[HN Gopher] Stable Diffusion 3 banned on CivitAI due to license
___________________________________________________________________
Stable Diffusion 3 banned on CivitAI due to license
Author : samspenc
Score : 33 points
Date : 2024-06-17 19:42 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (civitai.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (civitai.com)
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Should be banned on performance.
|
| It was obvious with how many times they said "SAFETY"
| (lobotomized) during their press releases and comments, but I'm
| still pretty surprised just how bad it is.
|
| If you haven't seen it, the first image is the now-iconic SD3
| unofficial picture.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/AIfreakout/comments/1dekkbz/why_is_...
|
| Luckily for open source and local running, Lumina and PixArt are
| catching up.
| artninja1988 wrote:
| To be fair, SDXL was really bad at launch too. Now people are
| comparing sd3 base model to fine tuned SDXL outputs... But
| yeah, I don't have much hope for stability now that the
| original diffusion team and even comfyanonymous all left. Long
| live Chinese OS models, I guess
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| SDXL had bad details but I could absolutely do people in
| poses other than standing up.
|
| While those grass laying images are iconic, Lykon (one of
| their employees) said on Discord "I don't know what people
| could possibly be promoting to get human blobs." I sent him
| the first image I did of "photo of a woman getting a massage
| on a massage table" or something like that and it's even
| worse. I went back and checked and while SDXL isn't great at
| it it's not a complete body horror unlike SD3.
|
| People have noticed that SD3 is way better at posing Barbies
| than people, so it's pretty clear they screwed it up in the
| name of safety.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I'm fairly confident anyone thinking this is about safety is
| just paranoid and misinformed.
|
| SD3 medium is a much smaller model than SDXL. I don't really
| get why they would have published it in the current state, but
| I'm kind of certain that the full sized versions will be
| absolutely fine. You don't need pornography in the training set
| to understand basic human, non-genital anatomy.
|
| Small model LLMs are hot garbage too.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Comfy seemed to be saying they deliberately manipulated the
| weights to basically sabotage anything remotely erotic.
| DrSiemer wrote:
| The model can effortlessly create a highly realistic and
| anatomically correct photograph of a koala riding a
| motorcycle, but begins to produce crazy body horror as soon
| as a human shape is involved. It's neutered.
|
| Artist styles are aggressively scrubbed out as well. It has
| no idea what a Picasso or Dali style is, even though there
| must be plenty of derivative work in the trainingdata, that
| should have taught it what those styles are even with all the
| original works removed.
|
| It can do the Mona Lisa, but the face itself will become
| comically chunky, almost as if it is censoring itself by
| consciously turning "forbidden" content into something that
| is definitely not that.
| jsheard wrote:
| > we are temporarily banning [...] all models or LoRAs trained on
| content created with outputs from SD3 based models.
|
| Again we see this bizarre standard where the licensing of AI
| model output is taken more seriously than the licensing of any
| other type of training data. CivitAI is absolutely filled with
| LoRAs trained on the work of artists who refuse to license it for
| that purpose, but only LoRAs based on the output of an AI model
| with a restrictive license are over the line apparently?
|
| It's a similar story with LLMs, e.g. OpenAI scooping up
| unlicensed data to train their models, but then turning around
| and proclaiming that the license of ChatGPTs output forbids using
| it to train a competing model. The license of data used for
| training either matters or it doesn't, you can't have it both
| ways.
| artninja1988 wrote:
| I wonder if it's enforceable, since model output isnt
| copyrighted. At least in the US
| dwallin wrote:
| (IANAL) Assuming it's not a copyright violation, just a
| contract violation, if you get access to the model weights
| without entering said contract you could make a strong case
| that none of the restrictions apply to you. However, as far
| as I can tell this is not settled case law, and the entities
| distributing these model weights are definitely hoping for
| them to qualify for some level of copyright protection.
| However, even if thats the case, the resulting images are not
| currently subject to copyright in the US, and can be used
| freely by non-parties. Even if that changes down the line,
| these images would almost certainly be considered derivative
| works from the model, and these models already assume that
| training is fair use anyway.
| razodactyl wrote:
| What happens when output licensing is enforced. Will be a
| shitstorm no?
| ilaksh wrote:
| Right, I think that's really the concern. People may care
| about artists in an abstract way, but the only thing that
| they are practically concerned about when it comes down to
| it, is what has a strong chance of causing significant legal
| or other real world issues for them.
|
| It's also partly a reaction to the whole episode and what
| everyone is saying. Everyone is laying one on SD3 right now.
| It's what you do. Not that they didn't earn it.
|
| But since everyone is talking about it, that must have at
| least got them thinking. It isn't good, there are
| alternatives, company with questionable actions that seem
| about collecting fees from the model. Makes sense to just
| avoid it. PixArt and Lumina should get more attention anyway.
|
| I keep hearing about closed source diffusion transformer
| projects. I hope we will see more open source like Lumina.
| killingtime74 wrote:
| Output licensing is not enforceable currently. Only humans
| can produce copyright-able content. Haven't heard a single
| country that has changed this.
| cma wrote:
| Ok to train on human outputs but not model outputs?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-17 23:02 UTC)