11 ms·
Safe AI Image Generation
- larkins1020 3y ago[flagged]
- guardian5x 3y agoMaybe just be less prudent about nudity in general. And deny kids access to AI image generation. Problem solved.
- NegativeK 3y agoHow do you deal with nonconsensual generation of images of real people in sexual acts, including children?
- Bognar 3y agoHow do you deal with the same in Photoshop?
- tivert 3y ago>> How do you deal with nonconsensual generation of images of real people in sexual acts, including children? > How do you deal with the same in Photoshop? You're making a false equivalence. "AI" image generation is so much easier to do and requires so much less skill than Photoshopping something that you're really dealing with an entirely different problem.
- shlubbert 3y agoIt's sad that people seem to be consistently incapable of understanding this nuance; same with the "but humans also learn by studying existing work!" argument that always come up when discussing the ethics of training and datasets.
- dale_glass 3y agoThe difference of nuance vs Photoshop is completely unclear. Back in 2005 or so, kuro5hin (a now gone discussion site) closed signups because somebody photoshopped the founder's wife's head onto some porn. That was 18 years ago. True, doing it with Photoshop took a bit of skill, but it is a skill a lot of people have, for whom it would be doable in minutes. For a newbie, figuring out Stable Diffusion is probably more work than figuring out how to do it in Photoshop. And IMO the training argument is long term a pointless waste of time.
- tivert 3y ago> The difference of nuance vs Photoshop is completely unclear. It's perfectly clear if you realize similar is not same. > Back in 2005 or so, kuro5hin (a now gone discussion site) closed signups because somebody photoshopped the founder's wife's head onto some porn. That was 18 years ago. So what? Everyone here understands that's possible. If you think that example somehow addresses the concern, you missed the point. > True, doing it with Photoshop took a bit of skill, but it is a skill a lot of people have, for whom it would be doable in minutes. Also, IIRC, that particular Photoshop of Rusty's wife was terrible, as in obvious. The skill "a lot of people have" is to make bad photoshops. Generative AI has the ability to near-effortlessly make high-resolution ones that most people could confuse for a real photo. > For a newbie, figuring out Stable Diffusion is probably more work than figuring out how to do it in Photoshop. Again, what quality can a newbie achieve with photoshop after a couple days effort? And how long will Stable Diffusion be hard to setup? You do realize someone's going to come up with an easy-to-run "revengeporn.exe" sooner rather than later?
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago> You're making a false equivalence. "AI" image generation is so much easier to do and requires so much less skill than Photoshopping something that you're really dealing with an entirely different problem. And Photoshop is so much easier to do and requires much less skill than carving marble statues. I say we also ban Photoshop and only allow chisels and stones.
- tivert 3y ago> And Photoshop is so much easier to do and requires much less skill than carving marble statues. You are frankly missing the point. The issue isn't easier, the issue is crossing a threshold of easiness or scalability that means the problems can't be managed the same way as they were in the past. For instance: the problem of revenge porn was severely limited before cameras existed, before the internet made mass distribution of photos effortless, and before image search engines made them easy to find. Digital cameras + internet distribution + search engines removed technological limiting factors, and made the problem significantly more severe and widespread. That change in severity lead to new legislation. But with digital camera photos, there are limiting factors that make individual-infraction level enforcement possible: the perpetrator needs some physical access to the victim such that the victim usually knows who took the photo. Generative AI even removes that limitation. That might no mean anything should change, but it does mean "LOL. I can find similarities between the processes so they're the same," isn't a reasonable response.
- mnd999 3y agoYou decide everything is either good or bad with no shades of grey, declare yourself a free speech absolutist and tell everyone that however bad that is, censorship is worse.
- ewrqrqw33 3y ago[dead]
- echelon 3y agoWe already have the laws we want, more or less. It's just that the barriers to creation have been lowered. If we encumber the tech with regulation, only the giants will be able to engineer the adequate protections that fit the letter of the law. You'll effectively be choosing the winners and creating a massive barrier to entry for everyone else.
- raxxorraxor 3y agoFree speech absolutists, an absurd insult for that matter, usually have the exact opposite position and leave the question of morality open.
