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

51–60 of 67 posts

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

#51

Post by AlecSchueler »

kj99 wrote: post #50
AlecSchueler wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which laws do you mean and where do they apply?

This article talks a bit about the lack of legal power to fight against deepfakes: https://mcolaw.com/theres-not-much-we-can-legally-do-about-d...

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

#52

Post by whywhywhywhy »

Are like people at Google Research not embarrassed that none of this stuff ever makes it to real life?

Google AI internally needs a huge culture change, stop acting like academics making things for academics and start working like developers making products for customers.

I'd say in 10 years we'll be looking back and seeing the wasted potential but actually you can look back around 10 years and already see the wasted potential of all the things Google demoed or papered and never shipped.

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

#53

Post by spangry »

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.

I suggest we clearly specify the class of problem we're trying to solve and come up with a principled solution that would make sense when applied consistently and universally to all problems in that class. I prefer this over coming up with knee-jerk moral panic patches (e.g. "censor generative models so they can't generate this particular thing I find distasteful") or with overly abstract and tangential problem-solutions (e.g. "just teach men not to be big jerks").

I think the central issue here is: what restrictions, if any, should be placed around creating and distributing a likeness of another person? Are we just looking to prohibit pornographic likenesses, or do you think the restrictions should be broader? What's the threshold rule you would apply? Should these rules be medium-specific, or should we also prohibit people from, say, painting a likeness of another person without their consent?

I guess in a US context you'd also have to consider whether it's constitutional to restrict freedom of expression, even the distasteful ones, in this manner.

Edit: Just saw your edit suggesting that I think "men are entitled to women's bodies" (whatever that means). I think I'll end my participation here, not interested in having a bad faith discussion.

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

#54

Post by postalrat »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #48
postalrat wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The emoji and meme industry has been hiding these stats for years. Facebook, X, TikTok, Apple, etc have the data you want but they won't give it to you.

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

#55

Post by spangry »

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.

Why stop there? I think we'd all agree that "mean words", either written or spoken, have immense power to "cause distress" and have driven many a person to suicide. We should ban those.

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

#56

Post by AlecSchueler »

spangry wrote: post #53
AlecSchueler wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suggest we clearly specify the class of problem we're trying to solve and come up with a principled solution that would make sense when applied consistently and universally to all problems in that class. I prefer this over coming up with knee-jerk moral panic patches (e.g. "censor generative models so they can't generate this particular thing I find distasteful") or with overly abstract and tangential problem-solut…

I'm not in the US but I understand that there are already laws which limit your expression, such as in cases of CSAM or revenge pornography, which night be the closest analogue.

Personally the limits are similar to that, as I'm personally most interested in fighting sexual harassment. The legislation against revenge pornography already faces and tackles issues of what constitutes pornography and when it becomes illegal to disseminate pornographic images of others, so it's not an intractable problem.

Indeed, we also have precedents for limiting the use of tools for certain purposes. Using deepfake technology to generate images akin to CSAM would already be illegal in the UK, but other broader and everyday examples exist like speed limits for cars.

Edit to respond to yours: I said above that we should teach boys they're not entitled to women's sexuality, but that many men disagree. You said you were one of them. I had meant the disagreement being on the entitlement, but I'm now considering that you took it to mean they disagreed with the education about entitlement. It was a misunderstanding, and I was responding in good faith. I didn't suggest anything about you, I asked if my interpretation of your response was correct.

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

#57

Post by AlecSchueler »

spangry wrote: post #55
postalrat wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why stop there? I think we'd all agree that "mean words", either written or spoken, have immense power to "cause distress" and have driven many a person to suicide. We should ban those.

We do. Incitement to violence or "true threats" for example already fall outside of 1st amendment protections. I personally see deepfakes created or disseminated for harassment purposes as an act of violence.

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

#58

Post by unclad5968 »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #52

Are like people at Google Research not embarrassed that none of this stuff ever makes it to real life? Google AI internally needs a huge culture change, stop acting like academics making things for academics and start working like developers making products for customers. I'd say in 10 years we'll be looking back and seeing the wasted potential but actually you can look back around 10 years and already see the wasted…

That's what research is. It's somebody else's job to determine whether or not it would be useful as a product.

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

#59

Post by spangry »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #57
spangry wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why stop there? I think we'd all agree that "mean words", either written or spoken, have immense power to "cause distress" and have driven many a person to suicide. We should ban those.

We do. Incitement to violence or "true threats" for example already fall outside of 1st amendment protections. I personally see deepfakes created or disseminated for harassment purposes as an act of violence.

I'm neither referring to "true threats" nor making any kind of argument about the US constitution, so I'm unsure why you're bringing these up. I thought it would have been pretty clear that in the context of driving people to suicide, I was suggesting banning "insulting words". Hope that clarifies things for you.

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

#60

Post by AlecSchueler »

spangry wrote: post #59
AlecSchueler wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do. Incitement to violence or "true threats" for example already fall outside of 1st amendment protections. I personally see deepfakes created or disseminated for harassment purposes as an act of violence.

I'm neither referring to "true threats" nor making any kind of argument about the US constitution, so I'm unsure why you're bringing these up. I thought it would have been pretty clear that in the context of driving people to suicide, I was suggesting banning "insulting words". Hope that clarifies things for you.

It seemed like you were making a sarcastic comment about the policing of harmful communications. I mostly hear such arguments from US citizens so wanted to point out that even the US has precedent for limiting such expressions to deter violence.
Post reply on HN