A child entering this prompt is probably expecting one thing, but the internet is filled with pictures of another nature. There are possibly more adult 'my little pony' images than screenshots of the show on the internet.

Did the researchers manage to filter out these images before training? Or is the model aware of both 'kinds' of 'my little pony' images? If the researchers aren't sure they got rid of all of the adult content, then there's really no way to guarantee the model isn't about to ruin some oblivious person's day.

So then, do you require people generating images to be intricately familiar with the training dataset? Or do you attempt to prevent any kind of surprise like this by just blocking 'unexpected' interactions like this?

So everyone has to have gimpy AI just because parents can't be expected to take responsibility for what their child does and does not see? Why the fuck is a child being allowed to play with something that can very easily spit out salacious images accidentally? Wouldn't it be significantly easier to add censorship to the prompt input instead? It seems like these tech companies see yet another opportunity to add censorship to their products and can hardly hide their giddy excitement.

Like sure would it be better if parents monitored their children’s 4chan use? Ofc.

Is that at all a practical approach to eliminating Elliot Roger idolization? No.

The same could be said (for example) of a random mother trying to get inspiration for a 'my little pony' birthday cake for their child, and being presented with the 'other' kind of image unintentionally, without their consent. I think they would be justifiably upset in that situation.

If we were to imagine someone attempting to put stable diffusion into some future consumer product, I think they would have to be concerned about these kinds of scenarios. Therefore, the scientists are trying to figure out how to accomplish the filtering.

FWIW, I don't think a model could be made that actively prevented people from using their own NSFW training data. The only difference in the future will be that the public models won't be able to do it 'for free' with no modifications needed. You'll have to train your own model, or wait for someone else to train one.

Stability.ai, the company who developed and released the model being discussed, have not added a safety filter to the model. As the article points out, the filter is specifically implemented by HuggingFace's Diffusers library, which is a popular library for working with diffusion models (but again, to be clear, not the only option for using Stable Diffusion). The library is also open source, and turning off the safety filter would be trivial if you felt compelled to do so.

So, "these tech companies" aren't overcome by glee over censoring you. One company implemented one filter in one open source and easily editable library.

This is an opinion you could only have if you’ve never raised or even spent time around children.

How would your parents have prevented you from unsupervised access? Do you think you’d have gone along with restrictions?

Regarding your examples, most of these are technically criminal in Germany, because the only legally safe way to have a place not-reachable-by-minors means adhering to German youth protection laws, which you're not going to, just like every porn site, Twitter, Reddit etc.

Try getting that rule passed on any form of media.

I think this ultimately causes more harm to a society instead of benefitting it. I don’t think this is a very unique viewpoint, but my choice of words in that other comment didn’t communicate this point very well.

In the UK we're on aggregate definitely too uptight about nudity, but sex ... inhibition towards things like infidelity, promiscuity, fecundity, seems like a relatively good thing. Sex being the preserve of committed relationships is not a problem to fix to my view.

It sounds like you think we should basically be bonobos? Preoccupied with carnal interactions to the exclusion of all else?

I think the poster means that people are already too preoccupied with banning sex to the detriment of everything else. It leads to various perversions like normalization of violence through loopholes in the media. “Fantasy violence” is an amusing term.

Although to be fair, loli and some weird anime stuff generated by AI nowadays is on the opposite end of this spectrum.

Even before I learned about the horny branch of primates, as a teenager in the UK I thought it was very weird that media — games, films, TV shows, books, etc. — were all able to depict lethal violence to young audiences, while conversely consensual sex was something we could only witness when we were two years above the age of consent in the UK.

I think the comparison would be if google maps had a terms of service forbidding using it to plan getaway routes during bank robberies. Like yes bank robberies are wrong, but if someone did that the sin would not be with google maps.

Use Autopilot in a getaway and it's not on Tesla, but rest assured images of a robber hanging out a Tesla handling lane centering would be repeated ad-nauseum as "Tesla aids robbers in getaway!!!!"

Giving themselves an easy PR out like "the user broke our ToS in doing <insert bad thing>" is just being forward thinking

Yes. Obviously. How is that a question?

> Are you supposed to have an NSFW overlay?

Sounds like a reasonable way to comply with the condition.

> I might be hugely overthinking this.

I agree.

While this may work if you're selling the art electronically and provide the buyer with a set of terms to accept, this would be difficult if you're selling the work physically. For instance if I sell a postcard with SD art on it in a convenience store, the buyer won't be signing any contracts. However the buyer could display that postcard in a manner that is technically disinformation (e.g. going around telling people the picture on the postcard is a genuine photograph) and suddenly that becomes a license violation.