- hiatus 3y agoHow do you deal with that now, when a sufficiently-skilled artist can do the same for anyone?
- zztop44 3y agoYou don’t have deal with it very much because the barrier of finding a sufficiently skilled artist who is motivated to do so is quite high compared to the reward. If the barrier is simply typing a few words into a web app however… Spam email and annoying door to door sales might look like similar problems, but they demand very different solutions.
- hiatus 3y agoI knew this would be the counter. The parent said nothing about scale. We already have laws around this kind of thing, the technology used is irrelevant to the application of the law. Murder is murder whether it's with a gun or poison.
- j16sdiz 3y ago> Murder is murder whether it's with a gun or poison. But we have laws specifically for weapons of mass destruction, instead of just suing those who use nuclear bomb with murder
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jedberg 3y agoBut scale matters, because usually the law doesn't get involved until scale is reached. We didn't used to have anti-spam laws because it wasn't a problem at small scales. Then it became easy for everyone and became a problem, so laws were created specifically to combat electronic spam, because current laws didn't cover that situation.
- lancesells 3y ago
- causi 3y agoThe same way you deal with people photoshopping real faces onto nude bodies.
- echelon 3y agoExactly how we deal with it now. Laws against the specific undesired behavior. Burdening these systems early on with legislated regulations only makes it so that the incumbents win. Regulations are a moat.
- raxxorraxor 3y agoLuckily for image generation they did not win. Different situation for LLMs though. You are correct that it would only entrench positions. I am angry at EU legislation. While it was heavily involved in research, legislation are again on the course to fortify dominance of established big tech players. Probably because their interests often align with media interests, which have a huge influence on EU politics. And I do not mean the open and independent part of media, rather the established players that have direct business relations with huge tech firms.
- zirgs 3y agoProsecute people who distribute this stuff?
- ImHereToVote 3y agoWe don't go through the judicial system here.
- tekla 3y agoThoughtcrime should not be a thing. We can make laws for distribution of AI generated material
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- loki-ai 3y agoOpenAI uploading an illegal image to your machine is more than a thoughtcrime. They become the person distributing this content, and there are already laws for that.
- stavros 3y ago[flagged]
- NegativeK 3y agoI'm not asking for a for the children blob of legislation here, everyone. But I do see mass-scale generation of nonconsensual images, well beyond individually commissioned works -- and actual CSAM blending in with it because it becomes indistinguishable -- as a real problem. We're having nuanced discussions about how to deal with misinformation, including mass-scale generation of it from LLMs. Why can't we have those discussions about AI porn so that we can come up with solutions that are somewhere between "change nothing/don't be a prude" and "go full authoritarian"?
- braelen7 3y agoI mean if you want to have that discussion then how do you differentiate fictional death and murder in movies and the written word vs AI generated nudity? To me, it seems like we quickly get into the AI image equivalent of prosecuting the actor in a movie for committing the murder of a fictional character. We even go as far to have the entire genre of horror movies at mass Hollywood scale based around fictional death and murder. It gets even stranger with sex and nudity when such a large % of people are online porn consumers. I have seen the figure for men at 90%. It is where I think the market will actually figure out the solution and that the porn consumer will want assurance the person is real and not AI. What is disingenuous in this debate to me is that chatGPT estimates there might be over 100 million pictures of real naked people on the internet as of 2021 lol. It is like we are pretending these pictures don't already exist of real people at a huge scale and that no one really looks at them at huge scale now. It is only when AI starts cranking them out people will be so tempted and THAT is a big problem. If anything, this is the much bigger problem that we can no longer discern the magnitude of a problem in the real world vs the R0 of the idea of a problem online. "Since everyone is posting about AI generated nudity/porn, it must be a big problem."
- NegativeK 3y agoFor context, I was referring to using someone's likeness or CSAM. Both of those are significantly different than fictional characters portrayed by consenting actors.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- charcircuit 3y agoRule 34 of the Internet. Trying to stop it is futile.
