3 ms·

And the line for your responsibility is where exactly? You want to be personally responsible for every single dependency you pull in, every piece of hardware be

And the line for your responsibility is where exactly? You want to be personally responsible for every single dependency you pull in, every piece of hardware between you and the end user? This is a farcial suggestion. > They were creating and distributing porn Unless they specifically trained their own model to do this - which they obviously didn't - this is just a bug. If we all got fired any time a bug happened, society would grind to a standstill. Shit happens, move on. What's important are intentions and taking reasonable precautions.

015a 3y ago
> You want to be personally responsible for every single dependency you pull in Yes. > every piece of hardware between you and the end user Nah. See how you said "where do you draw the line" and then proceed to just ignore drawing the line? I'm ok with drawing a line. There doesn't have to be logic or reason behind it. That's where I draw it; the repositories and websites and apps that I distribute. > Unless they specifically trained their own model to do this - which they obviously didn't - this is just a bug. Go try to make Midjourney generate a nude image of someone. Its extremely difficult. You'd have to be extremely intentional and, frankly, malicious. I've never seen it happen. The way this article is written, it sounds like the user just uploaded a photo and it happened. So, what kind of prompting are they using which led to this? Also: They said they don't have a copy of the image, but that's extremely hard to believe just assuming how systems like this would be designed; the image has to be served from somewhere, are they seriously purging the images from e.g. their storage buckets that quickly? Possible, but hard to believe; of course, they'd say "oh we don't have a copy" if they investigated, found it doing this, and just wanted the story to die. Or, we could do as you want, and just sweep this under the rug. Nothing to learn. No one to blame. Just a quirky little thing that happened! So quirky! A state gambling office manufacturing pornography of random people to sell lottery tickets! Quirky and fun!
- nprateem 3y ago
  Well it looks like they've drawn a line too and found themselves not responsible, so they're already doing what you're advocating it seems. Nothing to learn here.
- Cpoll 3y ago
  > They said they don't have a copy of the image, but that's extremely hard to believe just assuming how systems like this would be designed; the image has to be served from somewhere, are they seriously purging the images from e.g. their storage buckets that quickly? Possible, but hard to believe; of course, they'd say "oh we don't have a copy" if they investigated, found it doing this, and just wanted the story to die. I don't find it very hard to believe. 1. If the image can be generated in a few seconds, the easiest way to implement this is to accept the file upload in a request, do the AI stuff, and return a new image in the response. In this case, it would be extra (and unnecessary) work to save it in a storage bucket. Both the uploaded and generated images only exist in memory for the lifecycle of the http request, and then get deallocated. 2. If the image _is_ being saved in a storage bucket (or Redis, or whatever), the bucket might have a lifecycle policy on it that automatically expires images after a set time. This is a pretty common cost-saving measure, so it's not too unlikely.
- barfbagginus 3y ago
  A decision maker figured they could cut costs by using a DIY model instead of paying for mid journey API calls. They're the ones who are responsible. But I wouldn't trust any diffusion image gen here. They're all liable to create disturbing and inappropriate imagery, and there's no way to prevent it.
soerxpso 3y ago
If you were messing around with a gun that had the safety on, and the gun malfunctioned and shot a child while you were waving it around, would it be a valid defense to say that you took all the necessary precautions (since the safety was on, after all) and it's just a silly oopsie that the gun did that? You should have a responsibility to put the necessary safeguards on a potentially dangerous tool that you're using and to do your due-diligence if you're using that tool. It would have been impossible to accidentally produce porn of a non-consenting individual if they had not been using an AI image manipulation pipeline at all. If you do choose to use an AI image manipulation pipeline, you should take on the responsibility to make sure that it's not going to do illegal things you didn't tell it to do. If there's a risk of causing harm with it, just don't use it! You don't need to be producing cute images of people in Vegas or whatever, and if doing so necessarily implies a risk of accidentally creating porn of them instead, you could (and in fact, have a responsibility to) just choose to do neither.
- epups 3y ago
  A gun malfunction has a potentially lethal consequence. This bug caused a person to see a fake photo of herself with fake boobs out. Perhaps it's ok that the safety standards for the latter are lighter, no? You also didn't address the main point of the earlier comment. Is every programmer responsible - even criminally, some suggested - for potential bugs or vulnerabilities in one of their products?

