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

211–220 of 230 posts

Re: Microsoft Designer

#211

Post by nuancebydefault »

toss1 wrote: post #209
nuancebydefault wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think of it, every work of art is a combination and/or transformation of pre-existing work. Only Adam and Eve never plagiarized.

While most works of are re-combinations (up in the how many 9s after 99% region?), it is pretty hard to say that there has never been a new idea. Humanity has come from apes without art, up to modern digital art painted with lasers in the sky with drones.... From cave painting through Greek & Roman art, through Renaissance through modern art, and it's not merely new mediums for the same painting (and even so, "the me…

This is a very interesting discussion. Now zoom in into your understanding of "new idea". You can also call it "refinement of existing idea". "New" can be (and maybe always is? ) a combination or transformation of "existing". Just like any number is a combination of other numbers.

Re: Microsoft Designer

#212

Post by Riverheart »

nuancebydefault wrote: post #210
Riverheart wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI isn't "imitating" anything. Imitation is a conscious effort a human makes. Any artist could try copying someone's style by looking at a piece of art. AI can't look at an image and say "I'll imitate that". A human "trains" an AI on images to create a model of how X looks with different examples and piecemeals together something that looks new but is in fact a million tiny data copies from all the images it was trai…

It always boils down to the same question when discussing a.i. Is there a difference between people's imagination (producing art that is considered new, but is unmistakably influenced by existing pieces of art) and copying/transforming and stitching together pieces of existing art? In a few years from now, probably nobody can tell the difference anymore. Same question holds for the reasoning and intelligence capabili…

Even if there was no difference at all in the process of image generation between AI and humans I would argue humans and AI should not be held to the same standard of law (and we're not even talking about true AI).

A human that copies someone will die. An AI can live, multiply, and be improved forever. Humans will never compete against anything they wind up being capable of. Society is built for humans not AI.

Re: Microsoft Designer

#213

Post by ly3xqhl8g9 »

Kwpolska wrote: post #200
ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was indeed the second link I clicked after a summary search. Personally, I have not used the Windows Calculator app in a decade or so, but I blame Microsoft for other thousands of hours of pointless eye strain trying to fix and get work done through their applications. Still, I don't think one is unreasonable to expect that a calculator app should never crash after an update or be a nuisance if it's made by a 1.89…

As I said, I don’t think many people experienced Windows Calculator not working. Is it completely impossible? No, because computers are weird sometimes. But all three articles are just spam. The writers of those articles definitely did not experience nor fix Calculator crashing, they just took their template “how to fix [modern Windows] $application” post and replaced $application with Calculator. You can also find s…

I mentioned Greg Kroah-Hartman's interview specifically to point out a greater issue and to not fall into a flamewar: my calculator app is better than yours. Just as a mention, my favorite calculator app is a bash function:

  function calc {
    python3 -c "from math import *; print($*)"
  }
and then simply call:

  calc "5 + cos(pi)"
it never fails, even if computers are weird, and there are no spam articles on how to fix it since there is nothing to fix.

Re: Microsoft Designer

#214

Post by toss1 »

nuancebydefault wrote: post #211
toss1 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While most works of are re-combinations (up in the how many 9s after 99% region?), it is pretty hard to say that there has never been a new idea. Humanity has come from apes without art, up to modern digital art painted with lasers in the sky with drones.... From cave painting through Greek & Roman art, through Renaissance through modern art, and it's not merely new mediums for the same painting (and even so, "the me…

This is a very interesting discussion. Now zoom in into your understanding of "new idea". You can also call it "refinement of existing idea". "New" can be (and maybe always is? ) a combination or transformation of "existing". Just like any number is a combination of other numbers.

Agreed, interesting!

So, if we're to establish (I won't say "prove") the idea of [everything is transformation], we'd need to sort out the list of primitives, which are being re-combined.

Conversely, for the [some things are really new], we'd have to find the new items. That said, the new items will almost popup in the context of other transformations, e.g., a new innovation in painting would still likely occur within some more normal transformations.

Take for example the Abstract Art movement, which was about painting not representations of real things, but exploring the elements of form, color, line, texture, but not painting people or landscapes (or only doing so in a very abstract way). So, painting a person on a digital medium vs oil & canvas or watercolor is a transformation. But my sense is that some of these abstract artists were actually digging down into the lower levels of subconscious visual processing, where the initial processing is to find edges, colors, movement, textures, and this was entirely new in the history of painting.

