3 ms·
It's open source. It can be removed directly from the code.
by menzoic 3y ago
It's open source. It can be removed directly from the code.
- donkeyd 3y agoAlso, most people use other tools like web-ui to run these models, which don't seem to apply any watermarks.
- p1esk 3y agoSure, I just don’t understand why they’re doing it. In theory they could also train the model to always add a watermark.
- aenvoker 3y agoStability, Midjourney, Dall-e, etc don’t want their products to be used for misinformation. They really do want AI generated images to be trivially identifiable. There are papers around describing how to bake a watermark into a model. Don’t know if anyone is doing that yet.
- Der_Einzige 3y agoAnd many will start working on techniques to unbake it from the model. A cat and mouse game, like all other attempts to track.
- wongarsu 3y agoSure, but that can be said about any security measure. If we agree that passing AI generated art as human-made or as a photograph is bad, then making that harder to do is worthwhile.
- Der_Einzige 3y agoWe don't agree.
- otterley 3y agoWhy don't you agree?
- jachee 3y agoGiven the models’ propensity to being able to fairly-regularly reproduce gettyimages watermarks, I’d imagine putting a mark in the same place, at the same size on all the training images would train it that the mark must be there.
- rcme 3y agoOne reason is so that they can detect generated images and exclude them from future training sets.
- saynay 3y agoThere have been some talk of various countries requiring AI images be watermarked. They may be trying to signal their willingness to comply, and hopefully ensure they are not outright banned. That fact it can be bypassed isn't necessarily their problem to fix.
- tjoff 3y agoMany good reasons have been presented here. And on the other side, is there any reason not to do it? (part from the effort required to put it in place)
- bogdan 3y agoI guess it's a form of tracking and we don't like that
- brucethemoose2 3y agoThere is nothing personally identifiable in the watermark though, no more than other image metadata. And yeah, you can see the watermarking code in the huggingface pipeline now. Its pretty simple, and theres really no reason to disable it.
- adventured 3y agoWhat exactly is in the watermark? Other image metadata is commonly used to track people, or used in combination with a few other hints to track people. If it's strictly a primitive watermark with absolutely nothing unique per mark, then it might be no big deal.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoIt is. See for yourself: https://github.com/huggingface/diffusers/blob/2367c1b9fa31266e55e628f2fbbbb2b115e08eaf/src/diffusers/pipelines/stable_diffusion_xl/watermark.py https://github.com/huggingface/diffusers/blob/2367c1b9fa3126... I see no reason to disable it. Its fast, and its no more personal than basic metadata like image format and resolution... I can't think of any use case for disabling it other than passing AI generated images as authentic.
- sterlind 3y agomarked images can be excluded from training data in the future, so that it doesn't eat its own output, which is known to cause model quality to degenerate (an issue likely to plague training LLMs on post-2022 datasets.) as for training the model to add a watermark, that's an interesting idea but I'm not sure it's feasible/not trivial to circumvent.