4 ms·

Live the project, great work! can you think about adding some ethical clauses to your license. Something to allow people to use it for good wholesome purposes,

Live the project, great work! can you think about adding some ethical clauses to your license. Something to allow people to use it for good wholesome purposes, but to avoid letting it be used for scammers faking AirBnB listings for example

init2null 3y ago
Wouldn't that qualify as a crime already? That sounds like fraud to me.
- noduerme 3y ago
  "someone took the bed out" FWIW this isn't my problem with this project. It's that the writer doesn't know what they're doing and represents a new type of post-code/post-crypto monkey that just links together APIs in clever ways and tries to charge maximum $ for it by selling it to people (monkeys?) who think it's magic. People like this will make a lot of money, and eventually do something that injures you and your family personally. So it's best to attack them and slander them early and often.
doix 3y ago
If someone is willing to scam people on Airbnb, I'm pretty sure they're willing to break a software license.
- noduerme 3y ago
  So that's a good reason to provide people who have no capacity to create fake images an instant way to do so, while riding on the back of things the owner has no idea how they would actually create if they were asked to do so? Sweet. Let's all steal other people's property, charge for APIs and then take $15 a hit to let scammers use it. Yes, they'll break a software license and use garbage that uses garbage that uses garbage. Way to draw the line.
  - doix 3y ago
    I'll be honest, I don't really get your reply. I was merely saying that adding a clause in the license is pretty pointless. The hypothetical user has already decided to break one (or more) law(s), they wouldn't even think twice to break a software license (probably won't even read it). Your comment sounds like a criticism of the project in general rather than the pointlessness of adding a clause to the license. Personally, I think this is pretty novel, better than the 100's of stable-diffusion-as-a-service things that have popped up lately. > while riding on the back of things the owner has no idea how they would actually create if they were asked to do so I mean, everyone builds on top of things they couldn't recreate. If you're a software developer, chances are you couldn't recreate your favorite languages runtime/compiler/whatever, you couldn't recreate your OS, you couldn't recreate the hardware that's running your software. I don't get this criticism at all.
olokobayusuf 3y ago
This is a very good point. Thanks for bringing this up!

init2null 3y ago

Wouldn't that qualify as a crime already? That sounds like fraud to me.

noduerme 3y ago
"someone took the bed out" FWIW this isn't my problem with this project. It's that the writer doesn't know what they're doing and represents a new type of post-code/post-crypto monkey that just links together APIs in clever ways and tries to charge maximum $ for it by selling it to people (monkeys?) who think it's magic. People like this will make a lot of money, and eventually do something that injures you and your family personally. So it's best to attack them and slander them early and often.

doix 3y ago

If someone is willing to scam people on Airbnb, I'm pretty sure they're willing to break a software license.

noduerme 3y ago
So that's a good reason to provide people who have no capacity to create fake images an instant way to do so, while riding on the back of things the owner has no idea how they would actually create if they were asked to do so? Sweet. Let's all steal other people's property, charge for APIs and then take $15 a hit to let scammers use it. Yes, they'll break a software license and use garbage that uses garbage that uses garbage. Way to draw the line.
- doix 3y ago
  I'll be honest, I don't really get your reply. I was merely saying that adding a clause in the license is pretty pointless. The hypothetical user has already decided to break one (or more) law(s), they wouldn't even think twice to break a software license (probably won't even read it). Your comment sounds like a criticism of the project in general rather than the pointlessness of adding a clause to the license. Personally, I think this is pretty novel, better than the 100's of stable-diffusion-as-a-service things that have popped up lately. > while riding on the back of things the owner has no idea how they would actually create if they were asked to do so I mean, everyone builds on top of things they couldn't recreate. If you're a software developer, chances are you couldn't recreate your favorite languages runtime/compiler/whatever, you couldn't recreate your OS, you couldn't recreate the hardware that's running your software. I don't get this criticism at all.

olokobayusuf 3y ago

This is a very good point. Thanks for bringing this up!