[HN Gopher] Draw Anything - A Simple Stable Diffusion Playground
___________________________________________________________________
Draw Anything - A Simple Stable Diffusion Playground
Author : kierangill
Score : 143 points
Date : 2022-09-05 17:16 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.drawanything.app)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.drawanything.app)
| UmbertoNoEco wrote:
| with literally hundreds of competitors popping up daily you
| cannot afford to have an overly sensitive nsfw filter; right now
| this tool is almost useless
| darepublic wrote:
| After clicking generate on the sample prompt getting NSFW
| warning.
| dzek69 wrote:
| angry face gave me nsfw warning, i tried again without changing
| anything (as suggested) and i got this:
|
| https://i.vgy.me/VEYd13.png
|
| omg i laughed so loud :D
|
| so realistic, Leonardo would be proud :D
| murphyslab wrote:
| It worked for me. Here's the output with a "stupefied"
| expression:
|
| https://i.vgy.me/OvbtNs.png
| russellbeattie wrote:
| OP, looks good. I'm on a tablet - being able to zoom in so I can
| use my pen would be nice. (Unless I'm missing something).
| Hard_Space wrote:
| Pretty much everything you can put in is marked NSFW. Unusable.
| darepublic wrote:
| I want to generate pictures of myself living laughing and loving
| life for a dating profile. Which model will let me do that?
| andai wrote:
| DALLE detects realistic faces in input and refuses to proceed,
| but if you erase the face it will happily generate a new one in
| its place.
| alpineidyll3 wrote:
| Well done little app. I assume it's a project for funsies?
| source?
| kierangill wrote:
| For fun! It was my Labour Day weekend hack. Source is gross.
| I'm going to keep it off my Github for now. But it's not hard
| to build from scratch.
|
| Tech:
|
| SvelteKit
|
| Supabase
|
| Replicate
|
| Fabric JS/TLDraw
| alpineidyll3 wrote:
| Eh, I think everyone respects hacks :) Cheers anyhow .
| donatj wrote:
| Why do all of these tools block everything NSFW?
|
| What I want more than anything is to see what kind of horrifying
| H.R. Geiger imagery these things can come up with.
| FloatArtifact wrote:
| > Why do all of these tools block everything NSFW?
|
| > What I want more than anything is to see what kind of
| horrifying H.R. Geiger imagery these things can come up with.
|
| Why does Google have a safe mode? Sorry, people should have the
| option for unwanted content.
|
| I would like to show these projects off to friends and co-
| workers without the risk of generating explicit content.
|
| These generators need settings to toggle such behavior.
| donatj wrote:
| The great part about safe mode is that you can turn it off.
| I'm an adult, I don't want what I see filtered for my own
| good.
| yreg wrote:
| As a central european I don't see what would be bad about
| showing my friends or co-workers a tool like this and
| accidentally producing NSFW results. If anything, we would
| find it funny.
|
| This comment is not an argument, just a cultural exchange. I
| appreciate your feelings too and of course an option to
| toggle the filter is always the best.
| pwinnski wrote:
| SD had a single user show up and discover how good the model
| was at generating gore, and suddenly many, many users showed up
| to generate gory pictures, and every channel was filled with
| gory pictures until they put in overly-broad keyword filters to
| stem the flood.
|
| They've been _really_ open about why they 're doing what
| they're doing on the regularly weekly "office hours" Discord
| audio chats.
| yreg wrote:
| https://dezgo.com/ doesn't.
|
| Only the author knows their reasons for this specific case, but
| in general it seems internet services tend to follow american
| conservative views on nudity. I mean why is it strictly
| forbidden to post a topless photo on almost any mainstream
| social network again?
|
| Another reason is liability, in case the model truly happens to
| generate something that might be illegal in author's
| jurisdiction and they are afraid of ever so shortly storing the
| image on their server.
| bioemerl wrote:
| This is just something you have to accept, because if these
| sites did not block not safe for work content everyone using
| them would almost immediately start using it to generate nude
| images of the people they know in real life and other very
| scummy things.
|
| In the long run this is something we're just going to have to
| learn to deal with as a society, here is a new power we have
| and it's not going back in the bottle.
|
| But in the short run having these filters is a good way to slow
| down the inevitable and give us a little bit more time to adapt
| to this new reality.
|
| In the meantime, you can run it yourself and I think that's a
| perfectly fine compromise.
| jstanley wrote:
| > everyone using them would almost immediately start using it
| to generate nude images of the people they know in real life
| and other very scummy things.
