a significant commitment in resources and there are only a handful of companies with those resources. And you need some skilled people to babysit the software and the algorithms. However, that will inevitably spread to include more and more companies and will also start happening outside the US. All the research around this is being published and there's a lot of open source code that facilitates this. So, it's just a matter of people optimizing and improving that and hardware getting cheaper. I expect that once that market is big enough, you'll see cloud providers step up with provisioning infrastructure for this stuff. It will still be expensive to use but it won't have a lot of limitations. AI driven porn is basically the obvious use-case where there are some big companies with lots of money operating in that space and plenty of incentive to make this happen. Morally that might actually be preferable to exploiting people as is their current way of operating. The likes of OpenAI won't be able to do much to stop that.

aortega 4y ago

Powerful people are pulling strings to control AI everywhere. OpenAI is exactly the opposite of open. Now someone is pushing on Stability AI to close it up, I believe those models are more powerful or dangerous than they seem, and it got some people scared in some way. I read than when some guys from 4chan started running the leaked NovelAI model, they generated porn non-stop for 20 hs or more, no sleep, no eating.

zaptrem 4y ago
This is not at all unusual behavior for 4Chan users.
blackoil 4y ago
>Powerful people Even without conspiracy theories, these models cost upto 10s of millions to generate, no suprise investors wouldn't like if you are giving it all for free, there should be some revenue model.
- emikulic 4y ago
  I thought Emad said it cost $600k in GPU time.
SanderNL 4y ago
To be fair, that's the novelty factor and when this hits "the public" it is not unthinkable that there'll be some "productivity issues". IMO it is like finding a computer in a world without them. It is mind-blowing and it will take over your mind if you let it. For some folks that results in lots of porn, for others it'll be fear. My guess is that it'll wear off eventually.

fsociety999 4y ago

While they frame the post as if this is a positive and something they want to do, reading between the lines, it sounds to me like something has them rattled. They mentioned regulators here, and I would be curious to hear the story behind that. Don’t want to go too tin foil hat, but it makes you wonder if a certain other AI company that claims to be “open” may be afraid of a company that actually is open and is applying political pressure.

dougmwne 4y ago
Oh that's a certainty. They said regulators twice. It was no accident, they are telegraphing just how hard they got smacked behind the scenes. Extremely likely that the FAANG lobbyists went into overdrive. The big guys know this will be an extremely important industry for the coming decades and don't want a new competitor swooping in with nothing to lose when established companies are forced to be cautious.

yellow_lead 4y ago

> We are forming an open source committee to decide on major issues like cleaning data, NSFW policies and formal guidelines for model release. I don't see how NSFW photos can easily be stopped from being generated, with the model being open source. Maybe the model could be heavily pre-filtered to remove any photos that could possibly be used for NSFW images.

lbotos 4y ago
My understanding is it was trained on this dataset: https://rom1504.github.io/clip-retrieval/?back=https%3A%2F%2Fknn5.laion.ai&index=laion5B&useMclip=false https://rom1504.github.io/clip-retrieval/?back=https%3A%2F%2... Which has a LOT of NSFW images in it. I suspect if you removed them from the training set it would go a long way to curb NSFW output but as you say people could easily train their own NSFW latent diffusion model.
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  My experience with Stable Diffusion is that it has a habit of tripping the NSFW filter - as in, it actually generated NSFW images - on prompts that were entirely innocuous. Would not be surprised if Stability has a huge "how do we get it to stop spitting out porn so easily" problem.

pabs3 4y ago

I wouldn't call Stable Diffusion "Open Source AI", the training data isn't publicly released under open source licenses. I like the Debian Deep Learning Team's Machine Learning policy for evaluating these things: https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy https://salsa.debian.org/deeplearning-team/ml-policy

icelancer 4y ago

His answers on reddit are downvoted and the redditors are correctly pointing out that most of these "protections" smack of the fact that his investors want to stop giving things away and to close up source / resources for better monetization strategies.

ycombinete 4y ago
Reddit upvotes also doxxed the wrong person in the Boston Bombing.

