Talk:Stable Diffusion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Developer(s)

The infobox and article present Stability AI as developer. However, this is incorrect:

- Stable Diffusion is essentially the same approach as the Latent Diffusion Models (LDM) developed by the CompVis group at LMU Munich and a coauthor from Runway. Patrick Esser, one of the license holders of Stable Diffusion (https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/blob/main/LICENSE) „When we wrote that paper [LDM] we showed that it actually works, nicely! […] Then it was like - can we scale this up? And that led us to Stable Diffusion. It is really the same model, slight changes but not too essential. Just on a bigger scale in terms of our resources.“, https://research.runwayml.com/the-research-origins-of-stable-difussion

Comparing the code from the LDM and SD github confirms this. Moreover, the depictions and explanations of the approach on this Wikipedia article are all discussing the ideas of the original approach.

- Both the source code as well as the models had so far been released by the CompVis group at LMU Munich (https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion). The license is issued on their Github (https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion/blob/main/LICENSE) by the original authors of https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.10752, Rombach et al.

- The CompVis Github lists the contribution of Stability AI as providing funding for compute, stating that “Thanks to a generous compute donation from Stability AI and support from LAION, we [CompVis] were able to train a Latent Diffusion Model on 512x512 images from a subset of the LAION-5B database.“

- Cristobal Valenzuela (CEO of Runway): “This version[1.5] of Stable Diffusion is a continuation of the original High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models [LDM] work that we created and published (now more commonly referred to as Stable Diffusion)[…] we thank Stability AI for the compute donation to retrain the original model“, https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5/discussions/1

- The github and huggingface of CompVis, Runway, etc. cite https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content/CVPR2022/html/Rombach_High-Resolution_Image_Synthesis_With_Latent_Diffusion_Models_CVPR_2022_paper.html

as the reference to the Stable Diffusion approach.


