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

511–519 of 519 posts

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#511

Post by andrepd »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #455
andrepd wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one of the great victories of capitalism: somehow it has convinced people that a 300 year-old economic system originating in north-western Europe is as natural as the air we breathe, and as inevitable as gravity or any natural law.

You have to threaten to shoot people to get them to practice any other -ism. So, yes, capitalism in the sense of the freedom to trade one's labor does appear to be naturally and universally emergent in advanced human societies, in the absence of violent interference.

Capitalism has violent coercion at its core, in order to enforce its property rights. You simply think that that violence is legitimate and unproblematic because you believe the system it upholds is "natural" and legitimate, but at this point you're arguing in circles. But to say that capitalism is not violent is laughable.

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#512

Post by andrepd »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #509
hyperlogos wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is certainly not characterized by the absence of violent interference.

Yes, it is. The violence comes in when you interfere with capitalism. It's not imposed upon you forcefully, you just aren't allowed to get in the way. To the extent that certain aspects of capitalism lead to violence, those are elements that other parties -- generally corporations or governments rather than writers or philosophers -- added to the ideology. People die trying to break out of non-capitalist countries, w…

> Yes, it is. The violence comes in when you interfere with capitalism.

Ahahah, I absolutely love this sentence. You might have said the quiet part out loud though.

“You gots to understand”, said Fat Tony, “I'm not a violent man. The violence simply comes in when you interfere with my business.”

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#513

Post by CamperBob2 »

andrepd wrote: post #512
CamperBob2 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is. The violence comes in when you interfere with capitalism. It's not imposed upon you forcefully, you just aren't allowed to get in the way. To the extent that certain aspects of capitalism lead to violence, those are elements that other parties -- generally corporations or governments rather than writers or philosophers -- added to the ideology. People die trying to break out of non-capitalist countries, w…

> Yes, it is. The violence comes in when you interfere with capitalism. Ahahah, I absolutely love this sentence. You might have said the quiet part out loud though. “You gots to understand”, said Fat Tony, “I'm not a violent man. The violence simply comes in when you interfere with my business.”

(Shrug) Taking peoples' rights away, including their economic rights, is likely to get the hurt put on you. Ric Romero has more on this late-breaking story at 11.

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#514

Post by nomel »

vintermann wrote: post #310
nomel wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s possible that the end game is hardware in GPUs, to detect whatever they want to prevent, before it’s displayed.

You kill way too many birds with such a stone. Of course you could never do any kind of photorealistic game in real time if you had to pre-screen everything with an actually effective censor. Indeed, what they're already doing is already hobbling the models. Emad is right that we learn new things from the creativity unleashed by accessible models that can be run (and even fine tuned) or consumer hardware. But judging…

> Of course you could never do any kind of photorealistic game in real time if you had to pre-screen everything with an actually effective censor.

I'm not sure I understand this. A possible implementation could be a neural net that blanked the screen with a frown face any time it detected something it thinks was "bad". What purpose/need would pre-screening serve?

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#515

Post by kleene_op »

andrepd wrote: post #512
CamperBob2 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is. The violence comes in when you interfere with capitalism. It's not imposed upon you forcefully, you just aren't allowed to get in the way. To the extent that certain aspects of capitalism lead to violence, those are elements that other parties -- generally corporations or governments rather than writers or philosophers -- added to the ideology. People die trying to break out of non-capitalist countries, w…

> Yes, it is. The violence comes in when you interfere with capitalism. Ahahah, I absolutely love this sentence. You might have said the quiet part out loud though. “You gots to understand”, said Fat Tony, “I'm not a violent man. The violence simply comes in when you interfere with my business.”

It sounds funny but he may have a point. It's not a quality of capitalism per se, had it been communism instead then communism would have been the best system for the present moment.

But capitalism prevails and may be the best system there is for now because I cannot fathom a change in system overnight that would not result in mass suffering for (almost) everyone.

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#516

Post by vintermann »

nomel wrote: post #514
vintermann wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You kill way too many birds with such a stone. Of course you could never do any kind of photorealistic game in real time if you had to pre-screen everything with an actually effective censor. Indeed, what they're already doing is already hobbling the models. Emad is right that we learn new things from the creativity unleashed by accessible models that can be run (and even fine tuned) or consumer hardware. But judging…

> Of course you could never do any kind of photorealistic game in real time if you had to pre-screen everything with an actually effective censor. I'm not sure I understand this. A possible implementation could be a neural net that blanked the screen with a frown face any time it detected something it thinks was "bad". What purpose/need would pre-screening serve?

That you describe IS pre-screening. And it's not workable, because it would take a ton of dedicated resources to make it work in real time, and even then it would be disastrous for latency, unworkable for most games and even desktop applications.

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#517

Post by nomel »

vintermann wrote: post #516
nomel wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course you could never do any kind of photorealistic game in real time if you had to pre-screen everything with an actually effective censor. I'm not sure I understand this. A possible implementation could be a neural net that blanked the screen with a frown face any time it detected something it thinks was "bad". What purpose/need would pre-screening serve?

That you describe IS pre-screening. And it's not workable, because it would take a ton of dedicated resources to make it work in real time, and even then it would be disastrous for latency, unworkable for most games and even desktop applications.

> That you describe IS pre-screening.

I think this is making the assumption that all frames are blocked.

> then it would be disastrous for latency

We're talking about the future here. I'm not sure it makes sense to use current tech to say it's not going to happen, or come up with latency numbers. But, "real time" inference is definitely a possibility, and is in active use for video moderation (Youtube, etc) and object detection (Tesla, etc). Nobody will notice a system running at 2000fps.

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#518

Post by smeagull »

Xelynega wrote: post #414
smeagull wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't wait for law enforcement to start arresting people for looking at images.

As long as they aren't repackaging and redistributing them, why would looking at them be illegal?

You're training your model. Maybe it's producing art that becomes illegal.

Re: Stable Diffusion 2.0

#519

Post by tweetle_beetle »

Applejinx wrote: post #492
tweetle_beetle wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can generate infinite recognizable Basquiat from an AI, but is it Basquiat? No, of course not, because Basquiat's style operates within the context of a specific individual human making a point about expectations and the interface between his race and his artistic boldness and audacity as experienced by his wealthy audience. I'm not sure how I feel about this - I agree with the conclusion, but not the reasoning…

On reflection, I'm going to say 'nope'. Because it's Basquiat, I'm pretty sure you couldn't get him to make a model of himself (maybe he would, and call it 'samo'?). I don't think you could pay him to draw a circle with a pencil: I think he'd have been offended and angry. And so that is not 'his work'. It trips over what makes him Basquiat, so doing these things is not Basquiat (though it's very, very Warhol). Even m…

This seems to me to confuse agency with interpretation - romanticising the life and character of the artist after their heyday and death, talking about what they would have done.

Any drawing Basquiat did is a piece of art by Basquiat, whether or not it fits into the narrative of a book/thesis/lecture/exhibition. The circle metaphor isn't important - replace it with anything else. Artists regularly throw their own work away. Some of this is saved and celebrated posthumously, some never sees the light of day in accordance with their wishes. Scraps that fell on Picasso's floor sell for huge amounts of money.

Does everything he did fit the "brand" that some art historians have labelled him with, or the "brand" that auction houses promote to increase value, or the "brand" which a fashion label licenses for t-shirts? No, but I suspect this is probably what you are talking about ie. a "classic" Basquiat™ with certificate of authenticity?

Is it by Basquiat? vs Is it a Basquiat?

Post reply on HN