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

Stable Diffusion 2.0

stability.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 519 posts

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#441

Post by FeepingCreature »

Xelynega wrote: post #423
FeepingCreature wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but why would that not apply to humans? And we don't consider it copyright violation if a human learns painting by looking at art.

Because we made the algorithms and can confirm these theories apply to them. We can speculate they apply to certain models of slices of human behaviour based on our vague understanding of how we work, but not nearly to the same degree.

Hang on, but- plagiarism is a copyright violation, and that passes through the human brain.

When a human looks at a picture and then creates a duplicate, even from memory, we consider that a copyright violation. But when a human looks at a picture and then paints something in the style of that picture, we don't consider that a copyright violation. However we don't know how the brain does it in either case.

How is this different to Stable Diffusion imitating artists?

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#442

Post by xeyownt »

wokwokwok wrote: post #175
ftufek wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To put things in perspective, the dataset it's trained on is ~240TB and Stability has over ~4000 Nvidia A100 (which is much faster than a 1080ti). Without those ingredients, you're highly unlikely to get a model that's worth using (it'll produce mostly useless outputs). That argument also makes little sense when you consider that the model is a couple gigabytes itself, it can't memorize 240TB of data, so it "learned"…

Quite right, but… > That argument also makes little sense when you consider that the model is a couple gigabytes itself, it can't memorize 240TB of data, so it "learned". The matter is really very nuanced and trivialising it that way is unhelpful. If I recompress 240TB as super low quality jpgs and manage to zip them up as single file that is significantly smaller than 240TB (because you can), does the fact they are…

Copyrights say you cannot reproduce, distribute, etc a work without consent from the author, whatever the mean. The copy doesn't need to be exact, only sufficiently close.

However, copyright doesn't prevent someone to look at the work and study it. Even study it by heart. Infringement comes only if that someone would make a reproduction of that work. Also, there are provision for fair use, etc.

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#443

Post by stavros »

beernet wrote: post #437
stavros wrote: post #322

It kind of annoys me that they removed NSFW images from the training set. Not because I want to generate porn (though some people do), but because I feel that they're foisting a puritan ethic on me. I don't consider the naked body inherently bad, and I don't like seeing new technology carry this (wrong, in my opinion) stigma. Then again, it's their model, they can do whatever they want with it, but it still leaves me…

Agreed. I could see this being driven by EleutherAI in the background who are very, say, strict when it comes to "alignment".

Hmm, can you elaborate? I don't know much about EleutherAI.

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#444

Post by natch »

troad wrote: post #420
machina_ex_deus wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I predicted back when they started backpedaling that there's a chance that sd1.4 or 1.5 will be the best available model to the general public, for a very long duration, because the backlash will force them to self-castrate themselves. You can see nobody likes this new model in any of the stable diffusion communities. It's a big flop and for a good reason. The reason it was so successful in the first place was becaus…

As someone completely unfamiliar with SD but interested in playing around with it in the future, what exactly should I download, to have a fully local instance of 1.4 or 1.5?

I'm not comparing with the others because I don't have experience with them, but https://invoke-ai.github.io/InvokeAI/ is great, with an easy install and active development.

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#445

Post by Aachen »

snowram wrote: post #344
jeroenhd wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main limitation for running these AIs is that you need tons of VRAM available for your GPU to get any good performance out of them. I don't have a video card with 12GiB of VRAM and I don't know anyone who does. If you're willing to wait more (30 seconds per image, assuming limited image sizes) there are repositories that will run the model on the CPU instead, leveraging your much cheaper RAM. In theory you could…

12GiB VRAM cards are common places nowadays. A RTX3060 is around ~450$ and available to everyone.

Eyeing the price graph of that 3060, it might be "commonplace" among the population that built a gaming PC in the last couple months, or went all-out in the past ~1.5 years (availability not taken into account).

Most people I know don't have a desktop in the first place, and on average I wouldn't guess that desktop users build a new one more often than once every ~4 years. And that's among people who build their own; if you buy pre-built, you have to spend a lot extra to get those top of the line specs.

It's possible to now go out and buy this on a whim if you have a tech job or equivalent salary, though.

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#446

Post by bowsamic »

LunaSea wrote: post #436
bowsamic wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it has not yet been demonstrated that the current copyright laws forbid the use of copyrighted images to train neural networks.

The moment you make money from it the law is pretty clear.

No, it isn’t. Why are you lying?

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#447

Post by creata »

evouga wrote: post #177
kmeisthax wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason why Stable Diffusion is worried about NSFW is that people will use it to generate disgusting amounts of CSAM. If LAION-5B or OpenAI's CLIP have ever seen CSAM - and given how these datasets are literally just scraped off the Internet, they have - then they're technically distributing it. Imagine the "AI is just copying bits of other people's art" argument, except instead of statutory damages of up to…

So I definitely see an issue with Stable Diffusion synthesizing CP in response to innocuous queries (in terms of optics—-the actual harm this would cause is unclear). That said, part of the problem with the general ignorance about machine learning and how it works is that there will be totally unreasonable demands for technical solutions to social problems. “Just make it impossible to generate CP” I’m sure will succe…

> I’m sure will succeed just as effectively as “just make it impossible to Google for CP.”

So... very, very well? I obviously don't have numbers, but I imagine CSAM would be a lot more popular if Google did nothing to try to hide it in search results.

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#448

Post by [deleted] »

kmeisthax wrote: post #426
fastball wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is artificially generated CSAM that doesn't actually involve children in its production not an improvement over the status quo?

No, it's not. The underlying idea you have is that the artificial CSAM is a viable substitute good - i.e. that pedophiles will use that instead of actually offending and hurting children. This isn't borne out by the scientific evidence; instead of dissuading pedophiles from offending it just trains them to offend more. This is opposite of what we thought we learned from the debate about violent video games, where we…

[deleted]

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#449

Post by pnt12 »

acadapter wrote: post #235
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah I am glad to see someone else talking about using public domain images! Honestly it baffles me that in all this discussion, I rarely see people discussing how to do this with appropriately licensed images. There are some pretty large datasets out there of public images, and doing so might even help encourage more people to contribute to open datasets. Also if the big ML companies HAD to use open images, they would…

Human artists derive their inspiration and styles from a large set of copyrighted works, but they are free to produce new art despite of that. Art would have developed much slower and be much poorer if, for example, Impressionism or Cubism had been entangled in long ownership confrontations in courts. Then there's the fact that humanity has been able to develop and share art and literary works for thousands of years…

Human artists cannot produce thousands of works in a few hours.

This arguments come up in every thread, and I'm baffled that people don't think the scale matters.

You may also be observed in public areas by police, but it would be an orwellian dystopia to have millions of cameras in spaces analyzing everyone's behavior in public.

Scale matters.

(But I'm indeed in favor of weaker copyright laws! But preferably to take power away from the copyright monopolies than the individual artists who barely get by with their profits)

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#450

Post by Der_Einzige »

kmeisthax wrote: post #58

Is there a good explanation of how to train this from scratch with a custom dataset[0]? I've been looking around the documentation on Huggingface, but all I could find was either how to train unconditional U-Nets[1], or how to use the pretrained Stable Diffusion model to process image prompts (which I already know how to do). Writing a training loop for CLIP manually wound up with me banging against all sorts of stra…

A paper was already presented at this workshop at COLING 2022 by Nvidia which already does this

https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14697

Post reply on HN