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

Microsoft Designer

designer.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 230 posts

Re: Microsoft Designer

#131

Post by spaceman_2020 »

hiisukun wrote: post #48

I feel a deep sadness, a sympathy, or sense of loss for the countless artists who have toiled to produce beautiful works over the decades (centuries?), just for them to be approximated by a single click as a vector mashup in an AI generative search space. And without so much as a by your leave. I'm not saying it's logical to be against AI image generation, but definitely have a feeling that something has gone wrong h…

I, for one, don't think there will be any shortage of demand for actually good human-created art.

I also don't think that much of what's available online is true "art".

Re: Microsoft Designer

#132

Post by joenathanone »

alpaca128 wrote: post #91
injidup wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was in the "Alte Pinoteke" in Munich, Germany, on Sunday. It is a fabulous gallery full of huge and old master paintings. There was a certain 4 frame series with each frame about 5m long by 3m high. Each was an architectural study of Rome with each being from a different view direction. What struck me was the text written below the paintings which indicated that the artist, after *3 years of work*, had been quoted…

> I can only assume that the same arguments and complaints were raised at every stage a new technology was introduced that lowered the cost and time to produce "content". Which of those technologies were based on billions of copyright violations? And of course this copyright still exists but is only enforced in one direction, just like on YouTube where random corporations can claim copyright on any video and hurt the…

>Which of those technologies were based on billions of copyright violations?

All of them, no one is reinventing the wheel every time something new is made, every invention is based on the inventions that proceeded it, it's how human society advances and learns.

Re: Microsoft Designer

#133

Post by k_ »

hiisukun wrote: post #48

I feel a deep sadness, a sympathy, or sense of loss for the countless artists who have toiled to produce beautiful works over the decades (centuries?), just for them to be approximated by a single click as a vector mashup in an AI generative search space. And without so much as a by your leave. I'm not saying it's logical to be against AI image generation, but definitely have a feeling that something has gone wrong h…

I also don't like where this is going, and can't see any way to make it stop. Maybe some of these illustrators may see their job evolve from content creation to AI training through their art / vision.

Re: Microsoft Designer

#134

Post by ilkke »

jstx1 wrote: post #127
hiisukun wrote: post #48

I feel a deep sadness, a sympathy, or sense of loss for the countless artists who have toiled to produce beautiful works over the decades (centuries?), just for them to be approximated by a single click as a vector mashup in an AI generative search space. And without so much as a by your leave. I'm not saying it's logical to be against AI image generation, but definitely have a feeling that something has gone wrong h…

I don't think anything has gone wrong. Progress is ruthless and doesn't care whether you've spent your whole life on mastering some skill - if you can be replaced by something better, eventually you will be. It's still kind of sad for the people who are affected though (when/if they are affected? kind of hasn't happened yet).

In this case, at least so far, "better" means faster and cheaper. Personally I don't see AI itself as the problem, in many ways it's just tech optimising for the shitty hole we have created for ourselves. Can't say I'm too optimistic that it will help us step out of that hole and into more meaningful roles , but perhaps it's exactly the jolt we needed.

Very related, am I the only one who finds it funny corp lingo for human artists is "content creators", and what AI is spitting out is called "art"?

Re: Microsoft Designer

#135

Post by alpaca128 »

pas wrote: post #120
alpaca128 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can only assume that the same arguments and complaints were raised at every stage a new technology was introduced that lowered the cost and time to produce "content". Which of those technologies were based on billions of copyright violations? And of course this copyright still exists but is only enforced in one direction, just like on YouTube where random corporations can claim copyright on any video and hurt the…

What's the infringement? You can't copyright style, no? If artists can look at each others copyright-in-full-force works and then imitate it, why can't AI? Corporations having too much power is different from technology encroaching on previously uniquely human faculties. Of course both are phenomena that ought to be addressed by society. At which point we see that it's a political problem, and of course politics is b…

> If artists can look at each others copyright-in-full-force works and then imitate it, why can't AI?

AI can reconstruct many training images in surprising detail. Show me an artist who can draw you an image they practiced on 10 years ago including the rough shape of the watermark.

> Of course generating pictures is different from using them, let's say in ads.

Microsoft's Copilot is a paid service, same with OpenAI's upcoming ChatGPT Plus subscription. Nobody here claims that it's illegal to draw Mickey Mouse and hang it on your fridge, but those AI models aren't trained just for fun. If Microsoft is allowed to make money from ignoring countless license terms I should be allowed to make my own short film trained with Disney cartoons and sell it. But we all know how well that would turn out.

