But you would need to dress and pose the mannequin, which isn’t going to be the easiest job. I would also guess that the model is the cheapest part of a photo shoot in most instances; photographers and studios are relatively expensive.

Right, but that was from before computers even. From at least the early 90s they would at most film a small cluster of people and replicate them throughout the scene.

It would take a lot more work to use a mannequin than to use a real person, but it could be an option.

Large crowds haven’t been a thing for probably three decades. It’s not just the cost of extras, it’s the logistics of closing off areas for a large crowd.

I’ll be curious with the modeling if there’s any pushback. They’ll need to have someone model the clothes and then replace that person. I would guess many models wouldn’t be wouldn’t like being replaced in images they could otherwise be using for a portfolio. But, as with everything, there will be someone willing

Perhaps SpIF-T?

You sell it short. You could de duplicate while merging the associated text to solve half your problem. And the goal of base SD is to be as generic as possible, so there’s little value in allowing duplicates to impact the weights in most situations and there’s a significant downside of overfitting. Then fine tuning allows for more customized models to choose where weights are adjusted.

The only downside is if the dataset ends up with fewer quality images overall because 100000 legit painting dups got removed, leaving a larger percentage of memes and other junk.

Exactly. Any ethicist worried about how joe will use AI is missing the big picture that real ethical violations are going to come from governments and corporations.

Don’t regulate tools, regulate their product and the oversight of them in decision making. Don’t let any person, institution or corporation use AI as an excuse for why they committed a crime or unethical behavior. The law should take it as an a priori that a human was responsible for decisions, regardless of whether or not an organization actually functioned that way, because the danger of AI is that it’s left to make decisions and those decisions cause harm.

We’ve had publicly available deep fake tech for several years now and it has largely been ignored, other than the occasional news story about deep fake porn. The VFX industry was able to make a video of forest gump talking to Nixon decades ago. Since then, few people have taken the time to use that tech for harm. It’s just unnecessary: if you want someone to believe something, you generally don’t have to convince them, you just have to say it and get someone else to back you up. Even better if it confirms someone’s beliefs.

I guess I just think our view of reality and truth is already pretty broken and it didn’t take falsified data.

But we already have malicious propaganda machines and they aren’t even that expensive to use. That’s ignoring the fact that propaganda doesn’t need to be sophisticated in any way to be believed by a bunch of people; we live in a world where anti-vaxxers and flat earthers regularly twist information to support their irrational beliefs. Margery green Taylor recently posted a tweet in which she used three made up numbers to support her argument. There isn’t anything chatGPT or stable diffusion or any other AI can do to our society that isn’t already being done on a large scale using regular existing technology.

There’s just so much clickbait garbage misinforming people around this tech and it wasn’t always like this. Every cool new technology just gets piled on, not for what it is, but for what will anger people. This sub alone seems to get at least one article a day questioning if chatGPT wants to kill you/your partner/everyone. I’m all for exploring the crazy things you can make AI say, but it’s being presented as a danger to society when it’s just saying the words it thinks you want. And that fear-mongering has actual downsides as this article attests to: companies are afraid to release their models; they’re wasting resources censoring output; and companies that want to use the new tech are reticent to because of the irrational public backlash.

When you start asking an AI about feelings, it falls back to the training data that talked about feelings; probably a lot of stuff talking about AI and feelings, which is almost completely negative “AI will destroy the world”, so that’s what you get.

It would be cool if the media could just try to use the technology for what it is instead of trying to find gotcha questions for it. I didn’t see anyone trying to use the original iPhone as a Star Trek style tricorder and complaining about how it didn’t diagnose cancer.

The bigger use isn’t games, but animation or VFX. They require high quality simulations that sometimes take days to render a few seconds of simulation. Every tech that can cut that time down without a substantial loss of quality is huge.

Then we should be streamlining the green card process. H1B wages are depressed by the requirement that you work for just that one company. If we put people through the security checks for H1B and they show they are employable in a high income field, they’ve essentially proven they are worth keeping here and shouldn’t be a burden, which is what a lot of our immigration system seems to be based on.

Immigration is good. Immigrants earning money here and spending it here is good. Ensuring foreign workers view their time here as temporary and take their accumulated wealth and experience back with them to another country is just idiotic. It’s the worst outcome: locals have less chance to get a high paying job because there are H1Bs to fill the roles with less power to negotiate, AND the wealth is largely transferred out of the country.

Progress has been made, however it has not been made consistently across the globe. As populations increase in developing countries, they end up polluting significantly more and haven’t created the stringent rules developed countries have and likely won’t for a long time, as rules slow economic growth, which they desperately need.

Democrats don’t hold enough seats in congress to pass laws without Republicans. Their majority is so narrow that every single democrat in office essentially holds a kill switch for anything to move forward. That’s a lot of kill switches.

“Supreme Court today decided the case by stating that the child in question should be euthanized for the good of the foster parents and Native American population. Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion appears to rely heavily on 19th century writings on Manifest Destiny, as well as, inexplicably, a full 3 pages on ‘what Columbus should have done’. The Federalist Society has issued a statement condemning the ruling as ‘too lenient’, saying it leaves it too ambiguous as to whether or not all Native Americans should be euthanized.”

But did you read the latest anti-Meta op-Ed!?!