[cyanydeez]

they're nerfing the models, not just the prompt engineering.

After SD1.5 they started directly modifying the dataset.

it's only other users who "restore" the porno.

and that's what we're discussing. there's a real concern about it as a public offering.

[Tenoke]

Sure, but again if you run it yourself you can use the finetuned by users checkpoints that have it.

[cyanydeez]

yes, but the GP is discussing the API, and specifically the company that offers the base model.

they both don't want to offer anything that's legally dubious and it's not hard to understand why.

[jncfhnb]

No it’s not. It’s perfectly reasonable not to want to generate porn for customers.

The models being open sourced makes them very easy to turn into the most deprived porno machines ever conceived. And they are.

It is in no way a meaningful barrier to what people can do. That’s the benefit of open source software.

[raxxorraxor]

That isn't the topic. Porn is an example, but safety is synonymous with puritanical requirements arbitrarily summed up as the lowest common denominator. I want a powerful AI, not a replacement of a priest.

Gemini demonstrated a product I do not want to use and I am aware about the requirements of corporate contexts, although I think the safety mechanisms should be in the hand of users.

Google optimized for advertisers, but I am not interested in such content as it provides little value.

[jncfhnb]

Ok, but it seems very stupid to say you want the powerful AI to specifically come from a specific API when the very same tech is open sourced for any one to do whatever they want with

[cyanydeez]

most of your arguments are about business cases.

No large scale model maker is going to put out public models for B2B with dubious use cases.

what the problem is: OpenAI, facebook, Google are not curating the data sets. you're arguing they shouldn't put controls after the fact. but what you actually want is them to use quality datasets.