The obsession with safety in this announcement feels like a missed marketing opportunity, considering the recent Gemini debacle. Isn’t SD’s primary use case the fact that you can install it on your own computer and make what you want to make?
And safe doesn't mean "lower than 1/10^6 chance of ending humanity", safe means shoddily implemented curtailing to idpol + fundamentalist level moral aversion towards human sexuality
It's not really their feelings, it's about controversy, bad publicity, etc. It's too delicate right now to risk people using their models for sex stuff.
I don't believe corporations implementing liberal politics to prevent backlash and it being legislated onto them qualifies as them being on the "left political spectrum".
Some backlash is perfectly ignorable. The twitter mob will move onto the next thing in a few days. And the proliferation of turned-to-the-max DEI employee policies, inclusion committees and self-censored newspeak does come from the californic technobubble cesspit.
There is such a great liberal fear of being perceived as any of the negative -ists and -isms that the pendulum swings to the other extreme where the left horseshoe toe meets its rightmost brother, which is why SD and Google's new toy rewrite ancient European history to include POC's and queer people.
At some point they have to actually make money, and I don't see how continuously releasing the fruits of their expensive training for people to run locally on their own computer (or a competing cloud service) for free is going to get them there. They're not running a charity, the walls will have to go up eventually.
Likewise with Mistral, you don't get half a billion in funding and a two billion valuation on the assumption that you'll keep giving the product away for free forever.
Ironically their over sensitive nsfw image detector in their api caused me to stop using it and run it locally instead. I was using it to render animations of hundreds of frames but when every 20th to 30th image comes out blurry it ruins the whole animation and it would double the cost or more to rerender it with a different seed hoping to not trigger the over zealous blurring.
I don’t mind that they don’t want to let you generate nsfw images but their detector is hopelessly broken, it once censored a cube, yes a cube...
Unfortunately I don't want to pay for hundreds if not thousands of images I have to throw away because it decided some random innocent element is offensive and blurs the entire image.
What they are achieving with the over zealous safety issues are driving developers to on demand GPU hosts that will let them host their own models, which also opens up a lot more freedom. I wanted to use the stability AI api as my main source for Stable Diffusion but they make it really really hard especially if you want use it as part of your business.
I agree that given the status quo, it's a no-brainer to host your own model rather than use their SaaS – and likely one of the main reasons SAI doesn't seem to be on a very stable (heh) footing financially. To put it mildly.
But there are plenty of other business models available for open source projects.
I use Midjourney a lot and (based on the images in the article) it’s leaps and bounds beyond SD. Not sure why I would switch if they are both locked down.
SD would probably be a lot better if they didn't have to make sure it worked on consumer GPUs. Maybe this announcement is a step towards that where the best model will only be able to be accessed by most using a paid service.
Stable Diffusion has a much deeper learning curve but can generate far more accurate images fitting your perhaps special use case.
Although I don't understand the criticism of the images in question. Without a prompt comparison, it is impossible to compare image synthesis. What are examples of images that are beyond these?
I haven’t used SD so maybe the images on their home page here aren’t representative. But they look very generic and boring to me. They seem to lack “style” in a general aesthetic sense.
I am using Midjourney to basically create images in particular artistic styles (e.g., “painting of coffee cup in ukiyo-e style”) and that works very well. I am interested in SD for creating images based on artwork that isn’t indexed by Midjourney, though, as some of the more obscure artists aren’t available.
Usually there are models adapted to a specific theme since generic models at some point hit barriers. To get an idea, you could look up examples on sites like civitai.com.
Of course such sites are heavily biased towards content that is popular, but you will also find quite specific models if you search for certain styles.
Could you list the concrete "safety checks" that you think prevents real-world harm? What particular image that you think a random human will ask the AI to generate, which then leads to concrete harm in the real world?
This question narrows the scope of "safety" to something less than what the people at SD or even probably what OP cares about. _Non-random_ CSAM requests targeting potentially real people is the obvious answer here, but even non-CSAM sexual content is also a probably a threat. I can understand frustration with it currently going overboard on blurring, but removing safety checks altogether would result in SD mainly being associated with porn pretty quickly, which I'm sure Stability AI wants to avoid for the safety of their company.