Retr0id 4y ago

Depending on how the legislation plays out, I can foresee a "pirate bay for ML models" popping up.

jaimex2 4y ago

Looks like the fun police arrived. Seriously, fire any coward lawyers erroring on the side of caution and get some that are versed in the NRA playbook.

TheArcane 4y ago

>Help us make AI truly open, rather than open in name only. That has to be a dig at OpenAI

yieldcrv 4y ago

I think Daniel Jeffries believes everything they just wrote. Their new handlers can do anything to the contrary and are incentivized to curb release as well. The market is saying their new handlers are going to do that. So we enjoy you proving us wrong!

seydor 4y ago

Have to find a way for content makers to make money/jobs through the system. Google search solved that by providing ad revenue to content makers, or else they 'd have removed all their content by now.

moneycantbuy 4y ago

download while you can. i really hope this isn’t the beginning of the end for stable diffusion or true open ai. it’s too good to not piss off powerful people. we must keep real open source ai alive, otherwise it’ll only be billionaires like zuck and elon force-feeding us poisonous saccharine.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ggm 4y ago

This appears to be BOTH an IPR statement and a social policy statement. I tend to thinking they are co-joined, but clarity helps. I think the social harms side, they need to be careful to under-promise and over-deliver. The likelihood of preventing social harms is frankly close to zero, what they can do is make it more complicated. Think like this: use stable diffusion to make one "actor" dance a lambada in the left field and save it. in a new state, make a different "actor" dance a lambada in the "right" field. Now using alpha masks combine the two actors. Can this represent sexy dancing? you bet your sweet bippy. Promising not to release "two person sexy dancing" in this situation would be over-promising. Sure, it was done outside of the AI by masks. Will the law makers care? (for actor and lambada and sexy dance, substitute whatever contextually means "harm" in a two-actor situation, semantically)

visarga 4y ago
AIs, Photoshop, pen and paper are just tools that are handled by people, you can't preemptively prevent people from doing illegal things.

chatterhead 4y ago

So if someone buys the rights to an artists work and that artist is dead can they start using Stable Diffusion to create new works of art they can claim as "by the artist"?

wnkrshm 4y ago
You can claim it but the emperor is naked, except if the artist actually made generative models that you can run, then the model can produce new art - but I feel it still would have been made by the original creator, not by whoever buys the model.
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
Hollywood is about to start buying actor image rights and performance data to continue producing movies staring them after death so very likely legislation will be made that does make these things part of the artist canon.
- chatterhead 4y ago
  If they bring Chris Farley back I'm going to be very very angry.

habibur 4y ago

This should have been expected. Open source or not they are funded. And that funding needs to generate profit one way or the other. This first release gave them the popular attention which they needed. It was successful.

rafaelero 4y ago

And so it starts...

diebeforei485 4y ago

> We’ve heard from regulators Who are these regulators?

nnx 4y ago
It's quite concerning indeed. Is there any country with a regulator for opensource software now? AI?

imhoguy 4y ago

Well, models will be taken down anyway (at least attempted), save whatever you can put hands on. It is happening, govt is just catching up with this rapid situation: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/13/2022-21658/implementation-of-additional-export-controls-certain-advanced-computing-and-semiconductor https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/13/2022-21... (AI mentioned 4 times) https://eshoo.house.gov/sites/eshoo.house.gov/files/9.20.22LettertoNSCandOSTPonStabilityAI.pdf https://eshoo.house.gov/sites/eshoo.house.gov/files/9.20.22L... (at the very end "export controls" are mentioned multiple times)

EMIRELADERO 4y ago
Keep in mind that the last link points to a letter that's (allegedly) only from one member of the House of Representatives. What people need to understand is that the bar for worryingness shouldn't be "government looking into it". Governments look into things all the time, and in such a diverse environment as the U.S legislative branch, we cannot just pack every opinion of every member into a single "government" momolith. That is why, in fact, we even have legislative systems with different representatives from different parties at all. This isn't an undesirable effect, this is how it's supposed to work, and in a good way.

