6 ms·

"we have taken and continue to take reasonable steps to prevent the misuse of Stable Diffusion 3 by bad actors" It's kind of a testament to our times that the

• user_7832 3y ago
  Agree, I think it fundamentally stems from the old conservative view that porn = bad. Morally policing such models is questionable.
  • rockooooo 3y ago
    no AI company wants to be the one generating pornographic deepfakes of someone and getting in legal / PR hot water
    • seanw444 3y ago
      Which is why this should be a much more decentralized effort. Hard to take someone to court when it's not one single person or company doing something.
    • mrkramer 3y ago
      But what if you flip the things the other way around; deepfake porn is problematic not because porn is per se problematic but because deepfake porn or deepfake revenge porn is made without consent, but what if you give consent to some AI company or porn company to make porn content of you. I see this as evolution of OnlyFans where you could make AI generated deepfake porn of yourself. Another use case would be that retired porn actors could license their porn persona (face/body) to some AI porn company to make new porn. I see big business opportunity in the generative AI porn.
  • Cookingboy 3y ago
    This is why I think generative AI tech should either be banned or be completely open sourced. Mega tech corporations are plenty of things already, they don't need to be the morality police for our society too.
    • pksebben 3y ago
      Even if it is all open sourced, we still have the structural problem of training models large enough to do interesting stuff. Until we can train incrementally and distribute the workload scalably, it doesn't matter how open the models / methods for training are if you still need a bajilllion A100 hours to train the damn things.
  • echelon 3y ago
    Horeshoe theory [1] is one of the most interesting viewpoints I've been introduced to recently. Both sides view censorship as a moral prerogative to enforce their world view. Some conservatives want to ban depictions of sex. Some conservatives want to ban LGBT depictions. Some women's rights folks want to ban depictions sex. (Some view it as empowerment, some view it as exploitation.) Some liberals want to ban non-diverse, dangerous representation. Some liberals want to ban conservative views against their thoughts. Some liberals want to ban religion. ... It's team sports with different flavors on each side. The best policy, IMO, is to avoid centralized censorship and allow for individuals to control their own algorithmic boosting / deboosting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
    • stared 3y ago
      Yes and no. I mean, a lot of moderates would like to avoid seeing any extreme content, regardless of whether it is too much left, right, or just in a non-political uncanny valley. While the Horseshoe Theory has some merits (e.g., both left and right extremes may favor justified coercion, have the we-vs-them mentality, etc), it is grossly oversimplified. Still, a very simple (yet two-dimensional) model of Political Compass is much better.
      • echelon 3y ago
        I think it's just a different projection to highlight similarities in left and right and is by no means the only lens to use. The fun quirk is that there are similarities, and this model draws comparison front and center. There are multiple useful models for evaluating politics, though.
    • crashmat 3y ago
      I don't think there are any (even far) leftwanting to ban non-diverse representation. I think it's impossible to ban 'conservative thoughts' because that's such a poorly defined phrase. However there are people who want to ban religion. One difference is that a much larger proportion of far right (almost all of them) want to ban lgbtq depiction and existence compared to the number of far left who want to ban religion or non-diverse representation. It says on the wikipedia article itself 'The horseshoe theory does not enjoy wide support within academic circles; peer-reviewed research by political scientists on the subject is scarce, and existing studies and comprehensive reviews have often contradicted its central premises, or found only limited support for the theory under certain conditions.'
• sigmoid10 3y ago
  I don't think the problem is watching synthetic images. The problem is generating them based off actual people and sharing them on the internet in a way that the people watching can't tell the difference anymore. This was already somewhat of a problem with Photoshop and once everyone with zero skills can do it in seconds and with far better quality, it will become a nightmare.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • 725686 3y ago
    We are already there, you can no longer trust any image or video you see, so what is the point? Bad actors will still be able to create fake images and videos as they already do. Limiting it for the average user is stupid.
    • mplewis 3y ago
      You guys know you can just draw porn, right?
      • seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        Generating porn is easier and cheaper. You don’t have to spend the time learning to draw naked bodies, which can be substantial. (The joke being that serious drawers go through the draw naked model sessions a lot, but it isn’t porn)
        • tourmalinetaco 3y ago
          > but it isn’t porn In my experience with 2D artists, studying porn is one of their favorite forms of naked model practice.
          • seanmcdirmid 3y ago
            The models art schools get for naked drawing sessions usually aren’t that attractive, definitely not at a porn ideal. The objective is to learn the body, not become aroused. There is a lot of (mostly non realistic) porn that comes out of art school students via the skills they gain.
• stared 3y ago
  It is not only about morals but the incentives of parties. The need for sexual-explicit content is bigger than, say, for niche artistic experiments of geometrical living cupboards owned by a cybernetic dragon. Stability AI, very understandably, does not want to be associated with "the porn-generation tool". And if, even occasionally, it generates criminal content, the backslash would be enormous. Censoring the data requires effort but is (for companies) worth it.
• nonrandomstring 3y ago
  The term "bad actor" is starting to get cringe. Ronald Reagan was a bad actor. George Bush wore out "evildoers"? Where next... fiends, miscreants, baddies, hooligans, deadbeats? Dastardly digital deviants Batman!
• screenoridesagb 3y ago
  [dead]
• five_lights 3y ago
  >It's kind of a testament to our times that the person who chooses to look at synthetic porn instead of supporting a real-life human trafficking industry is the bad actor. "Bad actor" is a pretty vague term, I think they are using it as a catch all without diving into the specifics. we are all projecting what that may mean based on our own awareness of this topic as a result. I totally agree with your assessment and honestly would love to see this tech create less of a demand for the product human-traffickers produce. Celebrity deep fakes and racist images made by internet trolls are a few of the overt things they are willing to acknowledge is a problem, and they are fighting against (Google Gemini's over correction on this has been the talk this week). Does it put pressure on the companies to change for PR reasons, yes. It also gives a little bit of a Streisand effect, so it may be a zero sum game. We aren't talking about the big issue surrounding this tech, the issue that would cause far more damage to their brand than celebrity deep fakes: Pedophilic image generation. Guard rails should be miles high for this one.