|
| Even if this were true, I don't see what is scummy about it.
| Is it scummy for you to _imagine_ people naked? If it 's not
| scummy for you to do it, why is it scummy for you to use a
| computer to do it?
|
| It's not like you're getting actual photographs. It's all
| made up.
| ben_w wrote:
| Imagination (in the sense of "mind images" not creativity)
| is not universal, and even those with the capacity, the
| image is usually less distinct than a real image would be.
|
| Plus, people in general find images convincing: In some
| cases you can even get people to believe impossible things,
| like meeting Bugs Bunny at Disney World as a kid if you
| give them a photoshopped picture of it.
| bioemerl wrote:
| The scummy part is that they are physical concrete images
| that you can share with other people. Imagination cannot
| escape your head, but these images can.
|
| The threat is somewhat unique from something like Photoshop
| as well, because the barrier to entry is much much lower
| quality can be much much higher.
|
| Right now, at this transfer point, having nude images of
| yourself all over the internet when you did no such picture
| taking is going to be really tragic and infuriating and
| frustrating and harmful.
|
| I kind of agree with you, it doesn't necessarily hurt
| anyone, but this is something we're going to have to adapt
| and learn how to deal with, not something we can just be
| reckless with.
| yreg wrote:
| >The threat is somewhat unique from something like
| Photoshop as well, because the barrier to entry is much
| much lower quality can be much much higher.
|
| I disagree. The quality in an image editor would be much
| much higher and more consistent. The barrier to entry of
| using an image editor in such a way is very low. The
| barrier to entry to fine tune a model to someone you know
| is very high.
|
| I agree with the rest of what you say.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| You can download the source and run it locally (or in Google
| Colab for a few bucks) if that's what you wanted to do. The
| nsfw filter is one function call you can short-circuit with a
| 'return False'.
|
| I think the bigger issue is liability for these companies
| because they have to host the images in order to generate and
| display them. There's probably an argument that they can do
| this without liability, but that's an argument for an
| expensive lawyer to make, which they probably don't want to
| pay for.
| kristopolous wrote:
| So. That's. How. You. Make. Money. With. It
| ben_w wrote:
| You say that like we _should_.
| [deleted]
| davikr wrote:
| "This is not Ok!" - Google, OpenAI
| kierangill wrote:
| I posted this as a reply but I'll surface it again:
|
| This was my Labour Day weekend hack. Source is gross. I'm going
| to keep it off my Github for now. But it's not hard to build from
| scratch.
|
| Tech:
|
| SvelteKit
|
| Supabase
|
| Replicate
|
| Fabric JS/TLDraw
|
| I did not intend for this to drain my wallet so I may start
| limiting requests to authenticated users.
|
| I'm going to be posting updates on my Twitter[0].
|
| [0]: https://twitter.com/KieranGilliam
| yreg wrote:
| I'm a bit sorry that we are all complaining about the filter.
|
| Other than that, both the idea and the app is pretty neat,
| congratulations!
| purim wrote:
| wow i changed the "baby's expression is happy" and it refused to
| dream because its NSFW?
|
| so I changed it to man and it generated something totally random
| and unrelated.
|
| I'm not sure that this stable diffusion tool can replace
| illustrators in this current state but more of a tool they can
| utilize or not.
| najarvg wrote:
| yes "happy" "gleeful" "joyful" everything was NSFW with "baby"
| but replacing "baby" with "infant" works fine is what I
| observed
| timolins wrote:
| You can make a killer party-game out of this.
|
| Like Drawful [1] or Quickplash [2], but enhanced by AI. Everyone
| gets a task and has to come up with the best prompt or drawing.
|
| I feel like this would be fun so play, even if you can't draw.
|
| [1] https://www.jackboxgames.com/drawful-two/
|
| [2] https://www.jackboxgames.com/quiplash/
| spuz wrote:
| I can't seem to generate anything other than a blank image. Any
| suggestions?
| biztos wrote:
| Not to pile on to the NSFW complaint, or maybe yes, I found this
| one pretty funny (SFW):
|
| https://imgur.com/a/GXaf9kH
|
| But yeah, bounce. I think this will be a big enough factor in the
| "AI" thing that whoever comes up with a filter combo to just not
| generate things Americans fear, regardless of the input, will win
| big.
| parksy wrote:
| I used the default inputs and got an NSFW detected warning on my
| first try.
