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

MobileDiffusion: Rapid text-to-image generation on-device

blog.research.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: MobileDiffusion: Rapid text-to-image generation on-device

#41

Post by nuz »

thyrox wrote: post #35

I never upvote any Google's A.I. research articles as most of the time it is: look what we have done, but we will never release anything. OpenAi gets a lot of criticism for being closed, but at least I can play with their api most of the time. What's the point of this if we will never be able to use this?

The point is probably the implication that it'll be pushed to android as a native feature (in the photos app or similar), thus it making sense for investors reading this to put money into google rather than e.g. stability or openai etc. The people writing the article are likely shareholders etc.

Re: MobileDiffusion: Rapid text-to-image generation on-device

#43

Post by AlecSchueler »

theultdev wrote: post #40
AlecSchueler wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It being authentic or not isn't actually important in a lot of cases though. Consider someone like Mia Janin, who recently took her own life after been harassed using deepfakes. Everyone understood that the images weren't "authentic" but their power to cause distress was very real.

Is there a difference between being harassed with deepfakes vs fakes? Photoshop has the power to cause distress too when used maliciously. You go after the aggressors, not the tool used for aggression.

Ease of use and accessibility. Think of how we control access to guns even though a baseball bat could also be used to kill or maim someone.

I agree that we should legislate against the aggressors, that's why I'm pointing out the limitations of technical solutions like watermarks. We need extensions to things like revenge pornography laws, if we're talking about legislation, and I don't see any harm in outlawing services that automate the creation of deepfakes.

Of course the only "solution" is that we would universally behind to teach young boys that they are not entitled to women's bodies or their sexuality, but so many grown men apparently disagree that I can't see it happening quickly enough.

Re: MobileDiffusion: Rapid text-to-image generation on-device

#44

Post by htsh »

thyrox wrote: post #35

I never upvote any Google's A.I. research articles as most of the time it is: look what we have done, but we will never release anything. OpenAi gets a lot of criticism for being closed, but at least I can play with their api most of the time. What's the point of this if we will never be able to use this?

Dreambooth was kinda great?

That said, I agree that I wish there were more done post-research towards products with some of this stuff.

Re: MobileDiffusion: Rapid text-to-image generation on-device

#45

Post by [deleted] »

thyrox wrote: post #35

I never upvote any Google's A.I. research articles as most of the time it is: look what we have done, but we will never release anything. OpenAi gets a lot of criticism for being closed, but at least I can play with their api most of the time. What's the point of this if we will never be able to use this?

[deleted]

Re: MobileDiffusion: Rapid text-to-image generation on-device

#46

Post by spangry »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #43
theultdev wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a difference between being harassed with deepfakes vs fakes? Photoshop has the power to cause distress too when used maliciously. You go after the aggressors, not the tool used for aggression.

Ease of use and accessibility. Think of how we control access to guns even though a baseball bat could also be used to kill or maim someone. I agree that we should legislate against the aggressors, that's why I'm pointing out the limitations of technical solutions like watermarks. We need extensions to things like revenge pornography laws, if we're talking about legislation, and I don't see any harm in outlawing serv…

I'm one of the grown men who disagree. I don't think treating half the population as pre-criminals, when in reality it's an extremely tiny minority who act in this way, is a particularly good solution. If we were to apply this kind of "solution" to all undesirable behaviours exhibited by deviant minorities of both men and women I doubt there'd be any time for any actual K-12 formal education.

It's a nice applause line though.

Re: MobileDiffusion: Rapid text-to-image generation on-device

#47

Post by postalrat »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #33
babyshake wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm much more comfortable with the idea of AI watermarking images it creates instead of refusing to create images because of "safety", which in practice more often means not wanting to offend anyone. Imagine if word processors like Google Docs refused to write things you wanted to write because of mature themes. The important thing, in my opinion, is to make it a lot more difficult to pass off AI generated content as…

It being authentic or not isn't actually important in a lot of cases though. Consider someone like Mia Janin, who recently took her own life after been harassed using deepfakes. Everyone understood that the images weren't "authentic" but their power to cause distress was very real.

The number of people who committed suicide after being harassed with memes or emoji must be higher than those harassed with deep fakes. Too bad nobody is interested enough in banning emoji to do a study.

Re: MobileDiffusion: Rapid text-to-image generation on-device

#48

Post by AlecSchueler »

postalrat wrote: post #47
AlecSchueler wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It being authentic or not isn't actually important in a lot of cases though. Consider someone like Mia Janin, who recently took her own life after been harassed using deepfakes. Everyone understood that the images weren't "authentic" but their power to cause distress was very real.

The number of people who committed suicide after being harassed with memes or emoji must be higher than those harassed with deep fakes. Too bad nobody is interested enough in banning emoji to do a study.

Can you link to an article where emojis have been pivotal in an harassment case leading to suicide?

They've been around for 30 years, deepfakes as they are today have been around for less than a year. I'm not sure absolute numbers are the best thing to look at either way.

Re: MobileDiffusion: Rapid text-to-image generation on-device

#49

Post by AlecSchueler »

spangry wrote: post #46
AlecSchueler wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ease of use and accessibility. Think of how we control access to guns even though a baseball bat could also be used to kill or maim someone. I agree that we should legislate against the aggressors, that's why I'm pointing out the limitations of technical solutions like watermarks. We need extensions to things like revenge pornography laws, if we're talking about legislation, and I don't see any harm in outlawing serv…

I'm one of the grown men who disagree. I don't think treating half the population as pre-criminals, when in reality it's an extremely tiny minority who act in this way, is a particularly good solution. If we were to apply this kind of "solution" to all undesirable behaviours exhibited by deviant minorities of both men and women I doubt there'd be any time for any actual K-12 formal education. It's a nice applause lin…

So no to technical solutions, no to legislative solutions and no to education. What do you suggest?

Edit: you disagree that men aren't entitled to women's sexuality?

Edit: I mis-interpreted what was being disagree with.

Re: MobileDiffusion: Rapid text-to-image generation on-device

#50

Post by kj99 »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #49
spangry wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of the grown men who disagree. I don't think treating half the population as pre-criminals, when in reality it's an extremely tiny minority who act in this way, is a particularly good solution. If we were to apply this kind of "solution" to all undesirable behaviours exhibited by deviant minorities of both men and women I doubt there'd be any time for any actual K-12 formal education. It's a nice applause lin…

So no to technical solutions, no to legislative solutions and no to education. What do you suggest? Edit: you disagree that men aren't entitled to women's sexuality? Edit: I mis-interpreted what was being disagree with.

Presumably enforcement of existing laws.
Post reply on HN