[HN Gopher] The 'Compact' Version of Stable Diffusion 3 Is Gener...
___________________________________________________________________
The 'Compact' Version of Stable Diffusion 3 Is Generating Monstrous
Human Bodies
Author : poopcat
Score : 36 points
Date : 2024-06-13 21:59 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.xatakaon.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.xatakaon.com)
| turtleyacht wrote:
| I've never seen a drawing book start from outside-in. We learn
| from the massed blocks, sketched curves, and mirrored
| proportions. The shapes, the skeleton, the muscles and skin.
| minimaxir wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40661990
| elpocko wrote:
| SD 1.5, on the the other hand, with the right checkpoints
| generates flawless human bodies. Older tech, much better results.
|
| Can finetuning fix this?
| haunter wrote:
| Thanks to the horseshoe [0] puritanism we will live in a safer
| world. It's all right, everything is all right, the struggle is
| finished.
|
| 0, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
| spacecadet wrote:
| Oh man do I mention Horseshoe alot... Its all extremism either
| way.
| margorczynski wrote:
| Just what I needed - some nightmare fuel before I go to sleep.
| But putting that aside - how is Stability still going? The VC
| money didn't dry out yet?
| tamimio wrote:
| Plot twist: This isn't monstrous; it's just how AI envisions our
| future!
| amanzi wrote:
| Even the good AI image generators struggle with details like
| fingers, and ear lobes, and other small but important details.
|
| Also, I found this quote interesting: "...Stability AI's
| insistence on censoring adult content from SD3's training data".
| Da Vinci figured this out hundreds of years ago, that to draw
| accurate pictures of humans, you need to understand the human
| body.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Yeah, it's especially ironic given how big a role nude
| modelling plays in art schools - it's fundamental to drawing,
| painting and sculpting.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I think the point is you need a naked human body - art classes
| use volunteers, midjourney presumably uses pornhub. I guess
| there is not a lot of naked human images out there that's not
| porn.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| I imagine if they filtered out just the bits with some action
| going on, they'd still have approximately infinite feed of
| naked human bodies in all possible poses, which would be
| unoffensive out of context (or at least less offensive), and
| would be equivalent to art classes models for the purpose of
| training.
| kergonath wrote:
| It really is not difficult to find breasts, bottoms and well
| proportioned limbs on the Internet. Even in underwear if you
| must because you're afraid of something.
| roenxi wrote:
| Although it'll be _fascinating_ to see how things like the
| finger situation change as we get models in common use that
| also handle video well. One thing that becomes obvious quickly
| with Stable Diffusion is that it doesn 't have a good concept
| of a 3D world model to work with; or any grasp of physics. It
| is practically impossible for a human artist with SD levels of
| competence to accidentally draw multiple limbs and that speaks
| to how it just doesn't get that humans are a 3D existence.
|
| Once video data is involved though it seems likely that will
| change. And I reckon a side effect is that a lot of the
| trickier details will improve. It'll be a great experiment to
| figure out whether the models also need lessons in anatomy or
| whether they figure it out through pure observation.
| lovethevoid wrote:
| Good AI image generators handle those details well already.
| Even if you don't get it 100%, you can inpaint fix very
| quickly.
|
| The current problem for them really isn't the details in
| isolation but rather cohesive details throughout the entire
| picture in one attempt. It's very lacking and requires a lot of
| manual input, filtering, reliance on multiple tools, etc.
| kergonath wrote:
| > Good AI image generators handle those details well already.
| Even if you don't get it 100%, you can inpaint fix very
| quickly.
|
| But that should not be the case. A human body is not more
| complicated than a horse's or a cat's, and those are usually
| much better. There really is a problem in our relation with
| our own bodies.
| snapcaster wrote:
| I do think we have much more sensitivity to deviations in
| human appearance. We probably wouldn't notice a lot of
| "weird looking" cats that other cats would
| kergonath wrote:
| And sometimes that body is nude. On one hand I hope that this
| will help some people understand that their standards of what
| is SFW or NSFW need to be adjusted. Also, why the hell are we
| using workplaces as a yard stick for what is acceptable in our
| private life? Why on earth is it a problem if kids see tits at
| home?
|
| Anyway, I hope standards will change in the US faster than the
| rest of the world finishes shifting to those utterly stupid
| standards.
| 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote:
| Has genAI for images hit an asymptote in the last year or so?
| Can't quite tell if things have gotten noticeably better since
| around when DALLE 3 was launched, it all looks about the same
| quality.
| elpocko wrote:
| Yeah, the mainstream stuff that you get to use while subjected
| to heavy surveillance and censorship is about the same. There's
| a whole universe underneath that, with no restrictions and
| basically unlimited creativity, if you have the required
| hardware.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| You might not like it, but this is what peak human performance
| looks like.
| philipov wrote:
| This is what AI creativity looks like.
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| AIs tend to do interesting things only by accident. But
| interesting accidents happen quite frequently.
|
| What SD3 has done here is "good art," as modernity defines the
| term: It's unique, it's technically adroit, and, most of all,
| it's shocking, thought provoking, unsettling. You can only
| wonder what went through the mind of the "artist" -- what it
| was trained on, how it attained such a strange result. This is
| at least gallery-tier if not worthy of MOMA, and I'm 100%
| serious about this.
| peterclary wrote:
| "I have no mouth and I must scream" territory.
| peterhi wrote:
| So they looked at this and said "ship it"?
| bitwize wrote:
| "Suppose you get a salamander. You know, a salamander can regrow
| its limbs if you cut them off. So all these nasty biology
| students do things like, they'll cut a limb of the salamander --
| a hand, the arm off, just between the shoulder and the elbow, and
| at the same time, cut the same one between the elbow and the
| hand, flip around that segment, and re-sew it back on. Nasty
| thing to do to a salamander. What do you think you get? Does
| anybody here know? What you get is three elbows. It grows two new
| elbows to make up for the fact that the wrong thing is connected
| to the wrong thing." --Gerald Sussman, "We Really Don't Know How
| To Compute!"
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB5TrK7A4pI&t=2m49s)
|
| These images look like someone spliced salamander regeneration
| DNA into a human, cut them into many pieces, and connected the
| wrong thing to the wrong thing all over the place. Maybe that's
| what the AI wants to do to us, AM style (I Have No Mouth and I
| Must Scream)?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-13 23:01 UTC)