Submitted by hardmaru t3_z36n5j in MachineLearning
Comments
Architextitor t1_ixkpaqg wrote
“This application is too busy. Keep trying!”
Tried for a bit. Giving up now.
KeikakuAccelerator t1_ixkvaxh wrote
Cant wait to try it out! Does stability have some roadmaps for future projects and ways to get involved?
91o291o t1_ixm7kvv wrote
860 seconds, seems good :-D
my-sunrise t1_ixmlxfq wrote
They’ve specifically said they’re censoring the model here on Reddit multiple times. Not sure why'd you assume they wouldn’t considering the legal issues they’re facing.
Flag_Red t1_ixmnz5l wrote
The model is censored for NSFW content, they explain that clearly in the model cards on Huggingface.
Emad also confirmed a couple of hours ago on Discord that although most artist's styles weren't explicitly removed from the training set, they were never in the training set in the first place. The only reason v1 understood "Greg Rutkowski", etc. is because they were included in Clip's training set, which was trained by OpenAI. Finer control of what the model does and doesn't understand is the main reason they switched to a new text encoder.
OnlyInspector4654 t1_ixmxn3g wrote
i dont know
hadaev t1_ixn4rus wrote
>The model is censored for NSFW content
I mean not related to porn things like greg rudkowski prompt.
>is because they were included in Clip's training set
Basically what i said.
hadaev t1_ixn5o10 wrote
"accuse of censorship" was about worst artists styles prompts.
And gived how some artists whined about model, some peoples on stable diffusion subbredit started conspiracy about due "legal issues they’re facing" they removed (censored) some artists from data and gave us lobotomized model.
Which probably doesnt happened to my opinion, gived they said they changed text encoder.
Cheap_Meeting t1_ixn5wlc wrote
I'm not sure if that question was directed at you specifically.
sam__izdat t1_ixneldl wrote
> conspiracy about due "legal issues they’re facing"
No, they might be a bunch of mewling toddlers, but that's not a conspiracy theory. There was a lot of corporate and legislative pressure to remove objectionable content, so it appears they mostly removed human anatomy, weapons, certain contemporary artists, celebrity faces, etc. The problem with that, I expect, is that LAION's dataset is already just awful -- and you're cutting into some of the better data you have available.
sam__izdat t1_ixngavq wrote
> opensourced and become available in automatic1111
Those are two very different asks, since your gradio GUI is closed source.
The inference code and models are all available. You can clone it and run it right now, assuming they didn't break something critical for you by (apparently) only testing on A100s.
dualmindblade t1_ixngilt wrote
Automatic is open source tho
alphabet_order_bot t1_ixngjns wrote
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 1,187,562,160 comments, and only 231,720 of them were in alphabetical order.
sam__izdat t1_ixngzu2 wrote
It is not. It is closed source and all rights reserved, for each of its many willing (and some unwilling) contributors. It's also packed with MIT licensed code stripped of its license agreements, has a record of RCE exploits, and is managed by some kid from 4chan who used to make racist video game mods. Also, this is a machine learning subreddit, and not a tech support subreddit for end users who need a .bat file to set up a gradio GUI.
hadaev t1_ixnh0ro wrote
>so it appears they mostly removed human anatomy, weapons, certain contemporary artists, celebrity faces, etc.
Ah, appears.
How many data samples you tested for this conclusion?
sam__izdat t1_ixnhbrh wrote
I'm just going by what I've seen people try to produce and say, so far. I haven't done any extensive testing, partly because I'm using an ancient Tesla GPU and they broke FP32.