TL;DR

The approach was actually developed by the CompVis group at LMU Munich (leading authors) + a coauthor from Runway. The references above show that the team then made only minor modifications to retrain essentially their original approach on a larger dataset. For this retraining, Stability AI donated the compute on AWS servers. However, donating compute for a model built by another research team does not make them the (sole) developer. Instead, all repositories are crediting the original authors. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from here, but most of the analysis above is based on primary sources. Secondary sources overwhelmingly attribute Stable Diffusion principally to Stability AI. e.g.
(And these aren't cherry-picked - they're just the first several secondary sources I encountered among the article's references.) Privileging our own analysis of primary sources in contradiction of the majority of secondary sources would be a violation of
WP:OR. We can definitely talk about the details of how different parties were involved in the development of the model (perhaps in a new "Development" section?), but I think we should defer to secondary sources in giving Stability AI top billing when summarizing the topic. Colin M (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Stable Diffusion builds on the previous work of CompVis group at LMU Munich and Runway. The secondary sources listed above are cherry picked. Most articles list LMU Munich and Runway as the authors. Including the original publication here and here. e.g.
Most importantly, the paper and original source code as well as the models have been released by CompVis and Runway. Which is stated in the original CompVis repository and as well in an interview by one of the authors. Furthermore, Stability’s forked version of the model also states that in the Readme section:
“The original Stable Diffusion model was created in a collaboration with CompVis and RunwayML and builds upon the work: High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models”
Since the release of the original model, Stable Diffusion has been forked and multiple version of the model are maintained by different organizations.
Since this page is dedicated to the original model, attribution should be given to the original developers. It seems like Stability has wrongly attributed the ownership of the model which was picked by the sources listed before, but has since then retracted this position. Juhun87621 (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary sources listed above are cherry picked. I literally said they weren't, and described how I found them. Accusing me of bad faith does not really set the tone well for us to have a productive collaborative discussion. If sources disagree on a particular matter, which seems to be the case here, we present all the mainstream views with appropriate
weight. But what you did in this edit was to just remove the citations that disagree with your preferred vision, which is not an appropriate way to handle this. Colin M (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Since you accused me of cherry-picking the above results, here's another experiment. I searched the New York Times for the three most recent articles mentioning Stable Diffusion. All three attribute it to Stability AI (and make no mention of Runway, LMU Munich, or any other orgs):
Colin M (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that all of the original developers, including CompVis and RunwayML, should be listed in the infobox. However, they should be listed in the "Original author(s)" parameter, not the "Developer(s)" parameter, to avoid implying that CompVis and RunwayML are the current developers. Is that a good solution for everyone? Elspea756 (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, as long as we have citations to secondary sources that support that. Also, the infobox should generally be a summary of the content of the article proper, so if we're going to mention Runway in the infobox, it would be good to also have some text in the "Development" section elucidating its involvement in the project. Colin M (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that all sounds good. The various original authors and their roles should definitely be in the article. The first secondary source you (Colin M) suggest above is Tech Crunch. So, we could use this secondary source "Tech Crunch: This startup is setting a DALL-E 2-like AI free, consequences be damned" which describes Stable Diffusion as "A collaboration between Stability AI, media creation company RunwayML, Heidelberg University researchers and the research groups EleutherAI and LAION ... CompVis, the machine vision and learning research group at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, oversaw the training ..." Is that a good solution for everyone? Elspea756 (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how that source supports the interpretation that CompVis and RunwayML are the "original authors" and Stability AI is the "developer", so I wouldn't support the infobox change you mentioned above based on that source. But it could be used to add a mention of Runway in the "Development" section as a collaborator. Colin M (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am not saying that the source supports, as you've put it, "CompVis and RunwayML are the 'original authors' and Stability AI is the 'developer'". I am saying that the Tech Crunch article supports that the "original authors" are Stability AI, RunwayML, CompVis, LAION, et al. Is there agreement on this? Elspea756 (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that that source supports that statement. But I would not use that fact to give all of those organisations equal weight in the article (including mentions in the intro/infobox), because that's just one source, and the vast majority of secondary RS coverage of Stable Diffusion give Stability AI as the main creator (with most not even mentioning Runway, CompVis, LAION, etc.). Colin M (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not accusing you of bad faith. I see your point. Seems like there are sources to justify both arguments in equal forms.
However, I do believe this article is about to the original development of the model. Since it was released, Stable Diffusion has been forked 7.4K times. Stability maintains a separate version of the original model which diverges from the initial release. The confusion arises from the fact that they are called the same. We should clarify that. I suggest that:
  • This article should refer to the original Stable Diffusion model that we all agree was created by CompVis and RunwayML. And so, they should be listed as Original author(s) and developers of the original model. “The original Stable Diffusion model was created in a collaboration with CompVis and RunwayML and builds upon the work: High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models"
  • Add a sub-section which further explains that Stability donated compute to train the original version and is the maintainer of a forked version of Stable Diffusion available here. The original version still remains here.
Juhun87621 (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When Stability AI says at https://github.com/Stability-AI/stablediffusion that “The original Stable Diffusion model was created in a collaboration with CompVis and RunwayML," Stability AI is saying that Stability AI created the model in collaboration with CompVis and RunwayML. That is, all three of them collaborated on it. Similarly, when CompVis says at https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion that "Stable Diffusion was made possible thanks to a collaboration with Stability AI and Runway," that is CompVis stating once agin that all three (Stability AI, CompVis, and Runway) collaborated on the model. This is all consistent with the description in the reliable secondary source article I cited earlier "Tech Crunch: This startup is setting a DALL-E 2-like AI free, consequences be damned" which describes Stable Diffusion as "A collaboration between Stability AI, media creation company RunwayML, Heidelberg University researchers and the research groups EleutherAI and LAION ... CompVis, the machine vision and learning research group at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, oversaw the training ..." So, the "original authors" in the infobox should list Stability AI, CompVis, and Runway. Is that clear and can we all agree on it? Elspea756 (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The primary sources above point to stable diffusion being developed by the CompVis group at LMU Munich (leading authors) + a coauthor from Runway. However, shortly after the original release, Stability AI apparently portrayed their role to be that of primary developers, without mentioning the other entities, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Uy_8YPWrXo
