sam__izdat t1_iy5q0d5 wrote

> It would be interesting to see a third column for the same prompts/seeds without any negative prompt as a baseline.

Oh, and I don't have any with three columns, but here's one of the "too many fingers" prompt vs no negative prompt. Apologies for the lazy layout.


sam__izdat t1_iy5ms2r wrote

> What metric are you using to say this is an improved prompt.

It isn't an improved prompt. It was just a silly joke and a spoof on a research paper. Like you say, I think they are comparable -- that is, equally useless for correcting terrible hands. At least on the base model. I don't know how the anime ones are trained, so maybe that's different if someone actually went and captioned anatomical errors.


sam__izdat t1_iy5lq3w wrote

Just typed in literally the first nonsense that came to mind. I doubt there's anything special about it. I imagine a string of random characters will have roughly the same effect.

To be clear, I was just comparing the finger situation. Words like "ugly" do seem to have an effect -- i.e. it seems to smooth out faces, remove blemishes and wrinkles and generally makes people look a little more like headshots of supermodels, in my limited testing.


sam__izdat t1_iy5dmp7 wrote

You may get generally better results if you remove the nonsense from the embedding, like "too many fingers" and "bad anatomy." It made some people on /r/StableDiffusion very angry, but I ran a comparison for those (several, actually), and it went exactly as expected. Some of the words in the original embedding (e.g. lowres, text, error, blurry, ugly, etc) are probably doing something like what was intended. Most of the rest are a superstitious warding ritual.


sam__izdat t1_ixnshyo wrote

The common sense definition for people who write code is the programmer definition that we've been using for as long as the term had existed. When you have no idea what you're talking about, and don't know what the terms used in software development actually mean, I can see how your definition might be entirely different. That's called ignorance, and you fix that with education.

> Calling anything without a formal license "closed source" is intellectually dishonest

No, it is not, because that is literally what closed source means. The source code is closed. You are not allowed to modify it. You are not allowed to copy it. It is not yours to use, copy or tinker with. It belongs exclusively to someone else and doing anything to it without explicit written permission opens you and probably your employer to litigation.


sam__izdat t1_ixnmvxi wrote

> What you mean is licensing hasn't been ironed out

No, what I mean is it is closed source, as in the exact opposite of open source, and packed with stolen, copyright-infringing code for which the owner has decided the license terms he agreed to do not need to be followed. The fact that the source is available, at the proprietor's discretion, while being plainly illegal to to use, copy, modify and distribute, makes no difference whatsoever. 37GB of Microsoft source code are also available, strictly speaking. That doesn't mean it's open source.

Here is what these words you are using actually mean:

"Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a LICENSE in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.[1][2] Open-source software may be developed in a collaborative public manner. Open-source software is a prominent example of open collaboration, meaning any capable user is able to participate online in development, making the number of possible contributors indefinite. The ability to examine the code facilitates public trust in the software."

"Proprietary software, also known as non-free software or closed-source software, is computer software for which the software's publisher or another person reserves some licensing rights to use, modify, share modifications, or share the software, restricting user freedom with the software they lease. It is the opposite of open-source or free software."

"No License

When you make a creative work (which includes code), the work is under exclusive copyright by default. Unless you include a license that specifies otherwise, nobody else can copy, distribute, or modify your work without being at risk of take-downs, shake-downs, or litigation. Once the work has other contributors (each a copyright holder), “nobody” starts including you."


sam__izdat t1_ixngzu2 wrote

It is not. It is closed source and all rights reserved, for each of its many willing (and some unwilling) contributors. It's also packed with MIT licensed code stripped of its license agreements, has a record of RCE exploits, and is managed by some kid from 4chan who used to make racist video game mods. Also, this is a machine learning subreddit, and not a tech support subreddit for end users who need a .bat file to set up a gradio GUI.


sam__izdat t1_ixngavq wrote

> opensourced and become available in automatic1111

Those are two very different asks, since your gradio GUI is closed source.

The inference code and models are all available. You can clone it and run it right now, assuming they didn't break something critical for you by (apparently) only testing on A100s.


sam__izdat t1_ixneldl wrote

> conspiracy about due "legal issues they’re facing"

No, they might be a bunch of mewling toddlers, but that's not a conspiracy theory. There was a lot of corporate and legislative pressure to remove objectionable content, so it appears they mostly removed human anatomy, weapons, certain contemporary artists, celebrity faces, etc. The problem with that, I expect, is that LAION's dataset is already just awful -- and you're cutting into some of the better data you have available.


sam__izdat t1_iw59i34 wrote

I read it. I'm not a machine learning researcher but I know enough to understand that this is the most "sir this is a Wendy's" shit I've ever laid eyes on.

It's probably voted down because it's a wall of nonsense. But if you want to explain to a layman how 'training datasets with different worldviews and personalities doing Diffie-Hellman key exchanges' totally makes sense actually, I'm all ears.