[HN Gopher] StabilityAI releases Stable Diffusion 3.5
___________________________________________________________________
StabilityAI releases Stable Diffusion 3.5
Author : s-gonzales
Score : 61 points
Date : 2024-10-22 20:00 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tomsguide.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tomsguide.com)
| mvdtnz wrote:
| > Prompt: a brave explorer standing on the edge of a massive
| waterfall, overlooking a vast, untouched jungle. The explorer is
| wearing a worn leather jacket and carrying an old map, as the
| mist from the waterfall rises around them. A glowing golden
| temple is barely visible in the distance, hidden among the trees.
|
| Result: an explorer not standing on the edge of a waterfall, but
| instead a physically impossible waterfall in the distance. A
| glowing temple is very very very visible, totally unhidden by any
| trees.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| It looks good and all but it won't past any visual tests when you
| go more than 10 seconds vs even hobbyist vids. There is still a
| big gap if it does longer durations
| Kovah wrote:
| It's offtopic, but I hate articles which talk about a very
| specific thing and put dozens of links into the text, but none
| links to the actual product or company.
| renewiltord wrote:
| That's to reduce bounce rate and keep you on the page for the
| ads. Notice that all the hyperlinks are same domain. Yes, it's
| annoying.
| leshokunin wrote:
| I noticed the last few months that in several subreddits that
| have nothing to do with tech, the sentiment had shifted very
| negatively regarding AI art. Some subs straight up ban those
| images. No reason given.
|
| It seems the mainstream view is grounded in anxiety and dislike
| for tech. This isn't shared by my friends who enjoy tech at all.
|
| Have others here been experiencing this?
| mikhailt wrote:
| It is not solely due to dislike of tech but rather the
| copyrights being violated and artists losing revenue to it.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| > It seems the mainstream view is grounded in anxiety and
| dislike for tech.
|
| No, you're barking up the wrong tree here. I love tech, I work
| in the industry and intend to continue to do so. I hate AI art
| because it's just bad. It's awful. AI produces images that
| don't make physical sense, have a weird glossy "digital art"
| sheen and most of all have zero artistic merit. I only want to
| see art (and read text) produced by human beings.
| llm_trw wrote:
| >I hate AI art because it's just bad. It's awful. AI produces
| images that don't make physical sense
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Persistence_of_Memory
| dmarcos wrote:
| AI is just a tool in the box for humans to take advantage of.
| You can do bad and good stuff with it (most art is bad
| regardless of the tool). This is my fav video series that
| heavily uses AI tools (images, video, audio, lip sync):
|
| https://x.com/neuralviz/status/1848176393282326595
|
| I enjoy it and I think has tons of artistic merit
| ben_w wrote:
| > AI produces images that don't make physical sense
|
| _Der Kuss_ is an oil-on-canvas painting with added gold
| leaf, silver and platinum. It is widely praised and held in
| high regard.
|
| To me, it looks like the man has a broken neck, and the
| woman's been decapitated, her head rotated 90deg and
| reattached to her torso by the ear.
|
| This isn't to say that AI art is flawless on the first go --
| just that quite a lot of famous "good" art has exactly that
| specific flaw too.
|
| Even though GenAI is getting better, and even though
| competent users know how to work around this with the right
| kinds of effort, normal people don't study the thing they
| want to get an image of before asking an AI to make it for
| them, and therefore will generally fail to notice when the
| image they've just made is still very wrong at at least one
| entire layer of abstraction about how the things it's
| depicting function or relate to each other.
| renewiltord wrote:
| It's just a young audience. They've always been very
| impressionable. When the iPad came out Reddit was all about
| "This is it? More like MaxiPad, amirite?! Lol what a marketing
| idiot" and "it's just 4 iPhones taped together lol" etc. etc.
|
| Online commenters are frequently not very different from an
| army of LLMs talking to each other. They get stuck on a few
| points and keep repeating them.
