6 ms·
They're attempting to guard themselves against incoming regulation. The big players, such as Microsoft, want to squash Stable Diffusion while protecting themsel
by dorkwood 3y ago
They're attempting to guard themselves against incoming regulation. The big players, such as Microsoft, want to squash Stable Diffusion while protecting themselves, and they're going to do it by wielding the "safety is important and only we have the resources to implement it" hammer.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y agoSafety is a very real concern, always has been in ML research. I'm tired of this trite "they want a moat" narrative. I'm glad tech orgs are for once thinking about what they're building before putting out society-warping democracy-corroding technology instead of move fast break things.
- dorkwood 3y agoIt doesn't strike you as hypocritical that they all talk about safety while continuing to push out tech that's upending multiple industries as we speak? It's tough for me to see it as anything other than lip service. I'd be on your side if any of them actually chose to keep their technology in the lab instead of tossing it out into the world and gobbling up investment dollars as fast as they could.
- tavavex 3y agoHow are these two things related at all? When AI companies speak of safety, it's almost always about the "only including data a religious pastor would find safe, and filtering outputs" angle. How's the market and other industries relevant at all? Should AI companies be obligated to care about what happens to other companies? With that point of view, we should've criticized the iPhone for upending the PDA market, or Wacom for "upending" the traditional art market.
- rwmj 3y agoThat would make sense if it was in the slightest about avoiding "society-warping democracy-corroding technology". Rather than making sure no one ever sees a naked person which would cause governments to come down on them like a ton of bricks.
- ryandrake 3y agoThis would be funny if we weren't living it. Software that promotes the unchecked spread of propaganda, conspiracy theories, hostility, division, institutional mistrust and so on: A-OK. Software that might show a boob: Totally irresponsible and deserving of harsh regulation.
- atahanacar 3y agoSafety from what? Human anatomy?
- bergen 3y agoSee the recent Taylor Swift scandal. Safety from never ending amounts of deepfake porn and gore for example.
- atahanacar 3y agoThis isn't a valid concern in my opinion. Photo manipulation has been around for decades. People have been drawing other people for centuries. Also, where do we draw the line? Should Photoshop stop you from manipulating human body because it could be used for porn? Why stop there, should text editors stop you from writing about sex or describing human body because it could be used for "abuse". Should your comment be removed because it make me imagine Taylor Swift without clothes for a brief moment?
- spencerflem 3y agoDoing it effortlessly and instantly makes a difference. (This applies to all AI discussions)
- bergen 3y agoNo, but AI requires zero learning curve and can be automated. I can't spit out 10 images of Tay per second in photoshop. If I want and the API delivers I can easily do that with AI. (Given, would one becoding this it requires a learning curve, but in principal with the right interface and they exist i can churn out hundreds of images without me actively putting work in)
- tavavex 3y agoI've never understood the argument about image generators being (relatively) fast. Does that mean that if you could Photoshop 10 images per second, we should've started clamping down on Photoshop? What exact speed is the cutoff mark here? Given that Photoshop is updated every year and includes more and more tools that can accelerate your workflow (incl. AI-assisted ones), is there going be a point when it gets too fast? I don't know much about the initial scandal, but I was under the impression that there was only a small number of those images, yet that didn't change the situation. I just fail to see how quantity factors into anything here.
- jquery 3y agoTo the extent these models don't blindly regurgitate hate speech, I appreciate that. But what I do not appreciate is when they won't render a human nipple or other human anatomy. That's not safety, and calling it such is gaslighting.
- subsistence234 3y agoPeople who cheer for their own disempowerment are fascinating.
- ballenf 3y agoAI/ML/GPT/etc are looking increasingly like other media formats -- a source of mass market content. The safety discussion is proceeding very much like it did for movies, music, and video games.