jackblemming 4y ago

Guys I'm going to release an invention called the car, but my security team needs to make sure it's safe and won't be abused by drunk drivers. Next I plan to release an invention called the gun, but please hold your horses, because it could be abused. I need to double check and make sure it's safe to release this piece of equipment.

julienreszka 4y ago

I really want to be kind but all I see in this article is some corpo speech.

fxtentacle 4y ago

I think the most important part is this comment: https://danieljeffries.substack.com/p/why-the-future-of-open-source-ai/comment/9884263 https://danieljeffries.substack.com/p/why-the-future-of-open... The people that he discredits as "leak the model in order to draw some quick press to themselves" are the researchers that are named in the Stable Diffusion paper. Yes, Stability.AI gave them lots of money. But no, they are not leaking the model, they are publishing their own work. It's university researchers, after all. And Stability.AI does NOT own the model.

wyxuan 4y ago
No I think this is runway.ml who run a video editing startup based on AI and helped with the development. This is the link https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5 https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5
ComodoHacker 4y ago
More context: https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y99yb1/a_summary_of_the_most_recent_shortlived_so_far/ https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/y99yb1/a_s... ============================= RunwayML, who co-authored the StableDiffusion paper and funded CompVis together with StabilityAI, have unilaterally released the newest model of StableDiffusion, version 1.5. It seems that this was done without StabilityAIs consent, who so far have held the finished model back to supposedly prune it of NSFW stuff. This is criticized by many and accusations exist that they are only doing this to make more money as the 1.5 model has been available for quite some time on their own website against a usage fee. Do note however that the 1.5 model has only very minor improvements over the 1.4 model. The link to the model can be found here: https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5 https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5 The release was accompanied by the following tweet from RunwayML: https://twitter.com/runwayml/status/1583109275643105280 https://twitter.com/runwayml/status/1583109275643105280 This was followed by an accusing statement by a - now confirmed to be fake - account claiming to be Patrick Esser: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1023643945319792731/1032745835437502625/unknown.png https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1023643945319792731... The model was released under the following license which indicates that RunwayML were legally allowed to release the model: Use-based restrictions as referenced in paragraph 5 MUST be included as an enforceable provision by You in any type of legal agreement (e.g. a license) governing the use and/or distribution of the Model or Derivatives of the Model, and You shall give notice to subsequent users You Distribute to, that the Model or Derivatives of the Model are subject to paragraph 5. This provision does not apply to the use of Complementary Material. You must give any Third Party recipients of the Model or Derivatives of the Model a copy of this License; You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; You must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Model, Derivatives of the Model. You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions - respecting paragraph 4.a. - for use, reproduction, or Distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivatives of the Model as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and Distribution of the Model otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License. Trademarks and related. Nothing in this License permits You to make use of Licensors’ trademarks, trade names, logos or to otherwise suggest endorsement or misrepresent the relationship between the parties; and any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by the Licensors. The license can be found here: https://huggingface.co/spaces/CompVis/stable-diffusion-license https://huggingface.co/spaces/CompVis/stable-diffusion-licen... This was followed by a takedown notice from StabilityAI: Company StabilityAI has requested a takedown of this published model characterizing it as a leak of their IP While we are awaiting for a formal legal request, and even though Hugging Face is not knowledgeable of the IP agreements (if any) between this repo owner (RunwayML) and StabilityAI, we are flagging this repository as having potential/disputed IP rights. The takedown notice can be found here: https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5/discussions/1 https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5/discus... This was followed by a statement from RunwayML in that same thread: Hi all, Cris here - the CEO and Co-founder of Runway. Since our founding in 2018, we’ve been on a mission to empower anyone to create the impossible. So, we’re excited to share this newest version of Stable Diffusion so that we can continue delivering on our mission. This version of Stable Diffusion is a continuation of the original High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models work that we created and published (now more commonly referred to as Stable Diffusion). Stable Diffusion is an AI model developed by Patrick Esser from Runway and Robin Rombach from LMU Munich. The research and code behind Stable Diffusion was open-sourced last year. The model was released under the CreativeML Open RAIL M License. We confirm there has been no breach of IP as flagged and we thank Stability AI for the compute donation to retrain the original model. Emad, CEO of StabilityAI, has come forward on the official StableDiffusion discord stating that they are okay with the release and have taken down the takedown notice: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1015751613840883735/1032752575495278652/unknown.png https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1015751613840883735... https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1015751613840883735/1032752888222597201/unknown.png https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1015751613840883735... Emad also says they didn't send the takedown request: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1032745835781423234/1032760016064761897/Screenshot_20221020_215922.jpg https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1032745835781423234/1...

