Talk:Stable Diffusion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gallery of examples?

The Japanese language page has a gallery of various examples that Stable Diffusion can create, perhaps we should do the same to showcase a few examples for people to see. I'd be curious to hear others weigh in. Camdoodlebop (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The built-in Batch, Matrix and XY plot functions are great for this. Please feel free to use this example for the Img2Img section to explain parameters: https://i.imgur.com/I6I4AGu.jpeg Here I've used an original photo of a dirty bathroom window and transformed it using the prompt "(jean-michel basquiat) painting" using various CFG and denoising 73.28.226.42 (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

External links

The AUTOMATIC1111 fork of Stable Diffusion is indubitably the most popular client for Stable Diffusion. It should definitely have its place in the external links section. Thoughts? Leszek.hanusz (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Reddit comments aren't reliable for anything, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a link directory. We should not be providing links to clients at all. MrOllie (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This is just one metric, it has more than 7K stars on GitHub, what more do you want? Do you actually use Stable Diffusion yourself? It is now THE reference. Leszek.hanusz (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

GitHub stars (or any form of social media likes) are also indicative of precisely nothing. What I want is that you do not advertise on wikipedia by adding external links to your own project. - MrOllie (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Automatic1111 is not my own project, it has nothing to do with me. http://diffusionui.com is my own project and I agree it should not be in the external links. Leszek.hanusz (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with MrOllie. Nothing here (reddit comments, GitHub stars) is the type of sourcing that would suggest this should be included in this article. Elspea756 (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I think its evident in that most, nearly all, published/shared prompts for SD use the parentheses/brackets/prompt-editing syntactical sugar, which is a feature exclusively from Automatic1111-webui's version. That should be a good indicator of its popularity if you can't use github stats for some reason. 73.28.226.42 (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Using images to promote unsourced opinions

I've removed two different versions of editors trying to use images to promote unsourced legal opinions and other viewpoints. Please, just use reliable sources that support that these images illustrate these the opinions, if those sources exist. You can't just place an image and claim that it illustrates an unsourced opinion. Thanks. Elspea756 (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

"But Stable Diffusion’s lack of safeguards compared to systems like DALL-E 2 poses tricky ethical questions for the AI community. Even if the results aren’t perfectly convincing yet, making fake images of public figures opens a large can of worms." - TechCrunch. "And three weeks ago, a start-up named Stable AI released a program called Stable Diffusion. The AI image-generator is an open-source program that, unlike some rivals, places few limits on the images people can create, leading critics to say it can be used for scams, political disinformation and privacy violations." - Washington Post. I don't know what additional convincing you need. As for your edit summary of "Removing unsourced claim that it is a "common concern" that this particular image might mislead people to believe this is an actual photograph of Vladimir Putin", nowhere in the caption was that ever mentioned, that's purely your own personal interpretation that completely misses the mark of what the caption meant. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing here on the talking page. I see images of Barack Obama and Boris Johnson included in that Tech Crunch article, so those do seem to illustrate the point you are trying to make and are supported by the source you are citing. Can we agree to replace the previously used unsourced image with either that Barack Obama image or series of Boris Johnson images? Elspea756 (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That would not be suitable, because those images of Boris Johnson and Barack Obama are copyrighted by whoever created those images in Stable Diffusion and added those to the TechCrunch article. Per the WP:IUP and WP:NFCC policies, we do not use non-free images if a free-licence image is already available. A free licence image is available, because I literally made one, and released it under a Creative Commons licence. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, now I understand why you feel so strongly about this image, it's because as you say you "literally made" an image and now you want to include your image in this wikipedia article. I hope you can understand you are not a neutral editor when it comes to decisions about this image you "literally made", that you have a conflict of interest here, and shouldn't be spamming your image you made into this article. Your image you are spamming into this article does not accurately illustrate the topic, so it should be removed. Elspea756 (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It's your perogative to gain WP:CONSENSUS for your revert, given that you are the reverting party. If you can convince myself, and the wider community of editors, that your revert is justified, then I will by all means happily agree with your revert. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope, it is your obligation to provide sources and gain consensus for your "image made literally 27 minutes ago ffs." We have no obligation to host your "image made literally 27 minutes ago ffs." Elspea756 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Point to me the Wikipedia policy that says this. Almost all image content on Wikipedia is user self-created, anyway; your idea that Wikipedia editors cannot upload their own files to expand articles is completely nonsensical. All of your arguments have not been grounded in any form of Wikipedia policy; rather, they are exclusively grounded in subjective opinion, and a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. "We" "Your" - my brother in Christ, you joined Wikipedia on 2021-06-14, it's wholly inappropriate for you to be condescending as if you were the exclusive in-group participant here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

As, I've said you have a very clear conflict of interest here. It is very evident from your language choices here, writing "ffs," "Christ," etc, that you not a neutral editor and that you feel very strongly about spamming your unsourced, user generated content here. I understand very clearly where you are coming from now There is no need for you to continually restate your opinions with further escalating profanity. Elspea756 (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree with Elspea756 and removed some images. This is clearly original research; while it is reasonable to be more lax with WP:OR as it applies to images, WP:OI (quite reasonably) states: [Original images are acceptable ...] so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. Commentary on the differences between specific pictures is very different than something like File:Phospholipids aqueous solution structures.svg, which is inspired by existing diagrams and does not introduce "unpublished ideas". Yes, the idea that "AI images are dependent on the input", is published; no, no one independent has analyzed these specific pictures. Also, using AI-generated art with prompts asking to emulate specific artists' styles is not only blatantly unethical, but also potentially a copyright violation; that it is legally acceptable is not yet established. Finally, we shouldn't have a preponderance of pictures appealing to the male gaze. There are thousands, millions of potential subjects, and there is nothing special about these. Ovinus (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This thread is specifically in reference to the Putin image used in the "Societal impacts" section, however. The disagreement here is whether or not it's appropriate to use the Putin image to illustrate the ethics concerns raised in the TechCrunch article; my position is that we cannot use the Boris Johnson image from the TechCrunch article as that would fall afoul of WP:NFCC. As discussed in a previous thread, I had already planned to replace a few of the sample images in the article with ones that are less entwined with the female form and/or male gaze, I just haven't found the time to do so yet, since creating prompts of acceptable quality is more time-consuming than most might actually assume. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand, but the images in this article are broadly problematic, not just the Putin image. It's quite arguably a WP:BLP violation, actually. A much less controversial alternative could be chosen; for example, using someone who's been dead for a while. Ovinus (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

In that case, that's definitely an easy job to fix. I'll figure out an alternative deceased person in due time. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Ovinus, for "total agree"ment that these spam images are a problem and that they are "clearly original research." In a moment I will be once again removing the unsourced, inaccurate image of Vladimir Putin from this article that has been repeatedly spammed into this article. Besides being obvious spam and unsourced original research, it is also a non-neutral political illustration created to express an individual wikipedia editor's personal point of view, and its subject is a living person so this violates our policy on biographies of living persons. Once again, the obligation to provide sources and gain consensus is on the editor who wants their content included. We do not need a week-long discussion before removing an unsourced user-generated spam image expressing a personal political viewpoint about a living person. Elspea756 (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it spam. Benlisquare is clearly here in good faith. Ovinus (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: WRIT 340 for Engineers - Fall 2022 - 66826

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 2 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bruhjuice, Aswiki1, Johnheo1128, Kyang454 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by 1namesake1 (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)