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

Stable Diffusion XL 1.0

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 182 posts

Re: Stable Diffusion XL 1.0

#151

Post by Auracle »

gettodachoppa wrote: post #146
Auracle wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. From what I’ve gathered was trained on human anatomy, but not straight up porn. What they tried for 2.0/2.1 was way too overdone, to the point where if I prompted “princess Zelda,” the generation would only look mildly like her. Presumably they just didn’t have many images of people in the training. 1.5 and SDXL both work fine of that front. Fine tuners will quickly take it further, if that’s what you’re after.

I don't think 1.x was trained on porn either? I seem to remember the issue with 2.x is that they removed all the commercial art from top-notch illustrators from the training data due to the backlash, so it was just way worse at generating great-looking things, which is all the user cares about. So the community stayed on their custom-trained models derived from SD 1.5 (which, yes, often included porn).

2.0 included a filter on the training data that removed all nudity. It went way too far and removed a lot of humans. They tried to rectify it a bit with 2.1 but even that was still hampered.

What you said also happened, but the main thing was the base model didn't have a great concept of human anatomy. Apparently it was really hard to train for anything else as well.

Re: Stable Diffusion XL 1.0

#152

Post by squeaky-clean »

Auracle wrote: post #148
blagie wrote: post #134

It's often said porn drives technology. I clicked through the links in the article, since they sounded technically interesting. They led to AI-generated porn. Those, in turn, led to pages about training SD to generate porn. Now, two disclaimers: 1) I am not interested in AI-generating porn 2) I haven't followed SD in maybe 6-9 months With those out-of-the-way, the out-of-the-box tools for fine-tuning SD are impressiv…

It absolutely works for things other than naked and cartoon women. Here are some generations of my daughter and dog (together!). I believe most of these are from a fine tuned model of them and not an extracted LoRA, though I use that sometimes too: https://imgur.com/a/naHgnel

The space one without headphones is particularly cool.

I use it for D&D art generation. I can have a piece of art that somewhat matches every location/scene I have planned. If things don't match my plans I can generate 8 images and pick the best in about 2 minutes. I talk to a lot of other DMs who use it in a similar way.

It's not great with specific details, I plan to commission someone to draw the party when the campaign is over. But for things like a fantasy magic shop with potions, or a fantasy dungeon exterior, or a forest of mushroom trees, it's more than good enough for concept art to throw into Roll20. I couldn't afford 5-10 pieces of custom concept art per game, nor could I come up with the ideas for them 2 hours beforehand and have them ready for the session.

Re: Stable Diffusion XL 1.0

#153

Post by squeaky-clean »

starik36 wrote: post #112
jyap wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Different use case. I can run SDXL 1.0 offline from my home. I can’t do this with Midjourney. A closed source model that doesn’t have the limitation of running on consumer level GPUs will have certain advantages.

What type of setup do you have at home? What type of GPU? MJ completes a pretty high quality photo in about a minute. Does SD compare?

I use both but StableDiffusion has better control over the workflow. With automatic111 I can generate a matrix of output based on prompt variations or parameter changes. I can also do bigger batches. And I can open multiple tabs and queue up several prompt variation matrices at once, then leave for an hour. I have a laptop rtx 2070 and a 512x768 takes about 20 seconds[0] or so. automatic111 also includes some upscaling AI once you've found the base image you want.

StableDiffusion needs you to be way more specific than Midjourney. MJ will fill in the gaps of your prompt to get a better image. SD usually won't.

MJ photos are higher quality with easier prompting IMO, but with a distinctive style. Even if you ask it to mimic some other style, it has that midjourney feel.

I mainly it for generating setting or character images for a D&D game. I use Midjourney more for characters.

[0] This is at ~25 iterations.

Re: Stable Diffusion XL 1.0

#155

Post by brucethemoose2 »

amilios wrote: post #144
brucethemoose2 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diffusion is relatively compute intensive compared to transformers llms, and (in current implementation) doesn't quantize as well. A 70B parameter model would be very slow and vram hungry, hence very expensive to run. Also, image generation is more reliant on tooling surrounding the models than pure text prompting. I dont think even a 300B model would get things quite right through text prompting alone.

Hmm this is a good point, diffusion requires several (many?) inference passes as you refine the noise into an image, right? Makes sense that this is more expensive to scale up. Thanks for the explanation!

Technically the llms require a pass for each token, but the passes are cheaper and benefit more from batching.

