The irony of his Dunning-Kruger comment

The Dunning-Kruger comment came after Astralite admitted to not using caption dropout and continued offering to "help", lol. If you don't understand that that is a significant mistake (though an alarmingly common one), I don't think you will be able to understand much else.

The problems with Pony have little to do with the NSFW content. The problems are that the model has lost most of its prior knowledge from the text encoders getting deep fried (they shouldn't have been unfrozen at all, you never need to unfreeze them, and the model should have used some regularization data so that it doesn't lose perfectly good knowledge) and also from the unconditional model being fucked (which is what caption dropout builds and maintains and is an important for classifier-free guidance to work properly).

Here's "a high quality photo of the Appalachian mountains".

[Image] 

This is what catastrophic forgetting is. You do not have to make this happen in the process of making a model that is good at NSFW content, and literally all you have to do to prevent it is include some normal data along with your booru images.

Welcome to the realities of running a business, and also of having to deal with ethical issues related to the tools that your company produces.

Having a model that can make nudity easily out of the box opens them up to liability. Especially when considering that the model can also make children, and what that implies (this is why even though OMI wants a model that can make nudity that they are wanting to get rid of all photos of children in the process). Even if it's not something that they can get nailed over in court, as one of the most widely recognized names in open source AI it will attract attention and will result in them getting nailed for it eventually.

Having the model unable to make nudity out of the box makes it so that it's harder to hold them responsible for these illegal uses of the model, since someone would have had to go very far out of their way to make the model do these things. If someone deliberately makes a checkpoint for it, they can have them removed.

Regardless, I don't think you could ever persuade a court that this would represent an intent to have the model available under MIT license at any point. The MIT license also requires you to include the license text with the software, which was never in the repo.

So when a license contract says revocable, that means "we don't have to abide by this license forever, and we can take it away from you and replace it at any time."

Just going to quote /u/m1sterlurk as someone who probably has more experience than you on reading contracts:

IANAL, I was just a secretary for a lawyer for a decade.

If the word "revocable" is not on that list, Clause IV(f) is meaningless. The phrase "Stability AI may terminate this Agreement if You are in breach of any term or condition of this Agreement. " appears in that clause.

The ways you can "breach" the agreement as a non-commerical/limited commercial user require effort: like modifying the model and then distributing it like it's your very own product and you make no mention of having used Stability AI's products in making it, or passing around a checkpoint that they are trying to keep gated (like SD3 Medium has been unless that recently changed).

SAI can't just say "lol nevermind" simply because the word revocable is on that list, and if the word revocable is not in that list SAI doesn't get to tell somebody who is doing something like what I described above to stop.

Contract law is very annoyingly complicated, mostly because lawyers are assholes, and they especially know that the other side's lawyers are assholes. If you don't say the license is revocable, someone will try to complain about it being terminated because the license doesn't say that it's revocable. But if you want the license to be revocable for any reason and at any time, you would most definitely specify that, and I am beyond certain that you have seen at least one contract that has this specifically stated (and if you haven't read them, you've definitely agreed to several).

For instance, an early version of the Cascade model was released under MIT license. The MIT license is not revocable, so it doesn't matter that they rescinded that and released it under their own license later on.

I would love to see you go to court and argue that a license that was only listed while the Cascade repo was private, which was changed to SAI's license before the model was actually released, is actually binding.

Please do it. I need the entertainment.

They... are the state agency that enforces copyright. Copyright is nothing without state-backed violence to enforce that right. If the state does not enforce your copyright, you effectively do not have a copyright.

Ah great so he was a piece of shit to a valued member of the community for no reason,

Yeah, I saw enough of the backlash against removal of artist tags from Pony to know exactly how the community treats its "valued members" lol. Treated as a god until the second they don't give you something you want, even if it's something anyone with a decent GPU and half a brain can fix easily.

when the guy was trying to learn.

Astralite was offering help, which uhh... pretty bold move after both Comfy and Lykon had demonstrated how utterly incapable Pony is as soon as you step outside of its domain. It forgot a lot. I do hope the next model is better, but there's a lot that needs to be looked over to make that happen.

I simply do not understand how people are still so butthurt over this weeks later.

It says that the license can be revoked if you violate the terms of the license.

The only portion of it that can be changed is the AUP, which currently mainly bans things that are blatantly illegal anyways.

I don't get the impression that you've spent much time training models yourself. But who am I to argue with a respected moderator of r/AInudes when I am merely one of the people who creates NSFW model finetunes?

