67
Google debuts a new way to watermark AI-generated images
(www.axios.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
67 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
57273 readers
4480 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You heard of stable difusion? They got 1 line installs nowadays then all you have to enter is a prompt and go.
Entirely open source so anyone could improve the model or not, and it'd be more than legal to release a non watermarked version (if a watermarked version even ever appeared).
I saw down the chain it was compared to deuvono, which I'd argue is a bad analogy - cause whos gonna run a rootkit on their PC just to create an image, especially when there's a million options not to (unlike games which are generally unique)
I see what you mean yes, but of course such large resources are required to train the model - not run it. So reasonably as long as a bunch of users can pool resources to compete with big tech, there will always be an 'un-watermark-able' crowd out there, making all the watermakrs essentially useless because they only got half the picture.
And how training these models works is insanely parallel, so reasonably - if (ideally a FOSS) project pops up allowing users to donate cpu time to train the model as a whole - users could actually have more computational power than the big tech companies
I think youre mixing together a couple angles here to try n make a point.
'Unless the open source model is the best...theyre using proprietary code' youre talking about a hypothetical program hypothetically being stolen and referencing it as a definite?
As per the companies, of course they only use certain resoures, theyre companies they need returns to exist. A couple million down the drain could be some CEO's next bonus, so they won't do anything theyre into sure they'll get something from (even if only short term)
As per the 4chan, was that a coincidence or are you referencing unstable diffusion? Cause they did do almost exactly that (before of course it got mismanaged cause the nsfw industry is always been a bit ghetto)
And like sure fold it at home or donate for aws, same end result really doesn't matter what the user's are comfortable with
And whew finally sure ms bought github but like you think stable diffusion bought the internet? Courts have proven webscraping is legal...
Ik this is a wall of text but like I said these arguments all feel like a bunch of thoughts tangentially related