|
| You can pay attention to them if you like, but take a quick
| stop on /r/relationshipadvice or /r/amitheasshole and you'll
| find out what the audience actually is. And then you can ask
| yourself: does these people's opinion matter to me? Do I want
| to be like them?
| hooverd wrote:
| Good. Every time I see AI "art" it's just someone with the
| worst taste spewing their slop everywhere. It drowns out
| actually good art.
| llm_trw wrote:
| The people who can are leaving the internet and moving to using
| AI models. The people left are the ones who don't know how, or
| have a bone to pick with them.
|
| As an example I've not had to use google for a knowledge search
| in months now. Perplexity is much better, both for a summary of
| what I'm looking for, and for finding non-garbage links.
| ubercow13 wrote:
| So you use it to get links back to the internet. I expect the
| non-garbage links part won't last long, in the AI age.
| llm_trw wrote:
| The part of the internet that was not-garbage was always
| the part run by volunteers. Screening the number of people
| who visit those sites preserves them since the volunteers
| don't need to interact with the self entitled masses.
|
| That clickfarms will die is no great loss.
| Maken wrote:
| I am seriously concerned about who will generate new
| content when everyone is interacting with the internet
| with AI crawlers.
| lancesells wrote:
| > Perplexity is much better, both for a summary of what I'm
| looking for, and for finding non-garbage links.
|
| So AI can summarize the news for you. But how does it do it?
| It steals the news from actual people and organizations.
| We're all selfish beings who want to save time and/or effort
| but what do you think happens to Perplexity if it had no
| access to news organizations? What's the end outcome here?
| scotty79 wrote:
| By this logic if you are commenting on anything you haven't
| paid for you are stealing. Even if it's published openly on
| the Internet and you don't have to pay to access it.
|
| Did you pay for all the content you used to create your
| comment? If not how did you dare to write it and publish
| it?
|
| You've stolen the fraction of their income because after
| reading your comment I don't need to go read your source if
| I'm only interested in information you stolen and shared.
|
| What if you cause the demise of those sources with your
| (and your copycats) shameless theft?
|
| This is silly. Technology evolves all the time. Things die
| and they should die. Other arise in their place to fill the
| gap.
| vunderba wrote:
| Ongoing copyright issues notwithstanding, it's because 99% of
| the mainstream usage of generative art, generative music,
| generative LLMs is noise. And sure, noise existed before but
| things like Suno and Midjourney amplify the issue by an
| exponential factor.
|
| It crowds out the people who genuinely devote thought, skill
| and time into their creations.
| jsheard wrote:
| Particularly on platforms like Reddit, to OPs point about the
| sentiment on there, because they're so prone to being
| overwhelmed by low quality AI content if it's not kept under
| control (which usually means the subreddit banning AI posts
| with no exceptions). Ranking systems like Reddits require
| user engagement to work, and most users don't want to engage
| with a never-ending firehose of MidJourney slop.
| notahacker wrote:
| The tendency for people to spam AI images in contexts
| devoted to sharing images of real stuff is particularly
| irritating.
| jsheard wrote:
| Yep, subreddits like /r/cosplay had to add rules strictly
| banning AI images despite it being _blatantly obvious_
| that they 're against the whole point of the sub. People
| spam AI anyway unless the moderators intervene to delete
| it and ban repeat offenders.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Art has been an extremely saturated field even before
| transformers showed up.
| Havoc wrote:
| >sentiment had shifted very negatively regarding AI art.
|
| See the drama around the baby peacock search. The results were
| not only AI filled but objectively entirely wrong. I'd link you
| to said drama but I literally can't find it because search is
| just picking up an echo chamber of AI. Which in a way is pretty
| meta commentary in itself.
|
| I appreciate the ability to generate images of whatever I want.
| I don't like the way it's messing with perception of reality in
| a world which we view largely through screens.
|
| >dislike for tech. This isn't shared by my friends who enjoy
| tech at all.
