Is this available in Automatic111?
SDXL Turbo: A Real-Time Text-to-Image Generation Model
121–130 of 157 posts
Re: SDXL Turbo: A Real-Time Text-to-Image Generation Model
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
>do laws adequately protect people (kids)? Can they? Will this force a shift towards actually chasing producers, distributors, and diddlers? It's extremely complicated. Actual CSAM is very illegal, and for good reason. However, artistic depictions of such are... protected 1st Amendment expression[0]. So there's an argument - and I really hate that I'm even saying this - that AI generated CSAM is not prosecutable, as…
> AI generated CSAM is not prosecutable This is true, though "AI CSAM" is an oxymoron. There is no abuse in the creation of such works, and such it is not abuse material, unless of course real children are involved.
The post I was replying to specifically cited a Spanish AI CSAM ring that did, in fact, involve real child victims: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66877718
Re: SDXL Turbo: A Real-Time Text-to-Image Generation Model
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
>do laws adequately protect people (kids)? Can they? Will this force a shift towards actually chasing producers, distributors, and diddlers? It's extremely complicated. Actual CSAM is very illegal, and for good reason. However, artistic depictions of such are... protected 1st Amendment expression[0]. So there's an argument - and I really hate that I'm even saying this - that AI generated CSAM is not prosecutable, as…
Do non-consensual porn not qualify as defamation? That and obscenity laws if existed should be able to handle most hyperrealistic porn so that only speeches remain.
Good question. US defamation law is fairly weak[0], but all the usual exceptions that make it weak wouldn't apply. e.g. "truth is an absolute defense against defamation" doesn't apply because AI generated or photoshopped nonconsenual porn is fake. I'm not a lawyer, but I think a defamation case would at least survive a motion to dismiss.
[0] Which, to be clear, is a good thing. Strong defamation law is a generalized censorship primitive.
Re: SDXL Turbo: A Real-Time Text-to-Image Generation Model
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI generated CSAM is not prosecutable This is true, though "AI CSAM" is an oxymoron. There is no abuse in the creation of such works, and such it is not abuse material, unless of course real children are involved.
The post I was replying to specifically cited a Spanish AI CSAM ring that did, in fact, involve real child victims: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66877718
Damn, that sucks.
Re: SDXL Turbo: A Real-Time Text-to-Image Generation Model
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Luckily this one accepts burner emails just fine, without any intrusive other data collection (name, etc) http://grr.la
That's a useful website, but holy shit it is utterly unusable without an adblocker.
I mean, you should have an adblocker on every device anyway. On my phone I use https://adguard-dns.io/en/public-dns.html (No need to download the app, just select "Configure AdGuard DNS manually"). As a bonus, on android, it blocks ads in shitty mobile games too.
Re: SDXL Turbo: A Real-Time Text-to-Image Generation Model
#126Hugging Face released a Colab Notebook for generation from SDXL Turbo using the diffusers library: https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1yRC3Z2bWQOeM4z0FeJ0... Playing around with the generation params a bit, Colab's T4 GPU can batch-generate up to 6 images at a time at roughly the same speed as one.
So the new SD model requires higher end hardware compare to the rest?
No, it's a smaller model than normal SDXL so it requires less hardware compared to SDXL.
Re: SDXL Turbo: A Real-Time Text-to-Image Generation Model
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is, imo, an extremely naive take. You claim culture is a collaborative process, yet AI only takes from the communities that produce art. It gives nothing back. You claim AI produces culture, but all it does is atomize our society, promising personal yet meaningless experiences for everyone. There's no shared culture if everyone is just consuming individualized streams of content. It's simultaneously homogenizing…
I don't try to swim against the current. But you're welcome to do it. What do you mean AI doesn't give back? It serves everyone and gives back everything it can create. Artists are the number one users here, and they will unlock the AI skills better than regular people playing around. What individualized streams? you mean like imagination, where everyone of us has their own "individualized stream"? AI art is augmente…
I think you (and possibly __loam) are talking past one another.
You're assuming that artists are just being elitist. While that's not entirely untrue, artistic skill is not merely a gatekeeping exercise. "Just prompt what you're thinking" is great until you need at least a little bit of control over what the AI generates, upon which the whole process disintegrates into banging your head at the model until you get something you want. Furthermore, art skills don't transfer to prompt engineering very well - that's more the realm of SEO keyword stuffers.
What __loam is imagining is that the best use of generative AI right now would be to create content slurry. If you've ever used TikTok or YouTube shorts you know what I mean - the vast majority of videos there are very cheaply made dopamine traps. And while AI can sorta kinda do art if you ask it politely and fight it a bit, it's really good at generating statistically plausible imitations of existing images[0]. Being able to generate lots of normal looking images for little effort is a grifter's best friend, and there's loads of people on YouTube bragging about how they make lots of money by spamming up art marketplaces with artistically meaningless pablum.