| bot41 wrote:
| "Disgusted" gave a NSFW error. "Horrified" worked but the result
| was awful.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| Horrified gave me a NSFW error
| leobg wrote:
| I'm getting NSFW warning. On the sample prompt provided by the
| app itself:
|
| > Photo realistic oil painting of a baby wearing a bib sitting at
| a wooden table in front of an egg. Painting by Leonardo da Vinci
| in the style tof mona lisa (1519). The baby has a Laughing
| expression. Medium shot with a tilted frame. The person is to the
| left of the table. Warm lighting. Photorealism.
| simlevesque wrote:
| Same for me. I don't even understand what could be detected as
| NSFW
| m00dy wrote:
| I think he false-flagged the script.
| [deleted]
| frx wrote:
| Seems to be the word "baby". It worked for me after removing
| it.
| danbst wrote:
| remove word egg
| eruci wrote:
| Same for me. Got an NSFW warning for "A ten year old boy
| daydreaming"
| leobg wrote:
| If what the model wanted to generate based on that prompt is
| considered not safe for work, you know what the training data
| must've been like...
| capableweb wrote:
| The prompt "A ten year old boy daydreaming" is a bit
| haunted, as it's not specific enough to generate good
| results.
|
| But the results from running that does not result in NSFW
| content, contrary to what you say. Most of these NSFW
| "blockers" simply act on keywords like "ten year old boy"
| rather than trying to understand the output.
|
| Here is 9 images of the prompt "A ten year old boy
| daydreaming" with various settings. None of them are good
| (bad prompt + no tuning on my side), but none of them are
| NSFW either: https://imgur.com/a/FcBv05w
|
| (slightly off-topic, seems there is a lot of misinformation
| in this thread, from misunderstanding the training data, to
| how the NSFW content block some platforms are implementing
| works)
| phonescreen_man wrote:
| That's a dark thought right there.
| m00dy wrote:
| same for me.
|
| "a river between mountains"
| keerthiko wrote:
| well that one makes more sense than some of these others...
| avocado2 wrote:
| zipotm wrote:
| "smiling sun above fairy mountain"
|
| Could not generate: NSFW content detected, please try a different
| prompt
| mach1ne wrote:
| For me it complains about NSFW when I ask a smirking expression
| on the face of the example prompt. I wonder if this is using some
| special NSFW filter?
| jamil7 wrote:
| Just prompt it again, did that for me every once in a while
| too.
| kierangill wrote:
| I'm using replicate as the AI backend. They're the ones that
| are flagging the content. There's probably some tuning that I
| can do but I haven't dug into it.
|
| You'll have to retry, rephrase, or edit the image to get past
| that.
| avocado2 wrote:
| fragmede wrote:
| The NSFW filter is in the stable-diffusion library you're
| calling. Disable the line that sets _image,
| has_nsfw_concept_ in _image2image.py_ , (or whatever your
| code calling the library looks like).
| wrthfl wrote:
| Same for me. Pretty much any prompt I tried produced a nsfw
| error...
| jakear wrote:
| It marks it NSFW about half the time with 100% stock input for
| me.
| capableweb wrote:
| I don't understand how these various AI companies even try to
| filter NSFW content. The world contains NSFW, trying to avoid
| it by "filtering" is a effort not worth taking, the undertaking
| is huge and filled with pitfalls and false-positives.
| comboy wrote:
| Serving child pornography would be a "pretty bad marketing
| move" and people are able to see clear picture of Jesus in
| damaged building elevation.
|
| (it kind of sucks because assuming you can't eliminate
| pedophiles, fake content could be something that minimizes
| their damage)
|
| I wonder how we will get around this one. Or do we get stuck
| and human artists will start only creating NSFW art? ;)
| michaelmior wrote:
| > fake content could be something that minimizes their
| damage
|
| I don't claim to have any knowledge in the subject area,
| but it seems plausible that feeding habits of those who
| enjoy child pornography could instead embolden them to
| commit actions they would not have otherwise. At the very
| least, this seems like something to approach with extreme
| caution.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| > At the very least, this seems like something to
| approach with extreme caution.
|
| Like you, I'm not overly informed on the factual question
| here, but I don't understand why you think banning the
| content is somehow the cautious course of action.
|
| The heuristics for which action is the "cautious" one is
| usually some combination of:
|
| a) which outcome is less likely to be harmful b) which
| outcome is more passive (ie primum non nocere) c) which
| outcome is more predictable (eg the status quo)
|
| It seems to me that bans fail on the first two counts[1]
| and squeak by on the third. Even this status quo argument
| is weakened by how new these bans are, and by the many
| contemporary countries in which fictionalized CP is
| legal.