This seems to then have been picked up by the press and led to the secondary sources mentioned above. However, the CEO of Stability AI, Emad Mostaque, later clarified that "Stable Diffusion came from the Machine Vision & Learning research group (CompVis) @LMU_Muenchen", https://twitter.com/EMostaque/status/1587844074064822274?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1587844074064822274%7Ctwgr%5E9cde94082155c6f6638c8bee5bd005a3301d1a23%7Ctwcon%5Es1_
How can we claim a company to be the primary or even sole developer, when even their CEO has clarified that it was another entity, as is corroborated by all the primary sources? Mistakes easily happen and get picked up and repeated by the press. However, all parties that are under discussion (CompVis, Runway, Stability AI) eventually pointed towards the authors of the original publication as being the developers: Compvis and Runway as in the primary sources cited above and the CEO of Stability AI as quoted here. Moreover, Emad's twitter post links to a project page with more recent press coverage that corroborate this. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the wikipedia software infobox, "original author" is for the "Name of the original author(s) or publisher(s) of the software," and "developer" is for the "Name of the current developer of the software." So, that is why "developer" is going to list the current developers and is not going to list "the authors of the original publication." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_software Elspea756 (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, the "original authors" in the infobox should list Stability AI, CompVis, and Runway. Is that clear and can we all agree on it? Given that we're talking about a neural network, it's not entirely clear what "original authors" should actually mean. The authors of the source code used to train the model? The researchers that developed the architecture used by the model? The people that assembled the training set and ran the training code that led to the creation of the model? This is a problem that arises when using {{Infobox software}} on an article about a topic which is not exactly software (in fact, I've been thinking of creating an infobox specifically for ml models/neural nets for a while). This is why I'd prefer to just avoid the "original authors" field so that we can explain the nuances of which people/orgs contributed in which ways in the article's prose. Colin M (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is evident to everyone in this thread who the original authors and developers of the model are. I’m not sure why we keep discussing this. Multiple secondary sources confirm the origins multiple times including the ACTUAL code and research code and research. This has been confirmed by all parties involved in the development of the model. The argument of “we're talking about a neural network” is completely out of context. The people/orgs that contributed to the development, invention, training, release and publication are LMU and Runway per all verified sources listed above my multiple contributors. Stability donated computed and cannot be considered a developer since they didn't "develop" anything. Even the CEO of Stability confirmed that. Not sure what else is there to discuss. There’s a lack of NPOV on the edits made on this page. Juhun87621 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should try to see if we can find any common ground here. Let's start with this: do you agree with me that the majority of secondary source coverage of Stable Diffusion describes it as being developed by Stability AI? If the answer is "no", can you suggest some procedure we could use to gather some objective data to answer this question? Colin M (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> Maybe we should try to see if we can find any common ground here.
Agree!
> do you agree with me that the majority of secondary source coverage of Stable Diffusion describes it as being developed by Stability AI?
No. All primary sources and almost all secondary sources list LMU Munich and Runway as developers and Stability as donating compute. The only argument against that is citing early sources that directly quote the CEO of Stability. Since when those articles were published, the CEO of Stability has retracted his position. See here
Primary Sources: These are the developers themselves. The creators of the model. This is the original source of information about the topic.The creators list multiple times that the model was developed by LMU Munich and Runway.
Secondary Sources:
> can you suggest some procedure we could use to gather some objective data to answer this question
I suggest we properly attribute the development, research, and training of the model to the original authors: LMU Munich and Runway. And we should attribute the compute donation to Stability. Let me know what you think. Juhun87621 (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list of secondary sources seem to be cherry picked to support your case. What I'm wondering is whether we can come up with a procedure to generate a sample of RS coverage of Stable Diffusion that is more or less unbiased, and then see what that sample says. For example, we could do a Google News search for "Stable Diffusion", sort by recent, and take the ten first sources that are listed as "generally reliable" at
WP:RSP. That's just the first idea that comes to mind. Let me know if you can think of a better method. Colin M (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm going to note that the secondary sources listed by Juhun87621 actually contradict their claim that Stability AI is not one of the original developers. For example, Silicon Angle: Stable Diffusion developer Runway raises $50M to create AI multimedia tools says "Runway provided the foundational research for Stable Diffusion and collaborated with Stability AI." The other sources seem to mostly just name one the co-developers, without naming the others, which makes sense because these articles are each largely about one of the co-developers launching a new project. So, again, these sources support that the original developers of Stable Diffusion are Runway, CompVis, and Stability AI. Note that I did not watch the "NVIDIA’s CEO" video that is over an hour long; if you expect to use that as a source please provide a time stamp and relevant quote from the video. Elspea756 (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> The list of secondary sources seem to be cherry picked to support your case
This is the same argument I made for all your sources and that you dismissed as "bad faith". All your secondary sources seem to be extremely cherry picked. As Elspea756 also mentions, all recent secondary sources support that the original developers of Stable Diffusion are Runway, CompVis, and Stability AI.
I think we need some common sense and good editorial judgment here. We should rely on statements of fact using primary sources and validated by reliable and up-to-date secondary sources. We have the statements, quotes, and citation from accounts written by the actual paper authors and developers. We should avoid a narrow perspective by using unreliable quotes in secondary sources. In this case, the actual developers, research, and training of the model has to be made to the the original authors: LMU Munich and Runway. And we should attribute the compute donation to Stability.
> Note that I did not watch the "NVIDIA’s CEO" video that is over an hour long; if you expect to use that as a source please provide a time stamp and relevant quote from the video
Apologies, time stamp here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiGB5uAYKAg&t=3202s (53:22) Juhun87621 (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same argument I made for all your sources and that you dismissed as "bad faith" The difference is that I explained to you the procedure that I used to generate my list of sources. We disagree on a factual question: do the majority of reliable secondary sources attribute Stable Diffusion primarily to Stability AI? I am saying that to reach some consensus about our disagreement on how the article should be worded, we need to reach consensus on this question of fact. I proposed above what I think could be a simple method to collect some data that would help us resolve this factual disagreement. If you care about resolving this, I think an experiment like the one I proposed (or you can suggest a different procedure if you like) is the right way forward. Colin M (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Colin M, you asked for sources and I listed a long list of both primary and secondary data sources. All gather via searching "Stable Diffusion developers" in Google. Feel free to do it yourself as an experiment. All reliable secondary sources list LMU Munich, Runway, and Stability as developers. Including the actual developers themselves. How can we argue against what the developers/inventors say? That's a fact. We need to take a neutral stance with common sense and good editorial judgment. All other contributors in this thread are on the same page with regards to having LMU Munich, Runway, and Stability as developers.
