Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

imagen.research.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 500 posts

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#311

Post by whywhywhywhy »

atty wrote: post #266
i_like_apis wrote: post #261

The concern trolling and gatekeeping about social justice issues coming from the so-called "ethicists" in the AI peanut gallery has been utterly ridiculous. Google claims they don't want to release Imagen because it lacks what can only be called "latent space affirmative action". Stability or someone like it will valiantly release this technology, again and there will be absolutely no harm to anyone. Stop being so to…

There is a clear risk from these sorts of models as they get better - I mean recreating specific individuals’ likenesses in compromising images (or even worse, video). We’re not at that point yet, but these things are getting better fast, so it’s only a matter of time. The problem is that there’s no way to mitigate those risks except to keep the model behind an inference-only API, or not release it at all - as soon a…

> There is a clear risk from these sorts of models as they get better - I mean recreating specific individuals’ likenesses in compromising images

Been possible on home computers for 31 years for anyone who actually wants to do it. It literally doesn't matter and I think Stability has proven that the "AI Ethics" part of these models was essentially meaningless busy work at best, and at worse stealing compute credits from users like Dall-E purposefully charging you with something you didn't ask for.

Once every home computer can make the fake images AI Ethicists larp about then the power of fake images disappears because everyone knows not to trust them. It only has power if only a few can make them and never told the world it was even possible.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#312

Post by scarmig »

atty wrote: post #288
carlosdp wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a clear risk from these sorts of models as they get better - I mean recreating specific individuals’ likenesses in compromising images (or even worse, video). This has been possible without AI for a very very long time now (just open photoshop, etc). It barely ever happens, and society hasn't collapsed. I keep seeing this argument come up and it baffles me that informed technologists take it seriously, as…

There is a difference in ease of use. I could never use photoshop to fake something like that even if I wanted to. Further, we have seen harm come from some of this already, there’s a pretty big online community that uses deepfakes to put people in situations they would rather not be in, the most obvious being porn.

I'm going to take an unpopular position: there's no harm being done. It's not putting people in positions they would rather not be in, but putting their likeness into those situations. It's a key difference: if someone makes a paper mache of a naked Trump to use in a protest, is harm being done to him?

The idea that it's "doing harm" is simply inventing a new form of lèse-majesté. Verbally, we regularly do the same: we might take a signifier for someone and place it in a representation. "Rick likes to fuck goats every day." Have I done harm to Rick?

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#313

Post by _joel »

dannyw wrote: post #287
capitalsigma wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrongfully or not, people blame Facebook for inflammatory content posted by humans on their platform. How much worse would it be if that content was generated with FB-trained models?

People blame Facebook for their intentional, and continued choice to use algorithms that amplify and surface inflammatory content.

It's amazing isn't, how much crap can get spouted on the internet nowadays

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#314

Post by Geee »

atty wrote: post #288
carlosdp wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a clear risk from these sorts of models as they get better - I mean recreating specific individuals’ likenesses in compromising images (or even worse, video). This has been possible without AI for a very very long time now (just open photoshop, etc). It barely ever happens, and society hasn't collapsed. I keep seeing this argument come up and it baffles me that informed technologists take it seriously, as…

There is a difference in ease of use. I could never use photoshop to fake something like that even if I wanted to. Further, we have seen harm come from some of this already, there’s a pretty big online community that uses deepfakes to put people in situations they would rather not be in, the most obvious being porn.

Deepfakes are just an extension of imagination. We can already imagine people in any situation, making an image of it doesn't cause any more harm.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#315

Post by rgmerk »

scarmig wrote: post #312
atty wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference in ease of use. I could never use photoshop to fake something like that even if I wanted to. Further, we have seen harm come from some of this already, there’s a pretty big online community that uses deepfakes to put people in situations they would rather not be in, the most obvious being porn.

I'm going to take an unpopular position: there's no harm being done. It's not putting people in positions they would rather not be in, but putting their likeness into those situations. It's a key difference: if someone makes a paper mache of a naked Trump to use in a protest, is harm being done to him? The idea that it's "doing harm" is simply inventing a new form of lèse-majesté. Verbally, we regularly do the same:…

Be serious for a moment.

If I circulated a convincing-looking video of Rick fucking goats to his parents, partner and his boss at the school where he works, that could easily do considerable harm to Rick.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#316

Post by zakki »

Geee wrote: post #314
atty wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference in ease of use. I could never use photoshop to fake something like that even if I wanted to. Further, we have seen harm come from some of this already, there’s a pretty big online community that uses deepfakes to put people in situations they would rather not be in, the most obvious being porn.

