Readit NewsYou should strive to respond to the strongest interpretation of what you read and not the weakest one.
You should strive to respond to the strongest interpretation of what you read and not the weakest one.
Is this true, have you seen it or just heard about it? because what I seen is that the AI is bad, the faces are wrong, the fingers are wrong,t he hands and legs are often connected wrong, you can get very often more then 2 legs more then 5 fingers. I seen a community that focus on waifus, this images are not realistic, are obvious carton, animation styles and similar images were created already with digital painting tools.
I also did not seen any porn scene generated by AI, I don't think the model was trained on porn scenes so at best you will get puritans removing breasts from the models, including art , but for sure I want to see how they will ensure that the AI can only generate male nipples and not women ones.
I have seen it. SD is capable of generating CP that is indistinguishable from a real photograph with correct anatomy.
> I also did not seen any porn scene generated by AI
There are user made SD models trained on porn available for months now.
99% of those using this tactics use it to justify not releasing their models to avoid giving competition a leg up(Google, openAI) and to pretend they are for "open research". As I said this is 100% bull.
The remaining 1% are either doing this to inflate their egos ("hey look how considerate and enlightened we are in everything we do!"), or they pander to media/silly politicians/various clueless commentators whose level of knowledge about this technology is null. They regurgitate the same set of "what ifs and horror stories" to scare the public into standing by when they attempt to over regulate another field so they can be kingmakers within it(if you want an example how it works look at the energy sector).
All this sillyness accomplishes is to raise a barrier to entry for potential commercial competition. Bad actors will have enough money/lack scruples to train their own models or to steal your best ones regardless how "impact conscious" your company it.
Now, I don't claim everyone should be forced to publish their AI models. No, if you spent lots of money on training your model it is yours. But you can't lock all your work behind closed doors and call yourself open. It doesn't work like this. One important point is that there is value even in just publishing a paper demonstrating some achievements of a proprietary model, but if the experiment can't be reproduces based on description given that is not science and for sure it is not open.
These models are capable of generating photorealistic child pornography. That's why they're not being released.
I have no evidence to back this up, other than anecdotal. All the hand waving vague posts from SD, DALLE etc read like PR tactics to avoid getting the spotlight from the media and governments.
No one wants to post about this but I think everyone knows it's true, as soon as Congress realizes what these models can be used for there's going to be a moral panic.
EDIT: All of the replies are assuming I'm saying this is a good reason for not releasing these models. I don't say that anywhere nor do I agree with it.
That’s why this whole argument is BS. It panders to those that think these things are illegal because “ew that’s gross” without actually taking the time to argue how AI slots in ethically to their worldview. Discussions about AI license laundering content are far more relevant and interesting.
You should strive to respond to the strongest interpretation of what you read and not the weakest one.