I will, once again, suggest that we properly attribute the development, research, and training of the model to the original authors: LMU Munich and Runway. And we should attribute the compute donation to Stability.
Other contributors, please chime in with feedback if the above sounds reasonable. Juhun87621 (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're sort of talking past each other at this point. I didn't ask for a list of sources that mention Runway/LMU Munich. I asked about the proportion of RS coverage that mentions those organizations vs. Stability AI. My claim is that the majority of secondary RS coverage gives sole or primary credit to Stability AI. I proposed a method to test this hypothesis (and offered that you could also suggest an alternative one), but you haven't really engaged with that line, so this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Colin M (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that "we could do a Google News search for 'Stable Diffusion', sort by recent, and take the ten first sources ..." is not a very good idea for finding information on the original contributors, as it will have a bias towards whichever of the original contributors is currently or most recently in the news with a new project. At this point, we have multiple reliable sources that name Runway, CompVis, and Stability AI as original contributors and explain their roles. I am not sure what is in dispute at this point. Which of these three original contributors -- Runway, CompVis, and Stability AI -- is anyone disputing? Or is there a dispute over their individual roles? Or how to credit them in the infobox? What is the dispute here? Elspea756 (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> The idea that "we could do a Google News search for 'Stable Diffusion', sort by recent, and take the ten first sources ..." is not a very good idea for finding information on the original contributors, as it will have a bias towards whichever of the original contributors is currently or most recently in the news with a new project
Very much agreed!
> At this point, we have multiple reliable sources that name Runway, CompVis, and Stability AI as original contributors and explain their roles. I am not sure what is in dispute at this point. Which of these three original contributors -- Runway, CompVis, and Stability AI
Exactly! Not sure what else is there to discuss. I propose we separate the contributors based on their contributions to the project. LMU Munich and Runway as developers and Stability as donating compute. We should update the infobox to match that. Juhun87621 (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the wikipedia software infobox, "original author" is for the "Name of the original author(s) or publisher(s) of the software," and "developer" is for the "Name of the current developer of the software." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_software So, the sources seem to say that "original author(s)" in the infobox would be Runway, CompVis, and Stability AI, and current "developer" would be Stability AI. Any differentiation of the respective roles of the original authors would go in the article itself, not the infobox, as there isn't a paramter for that in the infobox currently. Any proposed changes to the infobox -- such as "separate the contributors based on their contributions to the project" -- would need to be discussed on that template's talk page, with a much larger group of people participating in the discussion, as that infobox is used on about 14,000 pages. My suggestion is to just add "Runway, CompVis, and Stability AI" as "original author(s)" in the infobox, and do any clarifying of their respective roles in the article itself. Does that sound like a good solution here? Elspea756 (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> My suggestion is to just add "Runway, CompVis, and Stability AI" as "original author(s)" in the infobox, and do any clarifying of their respective roles in the article itself. Does that sound like a good solution here?
Sounds like a great solution. Do you want to make the changes? Juhun87621 (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what is in dispute at this point. Yeah, I'm not sure either. Juhun has done this edit, which incorporates several changes, which I disagree with for different reasons. I'd be happy to discuss any one of them in more detail. Overall, my feeling is:
  1. The intro and infobox of the article should summarize the key points from the body.
  2. The content in the intro and infobox related to SD's development are a fair summary of the content currently in the "Development" section.
  3. The "Development" section gives what I think is a
    due weight
    summary of what secondary sources say about SD's development, but I'm certainly open to expanding it with more detail.
Unless you disagree with me on points 1 or 2, then I think it would be premature to change the attribution in the infobox/intro without touching the body. If you think we're getting the attribution of credit wrong, I think we should start by focusing on the prose of the "Development" section. Does anyone have any suggestions for aspects that should be added or revised there? Colin M (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, yes, I think I see the dispute now. Neither the "Development" section nor the infobox currently give due weight to the original collaborators on Stable Diffusion's development, as this "Development" section currently does not mention RunwayML and we have multiple editors and multiple reliable sources pointing out that RunwayML was one of the original collaborators. So, we should add in RunwayML to both the "Development" section and as one of the "original authors" in the infobox, and everyone here should be pleased with our own collaborative work on improvement of this article. Elspea756 (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Development" section had already listed Patrick Esser and Robin Rombach as leaders of Stable Diffusion's original development. I have now added that Patrick Esser is from Runway and Robin Rombach is from CompVis, as is stated in the source already used in that sentence. I have then also added to the infobox as Original author(s) Runway, CompVis, and Stability AI. This is all supported by multiple sources, including those already used in the article, and this seems to be supported by multiple editors, and now the "Development" section and the infobox agree with each other, so I hope and believe this should resolve the dispute over how to describe the original authors' roles in the development here. Elspea756 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like much of the confusion above on who originally developed SD results from Stabilty AI pushing the narrative in a somewhat biased direction. In the meantime press articles have now carefully investigated these issues, clarified them and put matters straight. Also, all parties involved in the development of SD came to word. So the opening section should not cite a press release of only one company as the source for explaining who developed SD, but rather these independent press resources:
https://sifted.eu/articles/stability-ai-fundraise-leak
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrickcai/2023/06/04/stable-diffusion-emad-mostaque-stability-ai-exaggeration/?sh=347a8fcb75c5
Given those sources and the comments by Stability, the opening statement "It [SD] was developed by the start-up Stability AI in collaboration with a number of academic researchers and non-profit organizations" is factually wrong. The articles clearly outline that this was part of exaggerated claims by Stability AI prior to raising their seed funding round. Neither Stability AI, nor any of the other parties involved stick to this narrative anymore: even Stability'S CEO confirms "Stable Diffusion came from the Machine Vision & Learning research group (CompVis) @LMU_Muenchen", https://twitter.com/EMostaque/status/1587844074064822274?lang=en
Suggestions:
- rather than just citing the press release of one of the parties involved in SD in the opening section, we must list one of the recent independent investigations that clarify the contributions to the development of SD to avoid biases. Stability as well as all other parties were interviewed here so things are on level ground. That way we can avoid the impression of gate-keeping.
- all investigations and all parties involved with SD suggest the opening paragraph needs to be corrected to sth like "It was (originally) developed by researches from the CompVis Group at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich and Runway with a compute donation by Stability AI and training data from non-profit organizations". The articles clearly point out that Stability AI only later joined in when all coding was already done! Listing them as original developer is simply wrong. 207.102.170.162 (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you've found an error in the article, you can just correct it. If someone disagrees, they will change it back. Elspea756 (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus is that sexist image spam is unnecessary for this encyclopedia article

