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

71–80 of 88 posts

Re: Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

#71

Post by knaik94 »

Gigachad wrote: post #50
iceburgcrm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only available on the latest iphone

Apple ended up not implementing that iirc. While Google Photos has had it the whole time. Googles is actually worse. Apple was only going to match against known CSAM images while google has ML to identify new images which resulted in one parent being arrested for a medical image of their own child.

I am fine with photos that are uploaded to the cloud being scanned. I do not want my own device spending energy and scanning images even before they completely leave my network or device. Google scanning my Google drive files is fine with me. Apple is much worse.

Re: Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

#72

Post by BoorishBears »

bawolff wrote: post #42
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…

To me, i think it seems weird because its disconnected from stable diffusion. I think the comparison would be if google maps had a terms of service forbidding using it to plan getaway routes during bank robberies. Like yes bank robberies are wrong, but if someone did that the sin would not be with google maps.

That's because maps are boring now.

Use Autopilot in a getaway and it's not on Tesla, but rest assured images of a robber hanging out a Tesla handling lane centering would be repeated ad-nauseum as "Tesla aids robbers in getaway!!!!"

Giving themselves an easy PR out like "the user broke our ToS in doing " is just being forward thinking

Re: Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

#73

Post by cat_plus_plus »

So basically we spend more energy on preventing juvenile misuses of technology than realizing it's full potential? People can also just Photoshop someone's head onto an approximately matching naked body and probably be satisfied, thinking with the other head is not very sophisticated. Important part, it's not that person, it's your own imagination. If you indulge in it in private so be it, if you post it publicly, there can be consequences for disrespect. In a way it's better that someone who may have unwisely allowed real pornographic images of themselves to be taken has plausible deniability.

A lot of tech, including digital video was initially about porn because its consumers don't have super discerning tastes and can tolerate early glitches. A more important question is where more mature human beings take it from there. If someone is seriously disabled, having a lifelike VR avatar would be quite liberating. How long are we going to delay such assistive technologies for the sake of our squeamishness?

Re: Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

#74

Post by visarga »

cat_plus_plus wrote: post #73

So basically we spend more energy on preventing juvenile misuses of technology than realizing it's full potential? People can also just Photoshop someone's head onto an approximately matching naked body and probably be satisfied, thinking with the other head is not very sophisticated. Important part, it's not that person, it's your own imagination. If you indulge in it in private so be it, if you post it publicly, th…

> A lot of tech, including digital video was initially about porn because its consumers don't have super discerning tastes and can tolerate early glitches.

Why do you think they don't have discerning taste? Maybe they had no better alternatives early on.

Re: Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

#75

Post by visarga »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #37
properparity wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to let it completely loose and get everyone exposed to it everywhere so that maybe we can finally get rid of this insane taboo and uptightness about sex and nudity we have in society.

>insane taboo and uptightness about sex and nudity we have in society // In the UK we're on aggregate definitely too uptight about nudity, but sex ... inhibition towards things like infidelity, promiscuity, fecundity, seems like a relatively good thing. Sex being the preserve of committed relationships is not a problem to fix to my view. It sounds like you think we should basically be bonobos? Preoccupied with carnal…

Why is inhibition against fecundity a good thing. It's the ability to produce an abundance of offspring. Birth rate is much lower than 2.1 in many places

Re: Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

#76

Post by langitbiru »

naet wrote: post #55
langitbiru wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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).

Does the picture or the prompt trigger the filter?

Re: Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

#78

Post by Gigachad »

knaik94 wrote: post #71
Gigachad wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple ended up not implementing that iirc. While Google Photos has had it the whole time. Googles is actually worse. Apple was only going to match against known CSAM images while google has ML to identify new images which resulted in one parent being arrested for a medical image of their own child.

I am fine with photos that are uploaded to the cloud being scanned. I do not want my own device spending energy and scanning images even before they completely leave my network or device. Google scanning my Google drive files is fine with me. Apple is much worse.

The apple one was only going to scan photos stored on iCloud. It scans them on your phone but if you don’t use iCloud it doesn’t scan anything. It’s a neat trick that means the Apple servers can know they aren’t storing illegal content without ever having to look at it.

If it’s anything like the regular scanning iPhones do, it’s done overnight while plugged in.

Re: Some notes on the Stable Diffusion safety filter

#79

Post by geysersam »

maxbond wrote: post #65
cuddlyogre wrote: post #56

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.

Nope, it's not like that in any way at all. AI aren't children, they're a technological artefact a group of people assembled, with no more moral dimension than a toaster. The people who would be the targets of Stable Diffusion-generated porn, depictions they did not consent to, they're actual people who's privacy would be harmed. Technology is an artefact of the society that produced it, and is shaped by it's values.…

> The people who would be the targets of Stable Diffusion-generated porn, depictions they did not consent to

Is it just me finding this notion of someone generating nsfw content to show it to other people without their consent really far fetched?

It's about a hundred times more likely they just want it for themselves.

The internet has billions of terrible images. If someone wants to spam awful porn today, they can just do it. No SD necessary.

Post reply on HN