Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stable Diffusion is a big deal

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 488 posts

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#241

Post by Barrin92 »

andy_ppp wrote: post #144

Is this going to start changing the world as much as search did? My guess within 10 years AI will have changed everything, it won’t look like AGI but it’ll be good enough to be better than humans at most creative endeavours including things like generating whole films and possibly games with a few carefully arranged text prompts and start images. Quite terrifying. I wonder if it will be possible to train a neural net…

No, I don't think so. AI generated art that can fool humans has been around for years (7 years ago: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/computer-generates-m...) and it changed very little, nobody listens to robo-Bach.

In art humans always look for novelty and authenticity and not for mechanical reproduction, which quickly becomes generic. When every guy or girl on the planet could create a DeviantArt account and start drawing, did that have an impact on professional art? Not really.

We've increased the total artistic output and reduced cost several magnitudes over through tech, and if anything it's increased the demand for human novelty rather than reduce it. But as soon as the 'AI' label gets slapped on it people start to have weird Terminator fantasies.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#242

Post by srg0 »

systemvoltage wrote: post #138
michaelchisari wrote: post #6

After using SD heavily for a week, I half agree with this. It is incredibly disruptive, and it's wild how much it accelerates the creative process. I'll give you that. But two things I've noticed: First, artists will still have a massive advantage over non-artists with this tool. A photographer who intimately knows the different lenses and cameras and industry terms will get to a representation of their idea much fas…

I always wondered if we massively overestimate human creativity. Maybe it is ingrained in our culture and our very being. I’ve never heard counter arguments that humans are not that creative. Creativity demonstrated by Alpha zero chess engine blows Magnus Carlsen’s mind (from his recent interview with Lex Fridman), I wonder if at some point in the future, we’ll finally throw in the towel and get out of the denial pha…

I believe the creativity is primarily the process, something we enjoy doing, not the method to _produce_ or _generate_ something. Sort of like dogs like playing fetch. Some creative processes do not create permanent artifacts at all, like all performing arts.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#243

Post by Timwi »

> the model can be seen as a direct threat to their livelihoods.

When is somebody going to point out that this isn't Stable Diffusion’s fault, but capitalism’s? Why are we willing to stifle innovation for this instead of first making sure that everybody can live and create?

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#244

Post by petra »

WJW wrote: post #203
amelius wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but art school just turned into a one-semester course.

Of course not, it just gained a new "advanced stable diffusion usage" track. Photography didn't displace painting from art school, and even outside art there are plenty of examples to be found. CNC machines are awesome, but every machining class in existence still teaches manual lathing and milling.

Actually vector graphics tools did mostly displace painting for those who seek commercial skills.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#245

Post by amelius »

WJW wrote: post #203
amelius wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but art school just turned into a one-semester course.

Of course not, it just gained a new "advanced stable diffusion usage" track. Photography didn't displace painting from art school, and even outside art there are plenty of examples to be found. CNC machines are awesome, but every machining class in existence still teaches manual lathing and milling.

Photography didn't replace painting because style-transfers weren't possible. In other words, the technique is not intelligent. This is changing now.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#246

Post by quitit »

I've said this ad nauseam - but people who think this is going to kill an industry clearly have no idea of said industry.

It's a fantastically great tool, and a very exciting space, but reducing the function of creatives to people who draw pretty pictures is staggeringly ignorant.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#247

Post by mattmanser »

nvln wrote: post #211

My son is an artist and we have conversations around AI generated art almost every week these days. Our general consensus has been: 1. Artists that use SD etc., will save a lot of time and have a big edge. Example: Generating references instead of searching for them, Generate random inspiration(s) for abstract ideas, Variations of a particular idea to compare and contrast. 2. Non artists who have powerful imagination…

So I just tried beta.dreamstudio.ai, and am a bit underwhelmed.. It's compositions generally look silly or completely ignore the instructions, even if I turn cfg way up. I was generally generating 9 compositions at a time, here's some of the things I've tried:

"An elf fighting an orc in a forest"

Half the images had christmas elves so it's obviously bad at context, half looked like miniatures (models like games workshop), so it's obviously got a load of its data from pictures of miniature but doesn't realize and thinks that's what it should draw, and the "fighting" always looked pathetic.

"A human berserker with an axe fighting 3 orcs in the desert"

That had problems with actually putting a human in. Also no axe. Orcs designs were obviously stolen from LotR films orc design, the actual breath of orc designs in fantasy didn't seem to be represented at all. Often the weapons are for some inexplicable reason only part drawn.

"A space elevator leading up from new york"

Was a little more promising, but looks pretty amateurish, just a picture of a space elevator transposed over a picture of new york with terrible lighting, though it was choosing half decent perspectives.

"A 12th century castle on a hill in a hellscape surrounded by demon hordes"

Pretty much ignored everything after "castle", just a bunch of 12th century looking castles.

"A castle on a hill in a hellscape surrounded by demon hordes"

None of the 9 images generated has any sort of demons, it just coloured some castle a bit red.

I think artists are safe for another few years.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#248

Post by [deleted] »

noisymemories wrote: post #171
thewanderer1983 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artist today use the exact same method of learning from other peoples artwork to generate new artwork and styles. These models are learning just like any artist learns and then producing new content.

This is patently, obviously _wrong_ for anyone who has tried learning any artistic skill in their life. Sorry to be this straightforward, but it gets on my nerves every time I read it. If you tried learning, let's say, the chiaroscuro technique from Caravaggio you'd be analyzing the way the painter simulated volumetric space by using white and dark tones in place of natural lighting and shadows. You wouldn't even thi…

[deleted]

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#249

Post by omnimus »

ekianjo wrote: post #232
rvz wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now let's have a real oil on canvas hard copy painting of that digitally generated image please? SD is limited to only digital art first of all, so let's not get too over-excited and hyped around this tool just yet.

i dont think it would be a massive stretch of the imagination to be able to train a robotic arm to hold a brush and reproduce something that is on screen and do it really well.

Machines like that already exist but specifically with oil painting there is a lot of important information in how was the paint applied. So it is really really hard. Too many decisions in tools used, angles of the strokes, pressure, thickness of the color etc.

You might make painting that looks identical from far away but when you come close it will be completely different.

Re: Stable Diffusion is a big deal

#250

Post by roca »

selestify wrote: post #226
TulliusCicero wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on how easy it is to use the new tools. Getting higher level languages and various libraries/frameworks didn't make coders obsolete, because there was still tons of work to do at a "higher level" that required algorithmic/engineering-style thinking. Yes, previously difficult tasks got a lot easier, but that just meant that even more ambitious projects could be tackled, and that was useful. In contrast, i…

Is the same not true for programming? There's a lot of non-programmers that create programs in Excel, or use no code solutions. A relative newbie can still get a Wordpress website up and running, you only need professional SWEs for the heavy duty stuff.

For better or worse, you very very quickly pile up complexity when programming in a way that novices can't deal with (and experts too, often).

What we're going to find out is whether novice users of image generator AIs frequently get stuck with inadequate results. IMHO the answer is likely to be "no", especially after we've iterated on the tools for a few more years.

Post reply on HN