3 ms·
Is there any evidence that this has anything to do with nudity filters? The article doesn't provide any evidence beyond "user's are blaming it on filters". Give
by Volundr 2y ago
Is there any evidence that this has anything to do with nudity filters? The article doesn't provide any evidence beyond "user's are blaming it on filters". Given most of the mangled parts appear to be hands (something AI already sucked at), and some of the photos generated are women with reasonable cleavage or showing a lot of legs, it doesn't seem obvious to me that's the case. Certainly there's plenty in those images more suggestive than some fingers, but I'm curious if there's any actual supporting evidence.
- tavavex 2y agoI don't think there is any hard evidence except people looking at correlations. SDXL, one of the preceding versions, is allegedly less censored and happens to do anatomy better than the examples in the article. Logically, it makes sense that omitting good data would lead to worse results - nudity filters or not, anatomy is very complex and humans are very sensitive to inaccuracies in human looks, so a giant dataset with as many different poses as possible is the way to go. But in terms of actual empirical tests and measurements - I haven't seen that yet.
- hurrdurr57 2y agoI think it's mainly from the fact that they had the same problem in SD 2.0. In the interest of safety they removed so many NSFW images from the training set to the point that it could no longer generate coherent images of humans in general. This was resolved when they added NSFW pictures back into the training data for SD 2.1. We won't really know for sure unless stability ai comments on it or releases the training data but it is the most likely explanation. Someone will likely train this model on porn anyway in the next few months so we'll see if the finetuned models work better.