015a 3y ago

> You want to be personally responsible for every single dependency you pull in Yes. > every piece of hardware between you and the end user Nah. See how you said "where do you draw the line" and then proceed to just ignore drawing the line? I'm ok with drawing a line. There doesn't have to be logic or reason behind it. That's where I draw it; the repositories and websites and apps that I distribute. > Unless they specifically trained their own model to do this - which they obviously didn't - this is just a bug. Go try to make Midjourney generate a nude image of someone. Its extremely difficult. You'd have to be extremely intentional and, frankly, malicious. I've never seen it happen. The way this article is written, it sounds like the user just uploaded a photo and it happened. So, what kind of prompting are they using which led to this? Also: They said they don't have a copy of the image, but that's extremely hard to believe just assuming how systems like this would be designed; the image has to be served from somewhere, are they seriously purging the images from e.g. their storage buckets that quickly? Possible, but hard to believe; of course, they'd say "oh we don't have a copy" if they investigated, found it doing this, and just wanted the story to die. Or, we could do as you want, and just sweep this under the rug. Nothing to learn. No one to blame. Just a quirky little thing that happened! So quirky! A state gambling office manufacturing pornography of random people to sell lottery tickets! Quirky and fun!

nprateem 3y ago
Well it looks like they've drawn a line too and found themselves not responsible, so they're already doing what you're advocating it seems. Nothing to learn here.
Cpoll 3y ago
> They said they don't have a copy of the image, but that's extremely hard to believe just assuming how systems like this would be designed; the image has to be served from somewhere, are they seriously purging the images from e.g. their storage buckets that quickly? Possible, but hard to believe; of course, they'd say "oh we don't have a copy" if they investigated, found it doing this, and just wanted the story to die. I don't find it very hard to believe. 1. If the image can be generated in a few seconds, the easiest way to implement this is to accept the file upload in a request, do the AI stuff, and return a new image in the response. In this case, it would be extra (and unnecessary) work to save it in a storage bucket. Both the uploaded and generated images only exist in memory for the lifecycle of the http request, and then get deallocated. 2. If the image _is_ being saved in a storage bucket (or Redis, or whatever), the bucket might have a lifecycle policy on it that automatically expires images after a set time. This is a pretty common cost-saving measure, so it's not too unlikely.
barfbagginus 3y ago
A decision maker figured they could cut costs by using a DIY model instead of paying for mid journey API calls. They're the ones who are responsible. But I wouldn't trust any diffusion image gen here. They're all liable to create disturbing and inappropriate imagery, and there's no way to prevent it.

soerxpso 3y ago

If you were messing around with a gun that had the safety on, and the gun malfunctioned and shot a child while you were waving it around, would it be a valid defense to say that you took all the necessary precautions (since the safety was on, after all) and it's just a silly oopsie that the gun did that? You should have a responsibility to put the necessary safeguards on a potentially dangerous tool that you're using and to do your due-diligence if you're using that tool. It would have been impossible to accidentally produce porn of a non-consenting individual if they had not been using an AI image manipulation pipeline at all. If you do choose to use an AI image manipulation pipeline, you should take on the responsibility to make sure that it's not going to do illegal things you didn't tell it to do. If there's a risk of causing harm with it, just don't use it! You don't need to be producing cute images of people in Vegas or whatever, and if doing so necessarily implies a risk of accidentally creating porn of them instead, you could (and in fact, have a responsibility to) just choose to do neither.

epups 3y ago
A gun malfunction has a potentially lethal consequence. This bug caused a person to see a fake photo of herself with fake boobs out. Perhaps it's ok that the safety standards for the latter are lighter, no? You also didn't address the main point of the earlier comment. Is every programmer responsible - even criminally, some suggested - for potential bugs or vulnerabilities in one of their products?