Deepfakes are just an extension of imagination. We can already imagine people in any situation, making an image of it doesn't cause any more harm.

I don’t know why you put image and imagination in the same place. It is different. Imagination is the result of thinking. Image is the result of action. We can imagine killing people. Nobody harmed. But killing people in real life?

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#317

Post by czzr »

scarmig wrote: post #312
atty wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference in ease of use. I could never use photoshop to fake something like that even if I wanted to. Further, we have seen harm come from some of this already, there’s a pretty big online community that uses deepfakes to put people in situations they would rather not be in, the most obvious being porn.

I'm going to take an unpopular position: there's no harm being done. It's not putting people in positions they would rather not be in, but putting their likeness into those situations. It's a key difference: if someone makes a paper mache of a naked Trump to use in a protest, is harm being done to him? The idea that it's "doing harm" is simply inventing a new form of lèse-majesté. Verbally, we regularly do the same:…

If people believe you (not even everyone, but the right people at the right time) then you have done harm to Rick.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#318

Post by nperez »

benreesman wrote: post #263
i_like_apis wrote: post #261

The concern trolling and gatekeeping about social justice issues coming from the so-called "ethicists" in the AI peanut gallery has been utterly ridiculous. Google claims they don't want to release Imagen because it lacks what can only be called "latent space affirmative action". Stability or someone like it will valiantly release this technology, again and there will be absolutely no harm to anyone. Stop being so to…

I agree basically completely, but there’s now a cottage industry of AI Ethics professionals whose real job is to provide a smoke screen for the “cake and eat it too” that the big shops want on this kit: peer review and open source contributions and an academic atmosphere when it suits them, proprietary when it doesn’t. Those folks are a lobby now. The thing about owning the data sets and the huge TPU/A100 clusters is…

This thread is cathartic. I've been feeling uncomfortable with the level of control being sought over the usage of these tools for a while, but didn't want to ruffle the wrong feathers while just getting into AI as a hobby. I think there will be a pretty short window in which all of this hand-waving will be taken seriously. Not because AI won't be used for terrible things (I'm sure it already is) but because consumer hardware can already be used to build a dataset and train a model, and eventually there will come a realization - it doesn't matter how ethicists want "the general public" to use AI. The general public is fully capable of figuring out on their own how to do whatever they feel like doing. It's like a compiler or a hammer or a car, all of which can be used for positive or negative purposes.

I do understand the fear of being sued or targeted in the media over misuse, though. The person misusing technology should (obviously imo) be held responsible for that, but since it's new tech, the tech will be taking the blame for the first really controversial cases of disinfo and/or harassment that utilize it.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#319

Post by atty »

dannyw wrote: post #286
atty wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a clear risk from these sorts of models as they get better - I mean recreating specific individuals’ likenesses in compromising images (or even worse, video). We’re not at that point yet, but these things are getting better fast, so it’s only a matter of time. The problem is that there’s no way to mitigate those risks except to keep the model behind an inference-only API, or not release it at all - as soon a…

This is not new. Imagine not releasing tools like curl or nmap because it can be used for hacking. The issue is, as an industry and society, we somehow bought the "safety" and "harm" charade a little bit too much, and somehow think it's a reasonable argument instead of being completely insane.

I believe you misunderstood my post. (Or I have misunderstood yours) I was not arguing that the models should not be released. I was pointing out that the statement that no harm has been done with them was false, and that even though that is the case it is probably better for society, on the whole, for them to be open.

We can both admit that the tools can and will be used for bad purposes, and come to the conclusion that their benefits outweigh the negatives. We would not be doing any favors to our own arguments by pretending otherwise.

Re: Imagen Video: high definition video generation with diffusion models

#320

Post by lolinder »

zakki wrote: post #316
Geee wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deepfakes are just an extension of imagination. We can already imagine people in any situation, making an image of it doesn't cause any more harm.

I don’t know why you put image and imagination in the same place. It is different. Imagination is the result of thinking. Image is the result of action. We can imagine killing people. Nobody harmed. But killing people in real life?

Image is not the result of action, it's the projection of imagination into the physical world.

In your example, the correct parallel isn't killing people in real life, it's making an image of killing people. The ethics of making such images are debatable, but they already permeate our society without AI.

Post reply on HN