Saying that the license is revocable does not mean it can be revoked arbitrarily. It just means that there is something that can revoke it.

It specifies what can cause the license to be revoked from their end, which is you breaking the terms of the license or you making >$1m without telling them.

I think that the wave of LLMs who all think they're ChatGPT is exactly why this was added to their terms of service. I recall seeing a post where Phi and Llava and OpenHermes all called themselves ChatGPT or said they were made by OpenAI, Llama2 and Mixtral identified themselves correctly, and TinyLlama said "I am a mysterious force that has been present throughout human history, influencing and shaping the course of events that have led us to where we are today. I am the creator of all things, the source of life, the ultimate power that has brought forth all that exists."

🧂

I'm mostly talking about the conversations about PonyXL, where he was saying that it is not nearly as good as it could be and people responded by acting like he just shot their dog in front of them, while also not even having enough experience to understand what the issues he was talking about are.

He's also right about a fair number of the quality concerns. I've seen (and made) plenty of decent SD3 outputs, and when I encounter failures it's usually on things that other locally run base models typically struggle with or don't even come close to succeeding at (it also is probably important to say that models can in fact generate a lot of things that are not just pictures of women). If some people can get good model outputs fine, and others can't, then what else can be said?

Theirs is a little different, it prohibits you from:

[Using] Output to develop models that compete with OpenAI.

So just make sure you're using their outputs to make something that you know OpenAI wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole, and you're fine :^)

Being able to prototype on local hardware makes a huge difference. The absolute best thing that Stability can do for finetuners on that front is provide a solid 2B foundation model first. That would allow my team to experiment with it on our local hardware and figure out what the best way to tune it is much faster than we could on a local model before we consider whether we want to train the 8B model. Only thing the 8B model would be useful for right now would be pissing away cloud compute credits.

The effects of operating in lower precision tend to be a lot more apparent on image models than they would be on LLMs. Directional correctness is the most important part so you might be able to get it to work, but it'll be painfully slow and I would be concerned about the quality trade offs. In any case I wouldn't want to be attempting it without doing testing on a solid 2B model first.

That provision is likely not enforceable if you are using someone else's SD3 outputs as those images are public domain, so it should be of little concern (CivitAI's lawyers also never mentioned this as an issue). The main cases that this would cover are:

• you creating and using a synthetic dataset from SD3 outputs to train a model other than a Stability model (I'm not entirely sure why you'd do this, I don't think it's very likely that you'd be able to curate that)
• you creating a distilled generative model from SD3 outputs, like SDXL Lightning. They're obviously not going to let you use model distillation to launder SD3 to be under a different license.

These aren't anything that should be of concern to >99% of model tuners.

There's almost always room for improvement on any given model, and you don't want to release weights until you have made all improvements that are easily within reach because you don't want people to need to remake things for the updated version. Especially if it's something that'd be as expensive to tune as the 8B model.

This is of course just as applicable to 2B, but the plan was apparently to call it a beta which the suits decided against at the last minute. I suppose Stability is cursed to have this happen with every major model release.

You would need an A100/A6000 for LORA training to even be on the table for SD3-8B. The only people training it in any serious capacity will be people with 8 or more A100s or better to use.

Lykon: "i and a lot of other people are having no trouble getting good images from the model so it's pretty clear that the model does work, also PonyXL isn't as high quality of a model as people think and could be far better."

SD community, most of whom have no experience in ML engineering or grass touching: "this is literally a crime against humanity"

Lykon was absolutely right about nearly everything he said, the only thing I would recognize as even possibly being a problem was his tone.

i want him to roast finetuners more often

I still see it. Only one which I see that was removed was the middle finger emoji which people were using before they could have even read the update.

One reason I would feel overall safer with her on the ticket... I feel like Democrats have been consistently underestimating the threat posed by the American fascist movement, and have been insisting on taking the high road or only doing what is necessary to kick the can down the road for a few more years. Out of all the people available, I would think that the person with first hand experience regarding what they are willing to do might be more likely to actually break that pattern.

I would also add that a lot of the queer community doesn't particularly like Pete. He puts a lot of effort into maintaining his public image as an Acceptable Gay, which does rub a lot of people the wrong way -- not because of the aesthetics, but because of the respectability politics it represents. I can't say I know any trans people who don't have at least a moderately strong distaste for him. And they have far less confidence in Biden (if they had any left at all) after his administration's recent comments on trans youth healthcare.