Nudity isnt really the core issue. It is about illegal content. Nudity is the over-protective, over-inclusive bandaid solution to prevent this thing from being used to generate the very illegal material that will trigger authorities.
Then instead of just presenting me with a blank image tell me why it's blank. Or add the word "nude" to the default negative filter which by default doesn't have that in it.
The default is:
negative-prompt:"Ugly, duplication, duplicates, mutilation, deformed, mutilated, mutation, twisted body, disfigured, bad anatomy, out of frame, extra fingers, mutated hands, poorly drawn hands, extra limbs, malformed limbs, missing arms, extra arms, missing legs, extra legs, mutated hands, extra hands, fused fingers, missing fingers, extra fingers, long neck, small head, closed eyes, rolling eyes, weird eyes, smudged face, blurred face, poorly drawn face, mutation, mutilation, cloned face, strange mouth, grainy, blurred, blurry, writing, calligraphy, signature, text, watermark, bad art,"
Sure, if this was a commercial product i would also scream about feedback. But as this is a free side project im not going to criticize decisions on what they think they need to do to avoid unnecesary drama. I credit them for making the bypass relatively simple.
Banning an entire class of activity because someone somewhere might abuse it is a ridiculous irrational way to reason about things.
The question is simple: Will the thing mostly be used for bad or good? Unless you think the vast majority of humanity are pedophiles then these features should be allowed.
Think of the children was never a valid argument and isn't a valid one today. I truly hope this utterly stupid and brain-dead way of thinking never escapes the AI community and infect other fields.
Agreed. This was an inevitable use case for AI imagery from the get-go. No way around it. Even if one dev/trainer goes out of their way to make certain that it can't be used for that purpose, another model will be trained that can. So the only three solutions are:
A. Get over it.
B. Ban the tool in its entirety.
C. Waste tons of governmental resources, spy on people more, and operate in legal grey-area to hunt down people that produce that kind of stuff with these models.
There's a great wikipedia page on this very topic [1]. In some countries like Germany fictional porn isn't considered porn, while other countries like Australia or France consider the possession of drawings of naked minors a crime worthy of jail sentences. And then there's the US where having the images on a computer is fine, as long as they aren't sent over the internet and the computer never crosses state lines.
In general it's a topic people are careful about because the legal situation is complex, and in many countries associated with the potential of heavy jail sentences.
When you stop and think about it, it is kind of insane that a fictional drawing in private possession, not even communicated to anyone, is already sufficient to land someone in prison in so many jurisdictions. Isn't this a clear case of legislating moral purity (as opposed to actual harm)?
Nope. It is illegal if you do it on ms paint too. Images of naked kids (real or fiction) + transmitted over internet (ie state lines) = bad bad day for all involved.
The state lines thing is only about federal crimes. Possession is most likely illegal as a state crime on its own. The repercussions of even being suspected of crimes in this area means that every rational person would take precautions far above what is legally necessary to prevent any association with such material.
But it requires transmission over the internet, right? This is actually very interesting. Am I legally allowed to draw naked kids for my own enjoyment in the comfort of my own home?
Simple possession is also a crime, just a state crime. The internet transmission triggers federal jurisdiction and federal charges. There is no safe/legal way to possess such images.
