4 ms·

> We are removing models and images depicting real-world individuals So any images that look real, or images that look like specific real people?

by duxup 1y ago

Waterluvian 1y ago
It’s ambiguous but I have a sense that it’s the latter. The former would be quite the change.
throwanem 1y ago
> This applies to any depiction of a real person, regardless of context or rating - including PG and PG-13 content. Whether it’s a public figure, celebrity, influencer, or private individual, if a model or image is based on a real human being, it will be removed. This includes fan-art depictions of characters portrayed by a celebrity - e.g. Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford). It is the second or third paragraph in the link.
- duxup 1y ago
  The way they word it each time "real person" comes up I'm honestly unsure. I'll assume that means someone in real life. But ... won't that happen accidentally with AI depictions?
  - throwanem 1y ago
    I assume they mean any natural person, and whether it happens accidentally (as opposed to "accidentally") does not appear at issue here. You can probably get Stable Diffusion to violate likeness rights if you try hard enough, but there is a material difference between that and publishing a tool making it trivial for anyone to do so. These are, or I suppose were, such tools: Loras specifically trained to replicate the appearance of specific natural persons. For public figures the rules are slightly different when it comes to one's likeness, but not absent. I can't imagine anyone sensible hosting that stuff for one second, Section 230 or no. But either way, however long this was going on, only a fool would assume it would last forever.
godelski 1y ago
Likely the latter. They hosted a lot of LoRAs and embeddings that help generate images of specific people. Users would post samples of those people nude. Honestly, I'm surprised it lasted this long. Like that was clearly egregious. At least pretend to not be a deep fake porn generator...
- Aeolun 1y ago
  > At least pretend to not be a deep fake porn generator Why? Like, people are going to do it anyway. Whether in their minds or with some tool. Public or behind closed doors. That genie is very firmly out of the bottle, and it’s not going to go back in. At least when it’s on Civit it’s abundantly clear it is fake content. You can run any of these models on a consumer GPU.
  - jazzyjackson 1y ago
    Because we live in a society and so get to have some influence on what behaviors we deem acceptable from our peers, and creating sexual images with the faces of your neighbors, acquaintances and even your foes is considered by some of us unacceptable, degenerate behavior Just because something is possible doesn't mean it has to be allowed to happen
  - throwanem 1y ago
    I'll credit this argument when I see you publish a training set of selfies, or a model finetuned thereon. If you want to argue no one should expect to have anything to hide, you'd better do it from a glass house and in the altogether if you mean to be taken seriously, don't you think? It is a radical departure. The example is therefore necessarily yours to set, else you show yourself a hypocrite.
    - Aeolun 1y ago
      Just because I wouldn’t have an issue with random people generating porn of me, doesn’t mean I want to seek it out, see it, or facilitate it. It’s fundamentally no different from acknowledging that there may be a fanclub on the other side of the country with a stash of aeolun porn. As long as they’re not using it to advertise their services, and don’t tell me what kind of degenerate things they’re doing with it, what does that hurt me? Now that you’ve said it I’m actually mildly curious what would happen if I fine-tune a model purely on myself. But what would I do with it even if I made it? I can’t post it on Civit any more can I?

> We are removing models and images depicting real-world individuals So any images that look real, or images that look like specific real people?

by duxup 1y ago

> We are removing models and images depicting real-world individuals So any images that look real, or images that look like specific real people?

Waterluvian 1y ago

It’s ambiguous but I have a sense that it’s the latter. The former would be quite the change.

throwanem 1y ago

> This applies to any depiction of a real person, regardless of context or rating - including PG and PG-13 content. Whether it’s a public figure, celebrity, influencer, or private individual, if a model or image is based on a real human being, it will be removed. This includes fan-art depictions of characters portrayed by a celebrity - e.g. Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford). It is the second or third paragraph in the link.

duxup 1y ago
The way they word it each time "real person" comes up I'm honestly unsure. I'll assume that means someone in real life. But ... won't that happen accidentally with AI depictions?
- throwanem 1y ago
  I assume they mean any natural person, and whether it happens accidentally (as opposed to "accidentally") does not appear at issue here. You can probably get Stable Diffusion to violate likeness rights if you try hard enough, but there is a material difference between that and publishing a tool making it trivial for anyone to do so. These are, or I suppose were, such tools: Loras specifically trained to replicate the appearance of specific natural persons. For public figures the rules are slightly different when it comes to one's likeness, but not absent. I can't imagine anyone sensible hosting that stuff for one second, Section 230 or no. But either way, however long this was going on, only a fool would assume it would last forever.

godelski 1y ago

Likely the latter. They hosted a lot of LoRAs and embeddings that help generate images of specific people. Users would post samples of those people nude. Honestly, I'm surprised it lasted this long. Like that was clearly egregious. At least pretend to not be a deep fake porn generator...

Aeolun 1y ago
> At least pretend to not be a deep fake porn generator Why? Like, people are going to do it anyway. Whether in their minds or with some tool. Public or behind closed doors. That genie is very firmly out of the bottle, and it’s not going to go back in. At least when it’s on Civit it’s abundantly clear it is fake content. You can run any of these models on a consumer GPU.
- jazzyjackson 1y ago
  Because we live in a society and so get to have some influence on what behaviors we deem acceptable from our peers, and creating sexual images with the faces of your neighbors, acquaintances and even your foes is considered by some of us unacceptable, degenerate behavior Just because something is possible doesn't mean it has to be allowed to happen
- throwanem 1y ago
  I'll credit this argument when I see you publish a training set of selfies, or a model finetuned thereon. If you want to argue no one should expect to have anything to hide, you'd better do it from a glass house and in the altogether if you mean to be taken seriously, don't you think? It is a radical departure. The example is therefore necessarily yours to set, else you show yourself a hypocrite.
  - Aeolun 1y ago
    Just because I wouldn’t have an issue with random people generating porn of me, doesn’t mean I want to seek it out, see it, or facilitate it. It’s fundamentally no different from acknowledging that there may be a fanclub on the other side of the country with a stash of aeolun porn. As long as they’re not using it to advertise their services, and don’t tell me what kind of degenerate things they’re doing with it, what does that hurt me? Now that you’ve said it I’m actually mildly curious what would happen if I fine-tune a model purely on myself. But what would I do with it even if I made it? I can’t post it on Civit any more can I?