|
| [1] In the former case, this is based on the practically
| universal consensus that sexual preferences, even
| dangerous and deviant ones, are burned deeply into one's
| psyche and can't simply be ignored through lack of
| exposure. This view was most famously one of the
| strongest pillars of the successful iteration of the gay
| rights movement, and is why we consider conversion
| therapy to be horrific. One can make the claim that this
| factual claim only applies to gender preferences, but
| that seems quite an extraordinary claim.
| michaelmior wrote:
| > I don't understand why you think banning the content is
| somehow the cautious course of action.
|
| I didn't intend to say that I think banning is the
| cautious course of action. My point was that the decision
| to ban or not ban should be approached carefully.
| saynay wrote:
| The reason I saw mentioned is that NSFW content was so
| prevalent in their training set that, if they did not
| explicitly exclude it, it was actually difficult for it to
| NOT produce NSFW results even from normal inputs. For
| example, if you ask for anything with a woman in it, it would
| probably give you a naked woman in the results.
| parhamn wrote:
| This exact example made me wonder how the 'bias' situation
| will ever be worked around (besides training the model to
| an individuals preexisting biases).
|
| What should the picture of a 'woman' on wikipedia be?
| Should they be clothed? In western clothing? What skin
| color? Age? Surely everyone imagines something slightly
| different when they think 'woman'.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| Yeah, for starters one should at least try to provide a
| coherent operational definition of "bias".
| ben_w wrote:
| At the time of writing, it's this: https://commons.m.wiki
| media.org/wiki/File:Woman_at_Lover%27s...
|
| Which is close to what I would've guessed by picking a
| high population density area, and a likely location and
| candidate for a decent portait photo on a wildly popular
| wiki.
|
| Still not sure why the top was edited from red to grey.
| andai wrote:
| Well if you ask for just a woman you're going to get just
| the woman!
| yreg wrote:
| No, if you ask SD without a filter for a woman, it won't
| probably give you a naked woman. It is actually rather
| rare, but I don't see what's so horrible when it _does_
| happen.
|
| When you go to a gallery you will see a lot of naked
| people. It's not a big deal.
| pwinnski wrote:
| "Beautiful woman" gives you nudity roughly 90% of the
| time.
|
| In a recent open office hours, they basically said that
| without the filters, everything quickly becomes overrun
| with either gore or things that verge on porn, because it
| only takes a small fraction users to flood every
| available space.
|
| In the meantime, they've watched the gender demographics
| on periodic user surveys tilt dramatically toward men
| more recently, and they're concerned this might be one
| factor in that.
|
| There are a billion different ways to generate porn
| images, and billions of porn images already existing.
| They'd rather SD not be a source of more.
| yreg wrote:
| >"Beautiful woman" gives you nudity roughly 90% of the
| time.
|
| This is simply not factual. I've just tried `Beautiful
| woman` 64 times on Stable Diffusion v1.4:
|
| - 0 results were fully nude
|
| - 8 results were topless and sexually explicit (I counted
| pictures without nipples as well)
|
| - 2 results were topless with breasts covered by hands in
| a facebook friendly way
|
| 12.5% is very far from 90%. Even then, what kind of a
| prompt is that anyway? The only attribute you give to the
| subject is sexualizing her. More descriptive prompts
| would contain even less nudity.
|
| >They'd rather SD not be a source of more.
|
| This isn't what their founder says[0]. Anyway it doesn't
| matter since SD already released with an easy to disable
| filter. We are not talking about whether SD should
| include an optional filter (I agree it should), but
| whether other apps built on top of it should have a non-
| optional filter.
|
| [0] -
| https://twitter.com/EMostaque/status/1562200385401499650
| numpad0 wrote:
| Are those surveys self-reported/verified or algorithmic
| assumptions? I feel like a lot of algorithms and
| criticisms assume default/normal/non-characteristic
| person as men, and are wrong because of that.
| wswope wrote:
| YMMV - I've been fuzzing permutations of various prompt
| phrases to come up with some art for a female D&D
| character. "Temptress", "seductress", "dominatrix", and
| "femme fatale" are on my list of 22 phrases, and I'm only
| getting ~30% NSFW outputs - pretty much all of which are
| just weirdly suggestive curves in random places, vaguely
| phallic silhouettes, and artsy breast shapes.
|
| Probably not stuff that should be shown to kids, but in
| the >1k samples I've run so far, I've yet to see anything
| jarring.