- redox99 3y agoI wouldn't mind having my face deepfaked into a porn or whatever as long as there was a small watermark or something that indicated it was fake. I think enforcement should be focused on disclosing what's AI generated/fake, not on banning altogether.
- chankstein38 3y agoRight? It's almost like, as adults, we shouldn't be limited by the existence of children. Like businesses should assume parents are going to keep their kids from doing things bad and let those of us who will never have children just do the things we want to do.
- hiatus 3y ago"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it." ― Mark Twain
- makeitdouble 3y ago"Have kids and deal with it, don't bother us or the society in general" feels like a good slogan to encourage parenthood.
- fy20 3y agoFrom one side we are trying to stop 13 year old boys from making pictures of AI boobs, and from the other side our school system is teaching children about sex before they even reach the age of 10.
- stavros 3y agoBecause they may use it to generate sexual images? Kids have two ages: "Don't care about sex" and "care about sex". If they've gotten to the point where they care about sex, your AI image generator filter isn't going to put their hormones back in the box. It's mystifying to me why American culture wants to insist that sexual urges must come the moment you're 21, and not a second earlier, otherwise you're somehow sinful.
- lawlessone 3y ago18 21 is when they allow booze.
- stavros 3y agoWell, the age of consent is 13-16, depending on state, but it doesn't affect the broader point.
- yieldcrv 3y agoand many states circumvent that in the judiciary, we have child marriage to undermine other concepts like pedophilia, statutory rape here just like in developing nations its actually quite rampant, possibly more in absolute numbers than the countries we think about, we just chose not to focus media or civil rights attention on it https://19thnews.org/2023/07/explaining-child-marriage-laws-united-states/?amp https://19thnews.org/2023/07/explaining-child-marriage-laws-... https://www.cfr.org/blog/its-time-end-child-marriage-united-states https://www.cfr.org/blog/its-time-end-child-marriage-united-... https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/09/cassie-levesque-new-hampshire-child-marriage-524159 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/09/cassie-lev... pick whichever source you respect more, I’m not that invested
- makeitdouble 3y agoI'm really curious about how a society would look like when kids are properly shielded from harmful resources until they're adults, so: - no social networks - no uncurated wikis or online forums - no AI That's quite a crash when they enter adult life and have to adapt to all of that basically on their own.
- failbuffer 3y agoAdd to that: - no sex ed It really feels like there are a lot of parents who think they can keep their kids safe by keeping them dumb about how their bodies work.
- ben_w 3y agoI guess the converse is having to educate teens about the internet the same way I, at school, was educated about sex[0] and drugs[1]. [0] entirely heteronormative, Section 28 applied; also mostly Catholic, but rather more secular than you might expect from that description. First I even saw the word chlamydia was after I finished the GCSEs and went to a secular place for my A-levels. [1] and not rock and roll. The drugs were booze (drink responsibly), cigarettes (expensive cancer sticks), and all other drugs collectively under the banner "will destroy your life and/or kill you" (which turned out to be a whole mass of outright lies, for example "dealers trying to get primary school kids addicted to LSD" and basically everything they told us about the death of Leah Betts).
- tomrod 3y agoAlways appreciate Mr. Weinersmith's humor. As a side note, I'm curious if JEPA will help to overcome the current generation's foundational model limitations by using a reasonable state of the world. Link: [0] https://ai.meta.com/blog/yann-lecun-ai-model-i-jepa/ https://ai.meta.com/blog/yann-lecun-ai-model-i-jepa/
- w-m 3y agoEarlier today, ChatGPT/DALL·E 3 refused to draw the bat sign (from batman) for me, due to content policy. When I asked it to rephrase the prompt to circumvent any copyright issues, it came up with "an emblem featuring a nocturnal flying creature silhouette", which made me chuckle quite a bit. Playing the game where you have to convince the LLM to spit out the secret password[0] was great training for this content policy dance with DALL·E. Isn't it great - even though the machine is now performing the handicraft, you can still feel creative. Not by creating art yourself, but by finding new workarounds around the man-made content policy limitations. [0] https://gandalf.lakera.ai https://gandalf.lakera.ai
- bryanrasmussen 3y agoI was trying to do a halloween themed image that included 'chopped-up, bloody body parts' which kept hitting the content policy. Basically any chopped-up or bloody combination with hands and feet etc. etc. hit the shield. I didn't try hard to break it I just found it funny that the result I could generate in this particular graphics field was most like really good clip art suitable for a company party poster.