What about concepts, from the flat earth to the round earth, from geocentricism to heliocentrism, to no special location in the universe, or from earth-water-fire-air to alchemy, to structure-of-the-atom-based chemistry? Are there no new ideas here, or are they just out of scope?

To your example, is any number just a combination of other numbers? The concept of Zero didn't exist for a long time in recorded history (how long is debated). What about negative numbers, imaginary numbers? Do we consider these new or combinations?

Or, are we just discussing the Ship of Theseus, a fundamentally unsolvable question that depends on our concept of "new"? (still a fun rabbit hole!)

Re: Microsoft Designer

#215

Post by anileated »

nuancebydefault wrote: post #211
toss1 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While most works of are re-combinations (up in the how many 9s after 99% region?), it is pretty hard to say that there has never been a new idea. Humanity has come from apes without art, up to modern digital art painted with lasers in the sky with drones.... From cave painting through Greek & Roman art, through Renaissance through modern art, and it's not merely new mediums for the same painting (and even so, "the me…

This is a very interesting discussion. Now zoom in into your understanding of "new idea". You can also call it "refinement of existing idea". "New" can be (and maybe always is? ) a combination or transformation of "existing". Just like any number is a combination of other numbers.

1. You know that these tools are known to sometimes output a result that is 1:1 copy of a work from training data. Even those cases aside, in many (most?) cases a few or even one specific artist served as the source (sometimes the prompt is specifically created that way).

2. Human mind can recombine all it wants. It’s called a homage, a reproduction, or a cover. When a software tool does that automated and at scale, though, it is copyright violation.

Re: Microsoft Designer

#216

Post by layer8 »

The page completely fails to mention what is being designed here. Web pages? Documents? UIs? Images? Probably not engines or programs or clothing cuts. It looks graphic-design-y, but otherwise I have no idea what use cases this is intended for.

Re: Microsoft Designer

#217

Post by jodrellblank »

ChatGTP wrote: post #199
jodrellblank wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " Nearly every single known artist is known because they developed a unique style, and worked to develop that style. They didn't just copy other peoples stuff and sell it. To make a machine that just rips off peoples styles and then you charge money for it is freaking lame as and I really hope they get sued hard for it. " Because when you drink Cherry Cola or eat Cherry Bakewell Tart, your first thought is to the c…

I don’t eat that crap.

You also don't understand analogy?

Re: Microsoft Designer

#218

Post by des1nderlase »

CatWChainsaw wrote: post #207
des1nderlase wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To offer counter perspective, how is this different than any craftmanship being replaced for centuries by mass scale factories and automation. Is this is just the last wave of workforce displacement by automation?

Steven Zapata has a really good video on Youtube about "the end of art". He offers this analogy: If a factory worker at a car manufacturing plant was handed a screwdriver, and he claimed it was "replacing" him, we would know that he is incorrect; it is a tool designed to make him more productive. But the day they rolled out the robotic assembly lines, however, he was correct: those were designed to replace him. And t…

Yeah, a tool = increased productivity => output = worker time x multiplier a robot = automation => output = machine time (without human) + worker time (part that cannot yet be automated)

Re: Microsoft Designer

#219

Post by ChatGTP »

jodrellblank wrote: post #217
ChatGTP wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t eat that crap.

You also don't understand analogy?

Not really to be honest. I’d like to.

I also think it’s a matter of scale, I guess you’re staying a company has stolen another companies flavouring formulae, and used it for their own devices, which does seem like ripping something off, anyway…I shouldn’t and don’t care in that case so I shouldn’t care when artists work is is used to profit off without paying them royalties ? ..

Re: Microsoft Designer

#220

Post by pas »

Riverheart wrote: post #146
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…

Are we equating the capabilities of humans and AI now? AI isn't "imitimating" it's synthesizing an output, in seconds, based on a giant database of art scraped from the internet by human researchers, without permission from those artists, to be crystallized in a form that will outlive every artist born and yet born till the heat death of the universe. If copyright doesn't distinguish between that then copyright needs…

Not the capabilities, the results.

One one hand I support authors' rights to place restrictions on their art for a limited time. (Not the current forever + 75 years.) So let them draw whatever lines they want in the sand.

Because otherwise there's no general good way to delineate generative AI from other tools. It's a very fast magic brush. (You might have seen timelapse videos of artists do a digital painting. It's already pretty magical. Especially to me, because I can't even draw to eggs to match.)

Post reply on HN