2 ms·

Until stability AI admits that it only makes money when it actually supports its overwhelmingly NSFW generating user base, stability will continue to be a poor

Until stability AI admits that it only makes money when it actually supports its overwhelmingly NSFW generating user base, stability will continue to be a poor choice for investors. I still cannot fathom how it is that image gen is still so far ahead of LLMs in regards to prompting (still can’t weigh prompts for chatGPT but I can on any image generator).

raxxorraxor 2y ago
We have seen what lobotomized image generators create and I believe nobody wants that. Not everything is NSFW and the user base does push the technology. Stability does create the best results though, so if I had significant investment capital, I certainly would be heavily interested. For technology reasons at first more than a business plan. Although there is an enormous potential for the latter here, that I believe can justify investments as well. Might be a more long time invest though.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
If it can be used for NSFW isn’t that a useful differentiator? A lot of AI tech these days is censored either on moral or political or legal grounds.
throwuxiytayq 2y ago
> I still cannot fathom how it is that image gen is still so far ahead of LLMs in regards to prompting (still can’t weigh prompts for chatGPT but I can on any image generator). Is that something you'd really have use for? In case of images it's easier to immediately judge the effect of a prompt change and its direction. LLMs just blurt out a blob of text that you have to read and analyze every time. Even when rerolling the output for the same prompt, you get a very different-looking result. I find comparing a large number of prompt-output pairs very exhausting. Meanwhile, scrolling through a set of outputted images is a breeze, and the output quality is comparable at first glance. LLM prompts can also be much longer, consisting of multiple sets/layers of instructions, etc. You just slap a new sentence at the end to modify the behavior. Meanwhile, for image generators it feels like every word counts, and can sometimes take the output in an unintended direction, hence the need for surgical control over word weights.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

We have seen what lobotomized image generators create and I believe nobody wants that. Not everything is NSFW and the user base does push the technology. Stability does create the best results though, so if I had significant investment capital, I certainly would be heavily interested. For technology reasons at first more than a business plan. Although there is an enormous potential for the latter here, that I believe can justify investments as well. Might be a more long time invest though.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

If it can be used for NSFW isn’t that a useful differentiator? A lot of AI tech these days is censored either on moral or political or legal grounds.

throwuxiytayq 2y ago

> I still cannot fathom how it is that image gen is still so far ahead of LLMs in regards to prompting (still can’t weigh prompts for chatGPT but I can on any image generator). Is that something you'd really have use for? In case of images it's easier to immediately judge the effect of a prompt change and its direction. LLMs just blurt out a blob of text that you have to read and analyze every time. Even when rerolling the output for the same prompt, you get a very different-looking result. I find comparing a large number of prompt-output pairs very exhausting. Meanwhile, scrolling through a set of outputted images is a breeze, and the output quality is comparable at first glance. LLM prompts can also be much longer, consisting of multiple sets/layers of instructions, etc. You just slap a new sentence at the end to modify the behavior. Meanwhile, for image generators it feels like every word counts, and can sometimes take the output in an unintended direction, hence the need for surgical control over word weights.