|
| Are they in tech or in the creative space. People I know in
| creative spaces are anxious while those in the tech space tend
| to be mixed (doomer vs AI utopia split)
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Publications have had a very negative tilt since GPT4 showed
| up. It's no surprise since LLM's are clearly an existential
| threat to them.
|
| Transformers are also a very real existential threat to
| artists, as the vast majority can only ever have a decent
| career "working for the man", which is ultimately run by
| business people who could care less about AI generated material
| if it dramatically reduces cost while being effectively
| identical.
| kredd wrote:
| Eh, different bubbles of people I think. My tech-loving friends
| (including me), aren't fan of AI art because how low effort
| everything is. Some funny memes, but even then you get used to
| them and move on. It was definitely "cool" when it came out,
| but if it's simple still images, icons, and etc., they're kinda
| meh, at least for me. What Adobe did with the rotation tool is
| pretty cool, and if we start seeing effects of such AI art,
| that would be a bit different. But again, it has to be used in
| a specific way to inspire anyone.
|
| I'm actually curious what the people around you find cool about
| AI art. Nothing has "awed" me in the past 16 months, I would
| say.
| ben_w wrote:
| Yeah, in some places it gets dismissed as "low effort posts".
| Even if they otherwise accept scribbles on lined paper by
| people who clearly don't have so much as high-school art.
| 123yawaworht456 wrote:
| reddit moderators and power users are terminally online,
| mentally and emotionally unstable people with strong (but
| invariably aligned with the establishment) opinions about the
| current thing, who act like political commissars and believe
| themselves to be the arbiters of truth.
|
| what you see on there are not mainstream views, but the views
| of a tiny but undeservingly powerful minority. dissidents,
| detractors and apostates get silenced with extreme prejudice,
| threads where thousands of people disagree with their views get
| locked and purged, neutral subreddits get hijacked and opposing
| subreddits get targeted with infiltration and mass report
| campaigns by the likes of /r/againsthatesubreddits.
|
| in other words, the views you see on reddit are a very, very,
| very poor indicator of real public opinions about a current
| thing like generative AI.
| 93po wrote:
| the unfortunate reality is that those people _are_ mainstream
| views - they share the same views as mainstream media, which
| is owned by billionaires and supporting political
| establishment. reddit absolutely hates anything an inch to
| the left or right of establishment democrats, which is really
| extremely moderate to conservative in a global context.
| MattRix wrote:
| The vast majority of people I know who dislike AI art
| (including myself) are people who love tech, but hate how this
| tech has been trained on the art of human artists without
| credit or compensation... and then on top of that it's being
| used to replace those artists and reduce their job prospects!
| It's easy to see why this sucks if you take a step back.
| xnx wrote:
| Does Stable Diffusion 3.5 make Stable Diffusion 3 obsolete?
|
| There are quite a few different versions (SD1.5, XL, XL Turbo,
| SD3) of Stable Diffusion still in use because the newer ones
| didn't definitively supersede previous versions.
| ilaksh wrote:
| This model seems to be largely uncensored, at least compared to
| previous releases. For example, it is surprisingly familiar with
| the physics of interactions between human skin and yogurt.
| According to a friend who was testing it on replicate.com. I
| would never prompt for something like that of course.
| pheatherlite wrote:
| ... go on..
| mvandermeulen wrote:
| Yes, please continue. What else did your friend tell you?
| PhilippGille wrote:
| News by StabilityAI: https://stability.ai/news/introducing-
| stable-diffusion-3-5
| LeicaLatte wrote:
| Given how badly sd3 flopped, curious if this is better.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Kind of amazing how these releases went from, the most mind
| blowing thing ever, to basically, meh, in a few months.
| haunter wrote:
| My self-hosted Krita plugin is running on SD1.5 and SDXL and
| those are already very impressive albeit "dated" by the standards
| of October 2024. So I can't wait to try this out!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-22 23:01 UTC)