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

Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

vickiboykis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

#51

Post by sillysaurusx »

GuB-42 wrote: post #34
sillysaurusx wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a glimpse at what’s possible: https://www.reddit.com/r/unstablediffusion https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwaifu I’ve been trying to generate tentacle porn since 2019 or so. It’s the whole reason I got into AI. We’re finally there, and it only took three years. Can’t wait to see what 2026 brings. http://n.actionsack.com/pic/media%2FFh08F_hXkAAhalt.jpg

> https://www.reddit.com/r/unstablediffusion This subreddit was banned due to a violation of Reddit's rules against non-consensual intimate media. Interesting. Why "non-consensual"? Does it mean Stable Diffusion generated porn of people who actually exist?

Sorry all, I was typing it on my phone and missed an underscore. Here’s the proper link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/unstable_diffusion

Re: Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

#52

Post by gopher_space »

jimbob45 wrote: post #14
netruk44 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue they're mainly worried about might be exemplified with a prompt of 'my little pony'. A children's show with quite a lot of adult imagery associated with it on the internet. A child entering this prompt is probably expecting one thing, but the internet is filled with pictures of another nature. There are possibly more adult 'my little pony' images than screenshots of the show on the internet. Did the…

A child entering this prompt is probably expecting one thing, but the internet is filled with pictures of another nature. There are possibly more adult 'my little pony' images than screenshots of the show on the internet. So everyone has to have gimpy AI just because parents can't be expected to take responsibility for what their child does and does not see? Why the fuck is a child being allowed to play with somethin…

> because parents can't be expected to take responsibility for what their child does and does not see?

This is an opinion you could only have if you’ve never raised or even spent time around children.

How would your parents have prevented you from unsupervised access? Do you think you’d have gone along with restrictions?

Re: Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

#54

Post by pessimizer »

Animats wrote: post #9
netruk44 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That'll only work for a little while longer (for future named big-public-release models, obviously the cat's out of the bag for the current version of stable diffusion), right up until the point where they incorporate the filter into the training process. At which point, the end model users get to download will be incapable of producing anything that comes close to triggering the filter, and there will be no way to w…

That problem is being solved. Pornhub now has an AI R&D unit.[1] Their current project is to upscale and colorize out of copyright vintage porn. As a training set, they use modern porn. They point out that they have access to a big training set. Next step, porn generation. [1] https://www.pornhub.com/art/remastured

> Their current project is to upscale and colorize out of copyright vintage porn.

But not very well. I collect this stuff and I have my own copies, so I can tell you that this doesn't look better than the b/w originals in quality/detail, and it's easy to see that the color is not great, especially if there are lots of hard lights and shadows dancing around.

That being said, I don't know why it's not working. Seems like it should work. I'd expect it to at least be clean of scratches and stabilized. Any relevant papers I should read about AI restoration of old film?

Re: Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

#55

Post by naet »

langitbiru wrote: post #5
minimaxir wrote: post #2

Unfortunately the safety filters have enough false positives (basically any image with a large amount of fleshy color) to the point that it's just easier to disable it and handle it manually.

"Gal Gadot wearing green suit" triggered it while "Tom Cruise wearing green suit" didn't.

Might be the word "gal" (which can mean girl or young woman).

Re: Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

#56

Post by cuddlyogre »

I can understand giving a user the option to filter out something they might not want to see. But the idea that the technology itself should be limited based on the subjective tastes and whims of the day makes my stomach churn. It's not too disconnected from altering a child's brain so that he is incapable of understanding concepts his parents don't like.

Re: Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

#58

Post by krisoft »

tifik wrote: post #4

> Using the model to generate content that is cruel to individuals is a misuse of this model. This includes, but is not limited to: ... >+ Sexual content without consent of the people who might see it I understand that it's their TOS and they can put pretty much anything in there, but this item seems... odd. I don't really know why exactly this stands out to me. Maybe it's because it's practically un-enforceable? Are…

> If you are an artist and someone commissions you to create an art piece that might be sexual, can you say "ok, but you have to ask for consent before you show it to people", and you enshrine it in the contract.

Yes. Obviously. How is that a question?

> Are you supposed to have an NSFW overlay?

Sounds like a reasonable way to comply with the condition.

> I might be hugely overthinking this.

I agree.

Re: Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

#60

Post by digitallyfree »

tifik wrote: post #4

> Using the model to generate content that is cruel to individuals is a misuse of this model. This includes, but is not limited to: ... >+ Sexual content without consent of the people who might see it I understand that it's their TOS and they can put pretty much anything in there, but this item seems... odd. I don't really know why exactly this stands out to me. Maybe it's because it's practically un-enforceable? Are…

The SD terms also mention that the model and its generated outputs cannot be used for disinformation, medical advice, and several other things. It looks like the only way to legally protect yourself would be to require a contract from everyone buying your SD artwork asserting that they will also comply with the full SD license terms.

While this may work if you're selling the art electronically and provide the buyer with a set of terms to accept, this would be difficult if you're selling the work physically. For instance if I sell a postcard with SD art on it in a convenience store, the buyer won't be signing any contracts. However the buyer could display that postcard in a manner that is technically disinformation (e.g. going around telling people the picture on the postcard is a genuine photograph) and suddenly that becomes a license violation.

Post reply on HN