4name25 t1_ixnikga wrote
I run SD with R5 m330 :o
sam__izdat t1_ixnio4j wrote
Solidarity.
dualmindblade t1_ixnmhpm wrote
The code is and always has been free to clone from GitHub, project has been forked numerous times and has received contributions from tons of random devs, it's open source. What you mean is licensing hasn't been ironed out, maybe that's impossible, but open source is as open source does. Whether the project owner is a bad person is beside the point.
sam__izdat t1_ixnmvxi wrote
> What you mean is licensing hasn't been ironed out
No, what I mean is it is closed source, as in the exact opposite of open source, and packed with stolen, copyright-infringing code for which the owner has decided the license terms he agreed to do not need to be followed. The fact that the source is available, at the proprietor's discretion, while being plainly illegal to to use, copy, modify and distribute, makes no difference whatsoever. 37GB of Microsoft source code are also available, strictly speaking. That doesn't mean it's open source.
Here is what these words you are using actually mean:
"Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a LICENSE in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.[1][2] Open-source software may be developed in a collaborative public manner. Open-source software is a prominent example of open collaboration, meaning any capable user is able to participate online in development, making the number of possible contributors indefinite. The ability to examine the code facilitates public trust in the software."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
"Proprietary software, also known as non-free software or closed-source software, is computer software for which the software's publisher or another person reserves some licensing rights to use, modify, share modifications, or share the software, restricting user freedom with the software they lease. It is the opposite of open-source or free software."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software
"No License
When you make a creative work (which includes code), the work is under exclusive copyright by default. Unless you include a license that specifies otherwise, nobody else can copy, distribute, or modify your work without being at risk of take-downs, shake-downs, or litigation. Once the work has other contributors (each a copyright holder), “nobody” starts including you."
hadaev t1_ixnrhn4 wrote
Colab.
But yeah, usually such big models are tested on huge scales.
Some cherry picked comparisons with tens samples shows nothing.
dualmindblade t1_ixns4hk wrote
The comment posted would probably carry some legal weight and might count as an informal license, but that's beside the point, the common sense (and dictionary) definition of open source doesn't have anything to do with licensing, and it has nothing to do with the context of the conversation. Calling anything without a formal license "closed source" is intellectually dishonest since most anyone would assume that means the source isn't public and the creator wouldn't want you to modify and republish it.
sam__izdat t1_ixnshyo wrote
The common sense definition for people who write code is the programmer definition that we've been using for as long as the term had existed. When you have no idea what you're talking about, and don't know what the terms used in software development actually mean, I can see how your definition might be entirely different. That's called ignorance, and you fix that with education.
> Calling anything without a formal license "closed source" is intellectually dishonest
No, it is not, because that is literally what closed source means. The source code is closed. You are not allowed to modify it. You are not allowed to copy it. It is not yours to use, copy or tinker with. It belongs exclusively to someone else and doing anything to it without explicit written permission opens you and probably your employer to litigation.
Cheap_Meeting t1_ixnt905 wrote
This reads like an announcement for the release of a traditional piece of software. It would be nice if you could instead publish some metrics such as FID or ideally side-by-side human evaluation against SD 1.5 / DALLE-2.
One of the best things about the machine learning community is that we have been taking a rational metrics-driving approach. I hope that as ML gets more and more real-world use cases, and both open-source and commercial applications that are not tied to academic research become more prevalent, we don't lose that.
Brudaks t1_ixo9z32 wrote
Legally anything without a formal license is "all rights reserved". If you don't have explicit permission, the law requires you to assume that the creator wouldn't want you to modify and republish it. If the author never says anything, you're prohibited to use it until 70 years after they die.
Evoke_App t1_ixobtqa wrote
>This reads like an announcement for the release of a traditional piece of software
I think they're moving in that direction. From a recent post on the OG stable diffusion subreddit, someone said they were planning on releasing paid, closed-source models in the future.
I wouldn't be surprised if Stable Diffusion 3 was entirely closed source.
emad_9608 t1_ixogv0u wrote
FID scores are in the GitHub. Open models are good for fine tuning and inference business.
michael-relleum t1_ixyi1kt wrote
Great, thank you for all your contributions, good improvement! Still has problems with text though:
I wonder what would be needed to match Imagen from Google?
OnlyInspector4654 t1_ixzmsq2 wrote
me neither
hardmaru OP t1_ixkds7r wrote
Try it out here: https://huggingface.co/spaces/stabilityai/stable-diffusion