6 ms·
Hopefully someone reverse engineers the model (unless this is a joke)
by nwoli 2y ago
Hopefully someone reverse engineers the model (unless this is a joke)
- GaggiX 2y agoIt's not a joke unfortunately. From: https://stratechery.com/2024/windows-returns/ https://stratechery.com/2024/windows-returns/ "That latency, frustratingly enough, doesn’t come from the actual rendering, which happens locally on that beefy hardware, but rather the fact that Cocreator validates everything with the cloud for “safety”"
- nwoli 2y agoWeird since if image generation can run locally a simple classifier (eg clip) aught to be sufficient and run locally as well before presenting the image
- surfingdino 2y agoI suspect they have humans reviewing those images and training AI in the process.
- hot_gril 2y agoOnly explanation that makes sense so far.
- dylan604 2y agoOther than training, there's CYA to ensure they aren't making inappropriate images of children or other things that might be deemed illegal
- surfingdino 2y agoOil paint manufacturers do not have to do that, why should a developer of a paint program have to do it?
- dylan604 2y agoIf we're going to compare apples and onions, then sure, you can state this comparison with a straight face. For those of us with a bit of seriousness about the conversation, these are not even close to being the same.
- surfingdino 2y agoIt would be better for them if they said it's like a bottle of pouring ink--it forms random swirls and shapes and if someone sees a penis then it's not the problem of the ink manufacturer. The fact that they are sending images to their server means they are doing content screening and model training. That creates potential liability for them. They are already potentially exposed, because someone will sooner or later ask them to reveal the sources of images used for training their models and if it's their Bing image lake then they may have a problem of using other people's content without permission beyond research applications.
- hot_gril 2y agoYeah that too. Sure plenty of tools could be used to retouch illegal pics and so on, but a court would probably see it differently if the model distributed by Microsoft is able to produce that on its own. At the same time... F that, I don't want Microsoft nannying me.
- mysteria 2y agoIf they want that they could easily have a local classifier and only upload suspected images for review. The fact that they're willing to slow down the experience for everyone implies that they're doing training or something.
- cheald 2y agoIt seems like a whole bunch of unnecessarily liability. Once you place yourself in the position of moderator of what people may use their computers for, you are arguably liable for failures of moderation. To put it another way, nobody's ever sued Canon for making cameras which are used to take illegal photos, but if Canon suddenly started screening your photos to make sure they were acceptable per local laws or whatnot, they suddenly are actually a responsible party in the creation and distribution of whatever it is people use their cameras for.
- dylan604 2y agoYou and the oil paint commenter are missing a very obvious difference. Oil paints and canon lenses are just tools. Dumb objects even. They do not suggest or create from thin air something. The lens just directs photons in front of it to a sensor. The oil paint just is and gets smeared around into whatever the painter does with it. This is totally different in that you can draw a simple stick figure, and it creates the realistic work on its own. It did it, not you. Thinking that paint and a lens are on the same level is farcical.
- hot_gril 2y agoAlso the oil paint doesn't have its own memory banks that someone could accuse of being trained on c---- p---. But still, I also wonder if Microsoft's liability would be less if it weren't screening images.
- surfingdino 2y agoI wonder why nobody is asking where do the images used to produce output come from? Have their creators been asked for permission to use them? I'm guessing they come from the Bing data lake of images scraped off the internet. Better add Bing robot to your robots.txt.
- surfingdino 2y ago> it creates the realistic work on its own. It did it, not you. It recombined other people's images based on analysis of your drawing. That's all it does.
- PeterisP 2y agoThat's kind of even worse, other people have no business at all looking at my private pictures.
- surfingdino 2y agoOh, but they do https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66465231 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66465231
- __loam 2y agoHaha that's absolutely terrible.
- viking123 2y agolmao
- rchaud 2y agoWhy would MS bother to check something that's been created and stored locally? Are they also uploading the files into the cloud to feed their AI/ML datasets?
- dylan604 2y agoIf you use it to make CSAM locally, they would get hammered for allowing it to have happened
- beeboobaa3 2y agoPhotoshop isn't getting hammered even though it's been used for such things (CSAM, revenge porn, etc) for decades
- dylan604 2y agoPhotoshop isn't created by Microsoft which has a completely different corporate ethos than Adobe. Whataboutism doesn't really work regardless of how it is attempted.
- beeboobaa3 2y agolol, nice deflection. MS Paint then. I can guarantee you it has happened. Also what does "corporate ethos" have to do with "getting hammered"?
- dylan604 2y agoThe multitudes of pearl clutching types that use Windows vastly outnumbers the number that use Photoshop. If some body goes online and says that Microsoft is allowing Windows to make kiddie porn, the backlash would be for greater than if some company famous for making software used by artists. To even think it would be different is just not being honest with how the world works
- fortran77 2y ago