Current consensus is that sexist image spam is unnecessary for this encyclopedia article. This concept has been stated many times by multiple editors. The latest example of sexist image spam also seems to be making some sort of statement about religion and also seems potentially racially problematic. Per Wikipedia policy, the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Once again that has not happened here, so I will once again be removing the latest iteration of sexist image spam from this article. The most charitable reading of this user's actions would be that we are now at the "discuss" portion of "Bold, Revert, Discuss." A lack of discussion is not a sign of consensus; it can also be a sign that an editor is wasting our time by constantly spamming the same sorts of problematic images into this article. Elspea756 (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up. You have multiple IP editors telling you that your images are shit. You have multiple editors expressing that they wish the article be properly illustrated with an inpainting demonstration. You have not addressed the changes to
WP:SYSTEMIC, the primary concern raised by editors that you really love to quote over and over again. All you are capable of is pounding the table and yelling. You have zero interest in collaboratively and constructively building an encyclopedia. Just grow up. --benlisquareT•C•E 14:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
You're one post away from an indefinite block for personal attacks. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend not mistaking your preferences for consensus.
Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Here is a reminder that there is a long-standing consensus that sexist image spam is unnecessary for this encyclopedia article. Thank you. Elspea756 (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To re-affirm consensus per Elspea756. Ceoil (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should stay out of the article. Edit warring to try to put it back in is unwise.
MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Whatever edit waring about this is wise or not, it it is obvious from reading previous discussions here that there is no such consensus.
Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Model List

Maybe we should add stable Diffusion model list to article 188.162.39.131 (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stable_Diffusion&oldid=1210536646"