It doesn't matter how you make your art. You will be competing with the people who are shitting out spam art, and losing.
[0] To be clear, this is not the same thing as a photo mashup. I would actually be impressed by an AI that could take images and mash them up at inference time.
Re: SDXL Turbo: A Real-Time Text-to-Image Generation Model
#128Noncommercial use - aside from being one of my licensing pet peeves - seems to indicate that the money is drying up. My guess is that the investors over at Stability are tired of subsidizing the part of the generative AI market that OpenAI refuses to touch[0]. The thing is, I'm not entirely sure there's a paying portion of the market? Yes, I've heard of people paying for ChatGPT because it answers programming questio…
Are you suggesting the only use for locally run free SD derived models is porn? Creating illustrations for articles/presentations and stock photo alteratives are huge! The ability to run for free on your local machine allows for far more iterations than using SaaS, and the checkpoint/finetune ecosystem the openness sprouted has created models performing way better for these use cases than standard SD.
No, I'm suggesting that the only models you can use for porn are locally-run.
In particular the people offering hosted models do not want to touch porn, because the first thing people do with these things is try to make nonconsensual porn of real people, which is absolutely fucking disgusting. Hence why they have several layers of filtering.
SD also has a safety filter, but it's trivially removable, and the people who make nonconsensual porn do not care about trivial things like licensing terms. My assumption is that switching to a noncommercial license would mean that Stability could later add further restrictions to the commercial use terms, i.e. "if you're licensing the model for a generator app like Draw Things, you have to package it up in such a way that removing the safety filter is difficult or impossible".
Re: SDXL Turbo: A Real-Time Text-to-Image Generation Model
#129Instruction here for how to use it on iPhone / iPad / Mac today: https://twitter.com/drawthingsapp/status/1729633231526404400 (note that you need to convert 8-bit version yourself if you want to use it on < 8GiB devices).
I remember when you shared the first version on HN, I was totally impressed with what my little phone could do. It was my first step of many into the incredible world of SD. I never expected this app to be maintained this long and especially this actively. And all of this for free. So thank you very much for your work! PS, will you be adding Turbo directly to the app in the near future?
> PS, will you be adding Turbo directly to the app in the near future?
I need to get some clarity from Stability given the new Membership thing. I personally see no reason why I cannot as long as I tell people these weights are non-commercial / academic only.
Re: SDXL Turbo: A Real-Time Text-to-Image Generation Model
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EU views Google as a tobacco company. The last thing they want to do is bankrupt them with fees. They want to milk Google - big tech generally - for tax revenue. And besides, it'd take $100 billion per year in fees, which is never going to happen. Meanwhile Google keeps getting bigger year after year (they have nearly doubled in size in four years, up to $300b in sales now) and Bing has made zero headway despite…
> The US breaking Google up also won't end the monopoly money. It's also weird because modern economics with tech has created a space that creates a lot of natural monopolies. Momentum is very powerful and it's the reason silicon valley companies will run at a loss for years creating a userbase. Trick is to keep them (or sell before buyer starts charging). There's what, 2 map companies and only one of them is in high…
Natural monopoly means that the market only has enough demand for one supplier. Canonical examples would include highways, railways, local telephone networks, and residential Internet access providers.
Most of the big tech companies we love to hate aren't natural monopolies. Google's anticompetitive moat is primarily made of inertia: they were the first to market with a halfway functional search index. Defaults are very sticky: Microsoft pushes Bing in Windows a lot because a lot of people don't know how to change the default search engine to anything else.
Browsers are monopolized because we let Apple do to iOS what we refused to let Microsoft do to Windows: make the platform browser the only option. In the heyday of Firefox, switching from IE was just a matter of downloading an installer and migrating your bookmarks and history. You can still do this (and I recommend that you do), but if you have an iPhone, it's more complicated. You can technically use an app called "Firefox", but it's using Safari under the hood. Apple won't let you port your own browser engine, which limits how you can improve the experience. So switching to Firefox on iOS is pointless.
Sometimes these monopolies interact. Google built Chrome specifically so they'd get a seat at the web standards table. They got people to use it by giving free advertising space to it on their homepage, and then they used their market position to introduce ridiculous numbers of new web APIs that every other browser vendor now has to reimplement to make Google properties work[0]. Microsoft and Opera found this to be such a hurdle that they switched their browsers over to Chromium. Firefox had to split engineering time up between implementing Chrome features, chasing down security bugs, and adopting multiprocess support, which slowed them down.
At no point is any of this 'natural'. The market can support five technologically independent browsers, but not when Google is trying to actively sabotage them.
[0] The most egregious example being Shadow DOM v0, which was never actually adopted as a standard, but used in YouTube's version of Polymer for years after Shadow DOM v1 was standardized. Firefox never implemented v0, so they were stuck running lots of polyfill code that Chrome wasn't.