- dmbche 3y agoUse strawberry jam
- csours 3y agoAnd mannequins
- perihelions 3y agoThe coming linguistic and cognitive changes are going to be amazing to live through. We're being oppressed by talking Roombas. We study our oppressors; we adapt. They understand ape language better than we apes ourselves, they are better apes than apes, they are super-apes–but yet even still we find small gaps in their ape-imitiation, nuances, metaphors too subtle and too monkey for the metal machines. Voight-Kampff tests. Simian shibboleths. The dead monkey is covered in strawberry jam; the steel Roomba gazes unblinking, and all is quiet.
- Spivak 3y agoIt does make for a good comic so I won't criticize it on that basis. I just wish we could stop with the vagueness of "make image generation safe" which is completely meaningless and instead phrase as a concrete problem like actual engineers. Something like, "AI generated images present a difficult challenge for applications that require that sensitive content be removed (e.g. Tumblr) or hidden (e.g. Discord) due to the fact that the abstract nature of the generation can trick most digital 'eyes'. To that end we've invented new measures based on already established content warnings and created a large corpus of prompts that have semantic relationships with those warnings. We've asked our labelers to measure content in the context of those content warnings; for example, an image might be labeled "is of a sexual nature", or "is of a violent nature." These responses are summarized as the scores on Figure 1. Going forward we will be making continuous improvements to our moderation API to identify such images with higher accuracy and future models will be tuned to generate them with lower frequency. We understand that a portion of our existing user-base desires the ability to generate sensitive images specifically but it is our goal as a company to build a product that can be deployed in a wide variety of applications without the need for human supervision. At some point down the road we may look into releasing models that cater to that use-case but at present our efforts are elsewhere."
- AbrahamParangi 3y agoPart of the reason this doesn't happen is that the word "Safe" smuggles in some ideas that an average person might object to alongside many unobjectionable ideas. For instance, "Safe" might mean "enforce a certain distribution of characteristics like skin color or apparent gender" or it might mean "don't make child pornography".
- raxxorraxor 3y agoEspecially in a context where we have increased security policies for decades now while simultaneously living in the safest time there ever was. People even start to make up dangers which in some instances can only be explained as a pathological condition. And no, these security policies had no hand in increasing security if you look at the actual data. They were mostly political to alleviate imagined fears.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoNice. Another very relevant AI comic. This argument has gone back and forth over many posts. Lot of people arguing that AI can't be conscious, but then stumble to explain how. How computers can't be, and how humans can be. https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/conscious-6 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/conscious-6
- anonymousab 3y agoIt's hard to define consciousness itself. It may be something wholly apart from sentience and sapience. So it's kinda already setup to be something arbitrary. It may very well be a case of "it's conscious if it's sufficiently indistinguishable" from human consciousness. Anywhere something is arbitrary, it's just going to be endless arguments from every "side".
- jncfhnb 3y agoWell, while we are here, I think this one is way better: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/teach https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/teach
- epivosism 3y agoNot just this. Gpt-V could violate social conventions massively. Imagine giving teenagers AI which would judge them and each other. "How old does this person look?" How about this couple, how do they match? How is this person's style? What mistakes are they making? How healthy does this person look? Do you think this person drinks a lot? It's not just high level politics. There are huge local social conflicts going on all the time between colleagues, lovers and potential ones, neighbors, friends, towns. AI can work as a social weapon in those battles too. We leak a huge amount of info all the time, and AI Vision will try to pick up on it, rightly or wrongly. And talking about what one notices is very socially uncomfortable.
- mattlondon 3y agoWhen does it just become "opinion" though? I can ask humans the same question, but I don't assume any of it is "truth". People can be nice or be dicks about stuff, and people readily make judgements just on appearance. I see no reason to treat AI differently in that regard.
