3 ms·

Someone involved with Stability.ai posted this article about the "leak": https://danieljeffries.substack.com/p/why-the-future-of-open-source-ai https://danielj

by jph00 4y ago

Someone involved with Stability.ai posted this article about the "leak": https://danieljeffries.substack.com/p/why-the-future-of-open-source-ai https://danieljeffries.substack.com/p/why-the-future-of-open...

ravel-bar-foo 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. This is absurd. We don't hold off on releasing other open source code or datasets that could be used to break the law or hurt people, except where they are subject to export controls (cryptography). I can sympathize with people worried about the danger of photorealistic AI-generated images of individuals, but (1) stable diffusion is not that good: it is quite common to see extra fingers or limbs that blur together. (2) When image generation does become good enough to be dangerous, society will adapt by holding people less responsible for images they appear in.
- Karawebnetwork 4y ago
  > stable diffusion is not that good: it is quite common to see extra fingers or limbs that blur together. This is quite simply no longer the case. Yes, a naive use of the toolset will output bad quality images but experienced users can get images of this quality reliably now: https://imgur.com/a/W7D7Djh https://imgur.com/a/W7D7Djh (possibly nsfw: realistic vampire woman with clothes drenched in blood). It would be easy for someone to instead generate illegal content of that quality. This does not mean that I believe future release should be blocked because of this fast however. Someone can use ready available FaceApp filters to create illegal content and the application is still on the app stores, any skilled person can use Photoshop to stitch together illegal content and Adobe has yet to close down, the list goes on.

by jph00 4y ago

ravel-bar-foo 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. This is absurd. We don't hold off on releasing other open source code or datasets that could be used to break the law or hurt people, except where they are subject to export controls (cryptography). I can sympathize with people worried about the danger of photorealistic AI-generated images of individuals, but (1) stable diffusion is not that good: it is quite common to see extra fingers or limbs that blur together. (2) When image generation does become good enough to be dangerous, society will adapt by holding people less responsible for images they appear in.

Karawebnetwork 4y ago
> stable diffusion is not that good: it is quite common to see extra fingers or limbs that blur together. This is quite simply no longer the case. Yes, a naive use of the toolset will output bad quality images but experienced users can get images of this quality reliably now: https://imgur.com/a/W7D7Djh https://imgur.com/a/W7D7Djh (possibly nsfw: realistic vampire woman with clothes drenched in blood). It would be easy for someone to instead generate illegal content of that quality. This does not mean that I believe future release should be blocked because of this fast however. Someone can use ready available FaceApp filters to create illegal content and the application is still on the app stores, any skilled person can use Photoshop to stitch together illegal content and Adobe has yet to close down, the list goes on.