Re: Stable Diffusion XL 1.0

#156

Post by vouaobrasil »

soligern wrote: post #42
vouaobrasil wrote: post #11

This explosion of AI-generated imagery will result in an explosion of millions of fake images, obivously. Perhaps in the short-term this is fun, but in the long-term, we will lose a bit more scarcity, which is not that great in my opinion. Isn't the best part of a meal eating after you've not had anything to eat for a while? The best part about a kiss that you've quenched the pain of missing your partner? The best pa…

Enforcing artificial scarcity is idiotic and counter progressive. There will be other things that will continue to be uncommon that humans will continue to appreciate. This is what human progress looks like. Imagine someone said this when agriculture started up- “The great thing about fruits and vegetables is that they taste so sweet the few times we find them. We shouldn’t grow them in bulk”

There is a great chasm between "don't grow vegetables" and "grow them the way we do them today".

I wouldn't advocate not growing vegetables. But today we grow them in a monoculture for instant availability everywhere, and those monocultures are susceptible to disease and also are not terribly ecologically friendly. AI is like an ultimate monoculture of diseased fruits.

Also, I believe counter-progressive to be a good thing. Human beings should not progress in certain ways, as we don't have the wisdom to use the technology we have developed.

Humans in general cannot appreciate things very well, and computers and AI will only make it worse.

Re: Stable Diffusion XL 1.0

#157

Post by vouaobrasil »

soligern wrote: post #131
__loam wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI Art models are completely dependent on human labor to function. "Out-competing" human generated images will damage the commons and make it harder to train these models over time as they push human creative labor out of the market, if we believe it's even competitive. Personally I think this guy has a point and he's pointing to something that I don't believe a lot of ai art advocates have considered: the attention…

So what if art is devalued? We are hardwired to appreciate beauty so art of some form will always be sought. Obviously there is the matter of artists losing their livelihoods but that is also an inevitable outcome of progress and always has been.

I disagree. The problem is that AI will flood the market to an extent that humans will barely be able to keep up, moving from one AI-generated thing to the next, barely having time any more to spend any real effort on enjoying life.

Re: Stable Diffusion XL 1.0

#158

Post by vouaobrasil »

naillo wrote: post #67
vouaobrasil wrote: post #11

This explosion of AI-generated imagery will result in an explosion of millions of fake images, obivously. Perhaps in the short-term this is fun, but in the long-term, we will lose a bit more scarcity, which is not that great in my opinion. Isn't the best part of a meal eating after you've not had anything to eat for a while? The best part about a kiss that you've quenched the pain of missing your partner? The best pa…

The same could have been said when photoshop or CGI tools like blender replaced hand sculpting and hand painting but I think it hasn't been a net negative across the board (I think rather the opposite).

I believe it has. CGI at the beginning was okay but like all technologies, humans could not resist bring it to a high level of efficiency. Now all CGI movies are pretty bland and barely any effort is brought to storytelling.

Re: Stable Diffusion XL 1.0

#159

Post by vouaobrasil »

NegativeK wrote: post #129
vouaobrasil wrote: post #11

This explosion of AI-generated imagery will result in an explosion of millions of fake images, obivously. Perhaps in the short-term this is fun, but in the long-term, we will lose a bit more scarcity, which is not that great in my opinion. Isn't the best part of a meal eating after you've not had anything to eat for a while? The best part about a kiss that you've quenched the pain of missing your partner? The best pa…

I don't think that trying to convince people to starve themselves a little as your opening analogy is good for your argument.

I didn't say starve. I just meant to take a break from eating (you know, like between meals?). AI and computer technology has removed the breaks between meals.

Re: Stable Diffusion XL 1.0

#160

Post by vouaobrasil »

dwallin wrote: post #47
vouaobrasil wrote: post #11

This explosion of AI-generated imagery will result in an explosion of millions of fake images, obivously. Perhaps in the short-term this is fun, but in the long-term, we will lose a bit more scarcity, which is not that great in my opinion. Isn't the best part of a meal eating after you've not had anything to eat for a while? The best part about a kiss that you've quenched the pain of missing your partner? The best pa…

I think you have this backwards, Capitalism loves scarcity. Scarcity is what allows for supply and demand curves and profit-making opportunities, even better if you can control the scarcity. Capitalist entities are constantly attempting to use laws, technology, and market power to add scarcity to places where it didn't previously exist.

That is not the whole story. Capitalism likes the following process (if you can say capitalism "loves" anything, which isn't quite right. It's more like the abusers of capitalism love this):

1. Create scarcity, 2. Flood the market to reap short term gains with market-disrupting technology 3. Creat new scarcity by creating new products

Post reply on HN