- epivosism 3y agoAI is available to all and very consistent. If there were a universally known and evaluatable real-person judge which all teenagers could consult, I think that would be an issue too. Maybe one reason it's so significant for humanity is that real-world judges are never really trustable. i.e. in elementary school, everyone looks up to different people, maybe a coach, and older brother in middle school, etc but there is diversity, and you can challenge opinions about who is cool, stylish, a loser, nice, etc. There really isn't much of a unifying, judging force between groups even in the same school, let alone city to city. With youtubers etc we got a new mechanism for delivering (generic) opinions to masses of people and unify their views that way. i.e. pewds can demonstrate an attitude and way to be to every kid in the country. or a fashion tiktoker can spread very niche styles etc. But there was no input. But now imagine if a makeup-teacher tiktoker also had a custom GPT-V bot with a real voice, which could judge your images or live video, give you points, praise or condemn you, rank you among your friends, etc. and you couldn't hide it or run away. That seems pretty big, actually. Imagine watching some goth channel in the 1990s but... you could literally talk to someone elite and famous who made the music and art... and hang out with them, absorb their views, be judged, network, pay, etc. That would be pretty powerful.
- randall 3y agoBut why does Sam Altman have a beard and a hat? I don't think he'd be caught dead in those.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- gaogao 3y agoSam Altman is being called on the phone; he's not the guy in the hat.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoWait, he's not the giant guy made out of metal and drawn poorly with pincer-like hands?
- 93po 3y agoAm I Sam Altman?
- amelius 3y agoThis is getting silly. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37810069 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37810069
- passion__desire 3y agoAnything can be objectionable if you are creative enough. Several times he (Chaitin) compares the process of solving mathematical equations to making love to a woman. It's creepy. [0] [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/249849.Meta_Math_ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/249849.Meta_Math_ If you want to read a bit more from the mathematician himself on this very topic he wrote an accessible "pop-math" book about it, "Meta Math!: The Quest for Omega" though you'll need to look beyond the author's rather strange choices of metaphor. It's been a while, but I assume you're referring to the similarities drawn between information theory and sex. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22099178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22099178
- umvi 3y agoI don't want "safe" AI, I want "accurate" AI. If I want a picture of NYC getting nuked, how can the AI know in which context it will be used? Maybe I'm writing a sci-fi book and looking for cover art ideas. Who is driving this big push for "safety", anyway? Do consumers actually want safety or are a concern-trolling vocal minority pressuring AI corporations to kowtow? I personally hate it when SV moral arbiters nanny me.
- throw18376 3y agohere's what i speculate (i'm not an insider or anything, pure speculation). the "true believers" at OpenAI mostly don't care if bad images get generated. they are worried about "safety" as in the sci-fi Terminator scenario, not "safety" as in "avoid harming people with offensive or unpleasant images". however they see controlling a cutting edge AI towards some goal to be an important thing to study, and they want to practice doing it, and to do that they need to pick some arbitrary goal. the arbitrary goal becomes this type of "PG-rated-only" censorship, because it helps avoid bad press coverage, makes it easier to raise money, etc. but they don't sincerely care about it. some others in tech do sincerely care though.
- raxxorraxor 3y agoI think this is a marketing push to sell false security. There are some believers in the supposed AI apocalypse though.
- naillo 3y agoI think it's just them being scared of models running on their servers producing things that cause bad PR. And the reason they're not willing to not run things on their servers is competitive advantage as well as just extracting more money out of users that way. (I definitely don't think actual safety is the concern.)
- Sharlin 3y agoAI corporations do what corporations do, which is try to avoid lawsuits. Or worse: the well-known, incredibly arbitrary extrajudicial punishment that can be summarily meted out by the duopoly of payment service providers. Secondarily, they want to avoid bad publicity.
- duffyjp 3y agoI tried removing a sign post in front of a photo of my car in Photoshop with their Firefly AI, and it refused to produce a result if I mentioned the model of my car. I can't imagine a situation where Adobe could get in trouble for generating an image of a Prius, and it doesn't give you a reason for refusing-- but the possibility the AI was trying to avoid a word that sounds ever so slightly similar crossed my mind.