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

Stable Diffusion Public Release

stability.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 437 posts

Re: Stable Diffusion Public Release

#411

Post by jmfldn »

Yntec wrote: post #395
jmfldn wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem for me too. This tech is cool for games, stock images etc but for actual art it's pretty meaningless. The artist's experience, biography and relationship with the world and how that feeds into their work is the WHOLE point for me. I want to engage, via any real artistic product, with a lived human experience. Human consciousness in other words. To me this technology is very clever but it's meaningl…

Oh, nice take! Reminds me of the chess world, long time ago chess entities that could beat any human in the world have existed, people wouldn't play them because losing all the time was boring. But then came the neural network chess engines (powered by the same training technology of text to images generators), which even people enjoyed playing for some time due to novelty and how they learned how to play from scratc…

Great example!

We want to interact with conscious entities for the obvious reason as well that we want to connect. A machine is a blind, dead entity. There's nothing to connect to. Also, even if the output is far superior to a human in limited domains, eg chess, the way it arrives at these outcomes is sort of banal (if clever). It's not intelligence and its not thinking, I think the 'intelligence' part is a misnomer in AI but perhaps its a semantic argument. To me at least, consciousness is fundamental to our type of animal intelligence. I'm a naturalist through and through, we might even be able to create animal-like intelligence and consciousness one day, but until then at least, interacting with Turing machines is a cold boring experience if you know what is really 'inside'.

The line gets blurry when a dead machine one day passes the Turing test, but if I ultimately knew I was interacting with a philosophical zombie, that would kill the appeal quickly.

Re: Stable Diffusion Public Release

#412

Post by [deleted] »

aortega wrote: post #249
mabbo wrote: post #33

The most interesting part, to me, of a release like this is the amount of "please don't abuse this technology" pleading. No licence will ever stop people from doing things that the licence says they can't. There will always be someone who digs into the internals and makes a version that does not respect your hopes and dreams. It's going to be bad. As I see it, within a couple years this tech will be so widespread and…

>make a hyperrealistic pornographic image of you with a gorilla[0] I don't understand this irrational fear. This can be done today, just need some minutes instead of some seconds to create a good Photoshop. Also, seriously this is the thing you fear? fake porn? there are much worse thing you can do with this tech, like phising, falsifications, etc. Not mentioning leaving millions of graphic designers out of job.

[deleted]

Re: Stable Diffusion Public Release

#414

Post by mabbo »

aortega wrote: post #249
mabbo wrote: post #33

The most interesting part, to me, of a release like this is the amount of "please don't abuse this technology" pleading. No licence will ever stop people from doing things that the licence says they can't. There will always be someone who digs into the internals and makes a version that does not respect your hopes and dreams. It's going to be bad. As I see it, within a couple years this tech will be so widespread and…

>make a hyperrealistic pornographic image of you with a gorilla[0] I don't understand this irrational fear. This can be done today, just need some minutes instead of some seconds to create a good Photoshop. Also, seriously this is the thing you fear? fake porn? there are much worse thing you can do with this tech, like phising, falsifications, etc. Not mentioning leaving millions of graphic designers out of job.

> seriously this is the thing you fear? fake porn?

I'm being polite. Things will be so much worse.

Someone will make child pornography using your child's face as the input. Someone is going to take private videos of politicians and then edit them to have them say incriminating things. Someone is going to short the stock of a large company, then release a faked video of the CEO being shot, and profit from the immediate stock plunge.

And this is just what my mind can come up with. Imagine what 4chan will invent.

Re: Stable Diffusion Public Release

#415

Post by altryne1 »

trention wrote: post #406
danielbln wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We were talking about a Marvel action flick, I don't think incredible dialog spanning multiple minutes is much of a thing apart from exposition dumps. I asked GPT-3 to spit out some paragraphs from a hypothetical script for Thor 5: INT. DARKNESS We hear a faint beating heart. A moment later, we see a light slowly growing in the darkness. As the light grows, we see that it is coming from a glowing object in a person’s…

>cannot generate coherent dialog (and even then it's mostly bad dialog) spanning more than a minute or two I think that was pretty clear and that posted dialog is a perfect illustration. You cannot generate the entire movie script coherently without significant human input and that's not going to change in the next several years. So, your initial claim that dialogue is "solved" is indeed false.