machinekob 4y ago

All this is PR talk after few dramas with immoral activities. They got 100mil USD in founding and I feel like pressure squeeze them hard as they are trying to monetise models, but how you monetise open source models when someone can just fine-tune your weights and make better/faster/cleaner model and software without losing 10mil+ on training original. You are always few mil behind rivals and after past few weeks which was PR nightmare they lost most of the "community driven" advantage. I fell like they are extremely desperate for attention (drama was artificially created cause it clicks conspiracy) or they are just so chaotic and lack proper leaders that everything is burin.

passion__desire 4y ago
Emad mentioned about governing Stability AI as a DAO of DAOs. If they can't even run a traditional company properly, forget about the DAOs chaos.
d3nj4l 4y ago
Can you provide any context on the "past weeks" drama? Haven't been following this space closely so I don't know what happened. Honestly surprised about this turn because I used to follow Emad on twitter and he was always strongly for open models.
- lbotos 4y ago
  There are local WebUIs. Someone named AUTOMATIC1111 has a popular one. They added in a "leaked" model. Stability.ai, banned AUTO from their discord and accused him of "stealing/promoting piracy". Community enflamed. They then apologized and let him back in. Stability.ai took over the /r/stablediffusion subreddit. Community enflamed. They then turned the subreddit back over to the community Stability.ai delayed 1.5 model. And now sent this justification. Community enflamed.

roel_v 4y ago

Is there any work being done on trust-less (or maybe trust web) distributed model training? The main problem today is that training the model is being gatekept (is that a word?) by actors with 100's of k's of $. If there would be a way to run a client, like SETI@home, that will train models, then a few thousand unsophisticated users with 30x0's and some weeks/months of time will do to model training what bittorrent did to mp3 distribution. But for this to work, you need some way to feed images to users, ensure that images aren't re-used, somehow guard against malicious actors injecting faulty data etc.

can16358p 4y ago

> Help us make AI truly open, rather than open in name only.

obert 4y ago

all these companies being responsible and protecting us from “bad AI” are just delaying the inevitable. With hardware prices going down and new GPUs and better algorithms coming to light, it’s only a matter of few years until anybody will be able to train custom versions as powerful as today’s AI, without protections, probably biased, etc. Sure, they will be 5-10 years behind big corps, but it won’t matter once poorman AI will be good enough to matter.

c7b 4y ago

Realistically, those guys are facing a choice between an option for a very comfortable early retirement and getting roadblocked / litigated into oblivion. Can you really blame them?

Roark66 4y ago

As always in such cases this is 100% bull**. Either something is not working out for them and they have to delay in which case they could've just said so, or this is some sort of pretense to show how "responsibility minded" they are. The reality is that bad actors have the resources to train their own stable diffusion on a dataset of whatever they want to deep fake and such delays do not slow them down one bit. What it does slow down is normal people using those models. From the smallest thing like mobilenetv3 through whisper, stable diffusion, CodeGen, and bloom those are huge productivity equalisers between the huge corpos and the little guy. Also the same thing can be said about frameworks like huggingface's. Just recently I was looking for a way to classify image type (photo or not photo[clip art, cartoon, drawing]) in an android app. Of course first hits on Google stear towards Microsoft Azure's paid API service. I was unhappy with having to use an over-the-Internet-API (with potentially sensitive end user's private pictures) so in one day of work I managed to download a pretrained MobileNetV3. A couple of 10k+ image datasets and I wrote <50 lines of python to tweak the last layer and fine tune the network. On rtx 2070 training took 10 minutes. Resulting accuracy on real data? 90%+. The model loads and infers in few hundreds of ms on modern phones(instantiating and loading takes longer than the inference BTW).This is priceless and 100% secure for end users. For thilose interested in the details I use ncnn and vulkan for gpu(mobile!) inference. Every commercial model maker's wet dream is to expose the model through an API, lock it behind a firewall and have people pay for access. This is not just hugely inefficient. It is insecure by design. Take copilot by example. I'm perfectly happy for all my hobby-grade code to be streamed to Microsoft, but no chance in hell I'll use it on any of my commercial projects. However faux pilot run locally is on my list of things to try. The first AI revolution was creation of those super powerful models, the second is the ability to run them on the edge devices.

