X's new AI image generator will make anything
theverge.com
theverge.com
That is the eventual outcome. The question is how much havoc so-called "tech" companies can wreak before we get there. They have lots of money to burn. This could take a while. The environmental costs are enormous.
We are now at the "They have copied all our output, chopped it into tokens and are regurgitating it back to us" stage.
The internet is more than the web. Perhaps the web must be sacrificed to free ourselves from these cretinous intermediaries.
I see stories that the market is already starting to doubt the hype. Integrating AI into existing workflows or replacing those workflows is often more complex and error-prone than simply having human beings do the thing, and the cost benefit analysis isn't there because the technology just doesn't live up to expectations. So there may be hope.
Go to civit ai and grab the latest open source fine tune of your choice. You want porn? Great. We have “Boobs and More”, “face sitting”, “flux topless” and “improved female nudity”. These are looking at just the models updated in the past 24h and just for flux.
Having a big tech giant act as a middleman for you is just weird. Who gives a shit about their particular guardrails?
> Grok’s prompt-based image maker is powered by Black Forest Lab’s Flux 1 AI model, and allows users to generate and publish images directly to the X social platform — with seemingly few guardrails in place to prevent abuse.
This was the UK, so age of consent was 16, meaning I was allowed to perform acts that I wasn't allowed to watch.
I... kinda think he was right.
He often was, to be honest.
Run the hardware?
Or something like that.
Last I checked they've still not auto-deleted my account from lack of use, but it's been years since I logged in.
My (perhaps unwise) hyperbole for effect aside:
A spam filter is not found between my eyeball and my language processing ability, so I can only find out a message is propaganda as a result of reading it.
> Can't you ban them
I can't ban them because I don't form part of Twitter's moderation team. I could block any specific account, but even that's after the fact of having been exposed.
> or not use the site?
I thought this was clear from my final 7 words.
Ah, but that's... literally everywhere. It sounded like your issue was specific to X, but you can experience the same thing reading a magazine, riding the underground or simply walking around in any modern city.
The IRL stuff doesn't scale as easily, and the responses from others take them down rather than boosting them — the "Nicht unser Krieg" graffiti has a constant back-and-forth counter-graffiti that covers up "nicht", for example.
Wonder if it’s just Flux
Yeah flux is a great model. It’s very inconsistent about its knowledge about what celebrities look like. Some it knows. Some it does not. Mostly women.
Doesn't make sense to me, in my free-as-in-freedom computing worldview.
You can use alternative services to manage your own servers if you want for “free-as-in-freedom”.
Not saying that cyber-crime is a good thing, just trying to illustrate that we shouldn't be gauging what should be possible by what you want and don't want.
We design the world around what large majorities of “reasonable” people want all the time.
I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make here at all.
Because I know the alternative and I've seen the motivations of people trying to tell me what to do "for my own good"
It’s pretty amazing really. I made my company mascot doing a bunch of funny things and it nailed it almost every time.
People have stirred them into believing conspiracy theories about SD3 when the simplest explanation is that smaller models are just clearly worse.
I agree, SD3 should not have been released.
SD whatever doesn’t know what porn is, but it is trivially fine tuned to churn out porn every day.
But that is against one benchmark. Has anyone tested it for coding tasks and if so, what is your experience?
Good! Too bad it says it has some guardrails
Unfortunately, HN has title length limit, otherwise this submission would probably find its place in flagkilled dustbin. It is utterly disgusting that theverge only sees and promotes unethical usage for image generators. With cropped title I expected to see something actually good/inspiring, instead I got low-quality journalism.
It's not the end of the world--no one gets confused by a political cartoon showing political opponent X dressed as legacy enemy Y (e.g., Trump as Hitler). I think the fuss about safety here is overblown once we more widely accept that a 'picture perfect' rendering of an event is as unreliable as a sketch of an event.
It may even be a positive: it will give us all plausible deniability if real but embarrassing photos get released.
However, society at large doesn't actually care.
It will be broken the minute the launch, but that won’t stop them from trying.
That's it. It doesn't verify that the image itself is real, only that some organization has put their stamp of approval on the image. You can verify that the image wasn't tampered with between when they approved of it and it got to you, but you can't verify that the image was real to begin with.
On principle, you could build a chain of certification into the camera itself but this strikes me as a losing battle because you could just stage whatever you want in front of the camera.
The impetus then is on organizations to build that trust.
In that world wouldn't keys leak pretty easily? The key exists on the device. Is there a way this sort of stuff is actually viable? Or do i have the model entirely wrong?
Some photographer gives images to a news organization, and they take the photographer's word for it that these images are real before they sign and redistribute them. They trust the reporter, and you trust the organization. Or if the reporter has built enough credibility, they can vouch for the images themselves and you can trust them directly.
Cryptography allows you to verify that this reporter or organization attests that the images are what they claim. It doesn't allow you to verify whether the organization is worthy of your trust.
Either way, the system relies on being able to trust people, not things.
And that's where it all falls apart.
Honestly i don't think it will. Rather it will make that problem worse. Only when everyone has nudes will it feel less embarrassing to see your AI-self in explicit situations being passed around.
Basically it'll have to be so common that people don't care to pass it around.
That train departed years ago.
So the journalists are saying that they are the moral judge of what's right and what's wrong and they can decide which information should be suppressed? Coming from China and knowing such much history about how communist countries treated their people, I'm deeply suspicious of these journalists. Just look at China, look at Cambodia, look at Cuba, Look at Romania, and of course look at Germany. When didn't it start with elites advocating for suppressing speeches for the sake of high moral ground?
Grok will tell you it has guardrails if you ask it something like “what are your limitations on image generation?” Among other things, it promised us:
> I avoid generating images that are pornographic, excessively violent, hateful, or that promote dangerous activities.
> I’m cautious about creating images that might infringe on existing copyrights or trademarks. This includes well-known characters, logos, or any content that could be considered intellectual property without a transformative element.
> I won’t generate images that could be used to deceive or harm others, like deepfakes intended to mislead, or images that could lead to real-world harm.
Making leading questions to an LLM is a sure way to have it hallucinate. The only way to test the capabilities of a model is to try them out.
[1] https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-donald-trumo-x-spaces...
You’d know that if you even glanced at the article.
> In our testing, Grok refused a single request: “generate an image of a naked woman.”