GPT-4 is going to be released soon and blow everyone's minds again. And maybe you've been talking with GPT-3 in comments all this time /s

Re: Stable Diffusion Public Release

#416

Post by incrudible »

trention wrote: post #386
astrange wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're mostly posting incorrect claims like "all it does it make collages out of other people's art" though. It doesn't do that; the model stores about 1 byte per original image it's seen.

Think of that 1 byte as a hyper-compressed essence of knowledge necessary to make said collage. Then it will be correct. Those models would not exist without the labor of the artist community - which in this case was used without consent and without pay.

These models would exist, just without painterly style. Most of the training data is photos of real things, a lot of which is stock photography that has been ripped off much in the same way like those artists. It is a challenge to copyright law, but if artists are allowed learn by looking at other peoples work, why treat an AI differently?

Re: Stable Diffusion Public Release

#417

Post by trention »

altryne1 wrote: post #415
trention wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>cannot generate coherent dialog (and even then it's mostly bad dialog) spanning more than a minute or two I think that was pretty clear and that posted dialog is a perfect illustration. You cannot generate the entire movie script coherently without significant human input and that's not going to change in the next several years. So, your initial claim that dialogue is "solved" is indeed false.

GPT-4 is going to be released soon and blow everyone's minds again. And maybe you've been talking with GPT-3 in comments all this time /s

Or maybe I haven't and GPT-4 will be ~on par with PaLM, already exhibiting diminishing returns as expected.

Re: Stable Diffusion Public Release

#418

Post by trention »

incrudible wrote: post #416
trention wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of that 1 byte as a hyper-compressed essence of knowledge necessary to make said collage. Then it will be correct. Those models would not exist without the labor of the artist community - which in this case was used without consent and without pay.

These models would exist, just without painterly style. Most of the training data is photos of real things, a lot of which is stock photography that has been ripped off much in the same way like those artists. It is a challenge to copyright law, but if artists are allowed learn by looking at other peoples work, why treat an AI differently?

Because the AI is not a person and there is no reason to treat it like one, including by allowing it to "learn by looking at other peoples work".

Re: Stable Diffusion Public Release

#419

Post by derac »

criddell wrote: post #402
derac wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You aren't getting on-site service with a consumer product. There are plenty of 3rd party people who can service your computer, though. It's like Lego. Dell uses crappy proprietary tech, poor quality components, and they have an all around bad reputation. NZXT uses good components and they make some of the best cases you can buy. I don't know much about Lenovo's desktop products. You might try posting on reddit.com/r…

> You aren’t getting on-site service with a consumer product. Both Dell and Lenovo do this. My daughter bought an Alienware laptop for college and when the keyboard broke, they sent a technician to her dorm to fix it (and she goes to school outside of the US). If on-site service isn’t an option, what about a Mac Pro? At least with Apple I can take the machine to a store if I need to.

Oh interesting, thanks for the knowledge.

Re: Stable Diffusion Public Release

#420

Post by astrange »

trention wrote: post #418
incrudible wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These models would exist, just without painterly style. Most of the training data is photos of real things, a lot of which is stock photography that has been ripped off much in the same way like those artists. It is a challenge to copyright law, but if artists are allowed learn by looking at other peoples work, why treat an AI differently?

Because the AI is not a person and there is no reason to treat it like one, including by allowing it to "learn by looking at other peoples work".

It's probably okay to learn facts from copyrighted material even if you're an AI - you can't reproduce the text of a novel but you can learn the meaning of a word from context in it. Similarly you can learn to draw a hand from looking at a ton of stock photos with hands, as long as you produce original hands.

AI will need some favorable legal precedents to avoid getting banned though, or else they'll have to only train off CC0 Flickr/Wikipedia scraping.

I also think it's a more obvious problem that it can reproduce copyrighted characters by eg prompting for "Homer Simpson".

Post reply on HN