Re: Microsoft Designer

#136

Post by 323 »

rvz wrote: post #86
hiisukun wrote: post #48

I feel a deep sadness, a sympathy, or sense of loss for the countless artists who have toiled to produce beautiful works over the decades (centuries?), just for them to be approximated by a single click as a vector mashup in an AI generative search space. And without so much as a by your leave. I'm not saying it's logical to be against AI image generation, but definitely have a feeling that something has gone wrong h…

What artists? They will just move to physical art pieces and charge more for that once commissioned to do that. This only affects digital artists; not those who do physical art, sculptures and hard back paintings. HN only tells me that almost none of you have even visited a modern art museum.

It won't be long until they connect AI to a robot with a paintbrush in it's hand.

Re: Microsoft Designer

#137

Post by pas »

alpaca128 wrote: post #135
pas wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the infringement? You can't copyright style, no? If artists can look at each others copyright-in-full-force works and then imitate it, why can't AI? Corporations having too much power is different from technology encroaching on previously uniquely human faculties. Of course both are phenomena that ought to be addressed by society. At which point we see that it's a political problem, and of course politics is b…

> If artists can look at each others copyright-in-full-force works and then imitate it, why can't AI? AI can reconstruct many training images in surprising detail. Show me an artist who can draw you an image they practiced on 10 years ago including the rough shape of the watermark. > Of course generating pictures is different from using them, let's say in ads. Microsoft's Copilot is a paid service, same with OpenAI's…

> Show me an artist who can draw you an image they practiced on 10 years ago including the rough shape of the watermark.

I can't but that doesn't mean there are none. For music we have a lot of examples of artists who can copy perfectly. For visual arts we have people who take a helicopter tour of a city and then draw it in amazing detail.

Yes, time discounts everything for humans. That doesn't mean human artists don't cargo-cult watermark-like things. (One example is putting text/symbols on clothes that the designer doesn't bother to understand.)

> Copilot and MickeyMouse

This thread started by someone commenting about paintings in the Alte Pinakotheke, then about Disney.

Now it's language models.

Obviously they are different, but what's more important is that copying is more clear-cut in code, less degrees of freedom compared to visuals.

That said, at this point it's important to discuss how copyright works. You can look at someone's code. You can copy the style. Let's say you never saw functional code, you see a lot of it, then you learn functional style. Neat. But you can't copy the Haskell standard library 1:1 without infringing.

If Copilot produces Haskell stdlib, the copyright holders can sue.

And of course that's again where politics comes in. Since this is a new phenomena that disadvantages many small copyright holders this is where society ought to step in and help them to enforce their copyrights.

(So it's important to note that copyright and the license terms don't kick in if it's not a derived work. And that's the discussion we should be having. Maybe as a quick hotfix society should tweak copyright law and make it more broad in terms of what it considers a derivative. We can also put in the specifier that "except for humans, if you swear you did not use an artificial neural net" or whatever. I don't think this makes much of a difference, unfortunately. AI - and other kinds of technological changes - makes a lot of existing inequality problems worse. The general solution is to fix the inequalities. Of course if politics were actually representative of people's needs the inequalities were also likely inconsequential.)

Re: Microsoft Designer

#138

Post by billpg »

smcl wrote: post #125
smileybarry wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paint 3D itself was deprecated later and Paint was un-deprecated, it's just updated by the store now. (It even has a Windows 11 redesign!) Snipping Tool was deprecated, but everything at this point was ported over to the (arguably better) "new" Snipping Tool, and it just got screen(/area) recording too.

It's funny that there is a use for the word "un-deprecated" but that's good news! Now that I think about it I guess I'm glad that they didn't remove or replace the original tools - I could still use them.

"Precated"?

Re: Microsoft Designer

#139

Post by noindiecred »

hiisukun wrote: post #48

I feel a deep sadness, a sympathy, or sense of loss for the countless artists who have toiled to produce beautiful works over the decades (centuries?), just for them to be approximated by a single click as a vector mashup in an AI generative search space. And without so much as a by your leave. I'm not saying it's logical to be against AI image generation, but definitely have a feeling that something has gone wrong h…

As soon as I saw that part of page I thought, "oh shit." All I can think about these days is all the parts of my job that will be automated away by AI, until there's no longer a reason to employ me.

Re: Microsoft Designer

#140

Post by Dalewyn »

hiisukun wrote: post #48

I feel a deep sadness, a sympathy, or sense of loss for the countless artists who have toiled to produce beautiful works over the decades (centuries?), just for them to be approximated by a single click as a vector mashup in an AI generative search space. And without so much as a by your leave. I'm not saying it's logical to be against AI image generation, but definitely have a feeling that something has gone wrong h…

>When Microsoft, a billion dollar global software firm, can profit by generating these images I must ask if they are the ones that worked for such reward.

The vast majority of the image generation crowd are (surprise surprise) adamantly against paying artists for training materials.

Post reply on HN