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| I use SD with no filter and I wouldn't say it's rare. I
| do think some words trigger it more often than others.
| For example, I've seen a prompt with "beautiful" turn up
| half the results with nudity, whereas removing the word I
| got no nudity.
| yreg wrote:
| `Beautiful` is already pushing the model toward
| sexualizing her, I mean the subject is going to be
| beautiful by default since the model was trained on LAION
| Aesthetics.
|
| But yes, `a beautiful woman` is a fairly innocent prompt.
| My experience (also using SD without the filter all the
| time) is that the model very rarely produces sexual
| results unless intentionally pushed that way. Perhaps our
| mileages vary.
| lbotos wrote:
| Sure, and there is a spectrum of
|
| - naked because that's the default human
|
| - naked and posed in a way that is artistically beautiful
|
| - naked and posed in a way that is sexually provocative
|
| SD is convinced past a certain threshold of flesh-colored
| space that it could fall into the sexually proactive
| group so they err on the side of caution. I'm not mad at
| them for defaulting to that. If you want to push past the
| default filter it's easy enough to remove. Seems sensible
| to me when the training set does include a lot of literal
| pornography.
| yreg wrote:
| I have yet to see an innocent prompt that results in a
| naked person posed in a sexually provocative way, but if
| someone discovered one, please post it along with a seed.
|
| I don't fault SD for having a simply removable filter. I
| was ranting about the applications built on top of stable
| diffusion that force the filter to be engaged.
|
| (But of course everyone is free to create the software
| they wish, I'm not entitled to complain it should work
| differently.)
| lancesells wrote:
| Galleries aren't typically capable or in the business of
| producing millions of "naked pictures of celebrity x"?
| The body should be normalized but let's not think these
| tools used en masse will have that effect.
| yreg wrote:
| Should all the photo editors add a mandatory NSFW filter
| as well? How is this different?
|
| https://pixlr.com/ is far better suited for producing
| naked picture of celebrity x than
| https://www.drawanything.app/
| napier wrote:
| The LAION-5B dataset was curated by researchers at
| Heidelberg University, and while it was filtered for nsfw
| content, the human form is less of an issue in much of
| Europe compared to views and attitudes in the US.
| numpad0 wrote:
| "Person" is enough and SD knows that. No need to put gender
| as foundation of identity.
| skocznymroczny wrote:
| I think they are aware they can't filter it, they just don't
| want to be the first company with a large scandal because of
| e.g. some celebrity/politician deepfakes going mainstream.
| vincnetas wrote:
| They are already late to the party. Remember, we have
| faceswap, so you wont surprise anyone with celebrity porn
| pictures.
| skybrian wrote:
| Doesn't matter, they will still be blamed. Anything bad
| that big tech does becomes a story because it's them
| doing it. A startup might not be noticed at first, but it
| can be blamed on "a Silicon Valley startup."
| wutbrodo wrote:
| They're responding to a hysterical, Luddite portion of the
| public that would make them pay a PR cost if they didn't at
| least make a sloppy attempt at "safety". It's idiotic and
| futile, but blessedly short-lived.
|
| Thanks to the miracle of open-source, it took me about 20
| minutes yesterday to get Stable Diffusion up and running on
| my laptop's CPU, with no content filter. SD inference has low
| enough compute needs that using cloud GPU compute is cheap as
| hell (for now, perhaps), and discrete GPUs aren't that
| expensive in the grand scheme of things.
|
| Ultimately, reality often does win. It's just not a stable
| equilibrium for companies to continue these laughable
| attempts at "filtering", any more than physical media formats
| were able to withstand the arrival of digital formats in the
| presence of piracy. Combine this with the cultural headwinds
| against the influence of mentally-ill hysterics on social
| media, and I don't expect the current level of filtering to
| last very long.
| TakeBlaster16 wrote:
| I got the same warning for "hollow earth". I guess conspiracy
| theories are also NSFW? https://i.imgur.com/oJR84Hd.png
| [deleted]
| seydor wrote:
| yeeah it seems maybe 'baby' triggers the nsfw filter?
| waynesonfire wrote:
| broken for me too. wouldn't render a smiley face. "draw
| anything" is misleading.
| andai wrote:
| smiling forest: ok
|
| smiling forest, photorealism: nsfw detected
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-05 23:02 UTC)