Add to that, parents who want to avoid having their kids generate sexual content would now need to prevent their kids from using this tool because it can create it randomly, limiting SD usage to kids 18+ (which is probably something else Stability AI does not want to deal with.)
It's definitely a balance between going overboard and having restrictions though. I haven't used SD in several months now so I'm not sure where that balance is right now.
> non-CSAM sexual content is also a probably a threat
To whom? SD's reputation, perhaps - but that ship has already sailed with 1.x. That aside, why is generated porn threatening? If anything, anti-porn crusaders ought to rejoice, given that it doesn't involve actual humans performing all those acts.
As I said, it means parents who don't want their young children seeing porn (whether you agree with them or not) would no longer be able to let their children use SD. I'm not making a statement on what our society should or shouldn't allow, I'm pointing out what _is currently_ the standard in the United States and many other, more socially conservative, countries. SD would become more heavily regulated, an 18+ tool in the US, and potentially banned in other countries.
You can have your own opinion on it, but surely you can see the issue here?
I can definitely see an argument for a "safe" model being available for this scenario. I don't see why all models SD releases should be so neutered, however.
How many of those parents would have the technical know-how to stop their lids from playing with SD? Give the model some “I am over 18” checkbox fig leaf and let them have their fun.
The harm is that any use of the model becomes illegal in most countries (or offends credit card processors) if it easily generates porn. Especially if it does it when you didn't ask for it.
If 1 in 1,000 generations will randomly produce memorized CSAM that slipped into the training set then yeah, it's pretty damn unsafe to use. Producing memorized images has precedent[0].
Do you have an example? I've never heard of anyone accidentally generating CSAM, with any model. "1 in 1,000" is just an obviously bogus probability, there must have been billions of images generated using hundreds of different models.
Besides, and this is a serious question, what's the harm of a model accidentally generating CSAM? If you weren't intending to generate these images then you would just discard the output, no harm done.
Nobody is forcing you to use a model that might accidentally offend you with its output. You can try "aligning" it, but you'll just end up with Google Gemini style "Sorry I can't generate pictures of white people".
Earlier datasets used by SD were likely contaminated with CSAM[0]. It was unlikely to have been significant enough to result in memorized images, but checking the safety of models increases that confidence.
And yeah I think we should care, for a lot of reasons, but a big one is just trying to stay well within the law.
Then you know almost nothing about the SD 1.5 ecosystem apparently. I've finetuned multiple models myself and it's nearly impossible to get rid of the child-bias in anime-derived models (which applies to 90 % of character focussed models) including nsfw ones. Took me like 30 attempts to get somewhere reasonable and it's still noticeable.
If we're being honest, anime and anything "anime-derived" is uncomfortably close to CSAM as a source material, before you even get SD involved, so I'm not surprised.
What I had in mind were regular general purpose models which I've played around with quite extensively.
They try to, but it is difficult to comb through billions of images, and at least some of SD's earlier datasets were later found to have been contaminated with CSAM[0].
Okay, by "safety checks" you meant the already unlawful things like CSAM, but not politically-overloaded beliefs like "diversity"? The latter is what the comment[1] you were replying to was referring to (viz. "considering the recent Gemini debacle"[2]).
Right, by "rather have this [nothing]" I meant Stable Diffusion doing some basic safety checking, not Google's obviously flawed ideas of safety. I should have made that clear.
I posed the worst-case scenario of generating actual CSAM in response to your question, "What particular image that you think a random human will ask the AI to generate, which then leads to concrete harm in the real world?"
I've noticed that SDXL does something a little odd. For a given prompt it essentially decides what race the subject should be without the prompt having specified one. You generate 20 images with 20 different seeds but the same prompt and they're typically all the same race. In some cases they even appear to be the same "person" even though I doubt it's a real person (at least not anyone I could recognize as a known public figure any of the times it did this). I'm kind of curious what they changed from SD 1.5, which didn't do this.