p3opl3s 4y ago

Y/ou can't comment unless you pay to subscribe.. lol - isn't that a company blog post? Anyways.. this shit grinds me.. yet another "open source" AI proejct pretending to be fo rthe people.. finally get a massive valuation and now it's all "we must be security concious".. Hypocrtyes and here is an interview with the founder of Stable Diffusion stating the exact opposite approach by "having faith in people"! https://youtu.be/YQ2QtKcK2dA?t=704 https://youtu.be/YQ2QtKcK2dA?t=704

moralestapia 4y ago
He just says what he need to at any given moment to maximize his profit. People nowadays are like the chicken from that (alleged) Stalin anecdote.

theknocker 4y ago

f0e4c2f7 4y ago

Once upon a time there was a company called OpenAI that was going to do for AI what open source did for software. I think OpenAI changing their revenue model and corporate structure to better reflect how much money they were about to make really left a mark on the internet around trust in the AI space. The default is going to be to assume that AI companies like stability have sold out, to that end it would not surprise me if even this minor incident leads to a splitting and a new open model that becomes popular. I understand the point the author is trying to make. I understand what OpenAI is getting at with safety. I understand what the regulators are getting at. But it is too late. The genie is already out of the bottle and granting wishes. What are you going to ban at this point? Math education? It's time to accept that it's not that hard to come up with a few a100s and train models for harm if thats your goal. You can write code that harms people too. The answer is not to ban code. The answer is not to heavily regulate AI (not all countries will regulate it, it will be like banning gunpowder or electricity) As for this particular release - what is being implied they were going to wait for? Figuring out the model? Regulation? The internet to start acting calm and reasonably? We don't even know what these models fully do yet. It's hard to imagine what you could know in 6 months vs now that would allow you to release with a big thumbs up. More and more I'm realizing how politically controversial AI will become. Already today we're starting to see that on various axies. I think weirdly in a few years it may be a top issue.

oth001 4y ago

Still don't see them trying to use a dataset that they own the licenses to...

muaytimbo 4y ago

This guy already sounds, in his own words, "neutered". "We have to listen to regulators, we have to listen to the community, etc" there are no regulations, and even if there were, imagine if Uber, Lyft, AirBnB, Tesla, or other startups had taken this position. Listening to regulators / the community / anyone without a stake in the company is literally the quickest way to get killed by regulators captured by incumbent competitors.

fleddr 4y ago

"So when Stability AI says we have to slow down just a little it's because if we don't deal with very reasonable feedback from society and our own communities then there is a chance open source AI simply won't exist..." Yeah, you can stop pretending that the neutering is the right thing to do, clearly it's something you somehow are forced to do, due to some serious threat your received.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

marmada 4y ago

My hope (for codex, stable diffusion, etc.) is that the models become so popular that it will be impossible to legislate them for issues like copyright. I think there might be a limited window before legal repercussions start happening -- so hopefully the models are in extremely wide spread use by then

ok123456 4y ago

I'm really tired of this infantilizing garbage. People are always going to use new technologies in ways the people didn't anticipate. So, they're going to delay their release so that if you type a naughty word it won't make a naughty image. You know what happens within hours? Someone releases a modified version of the weights that over corrects it back and makes it even more naughty.

Genghis_9000 4y ago

isitmadeofglass 4y ago

Its weird they don’t mention their horrendously failures or attempts to take over all the independent social media groups. I expect that slowed them down quite a bit as well.

lilboiluvr69 4y ago

bgi_909 4y ago

seeks