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

Krita AI Diffusion

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 279 posts

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#31

Post by diputsmonro »

shultays wrote: post #22
hafriedlander wrote: post #8

Somewhat tangential, but the Krita community and core team have been pretty explicitly anti-AI. https://krita-artists.org/t/change-in-policy-for-topics-rela... (I am part of a group that builds UI on top of open models, but we stopped working on our Krita version for that reason.)

Huh, I wasn't aware Krita was a thing. As a software engineer that rarely needs image editing Gimp was my go to software. Why there is a second open source image editing software now?

As a software engineer and artist, Krita feels more focused on drawing/painting with a pen, while GIMP has always felt to me as more focused on photography/editing.

Obviously they both manipulate images so there's lots of overlap in features, but the idea of painting or drawing in GIMP seems really alien to me. I'm sure the interface and pen support was even worse when the Krita project was started.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#32

Post by raincole »

shultays wrote: post #22
hafriedlander wrote: post #8

Somewhat tangential, but the Krita community and core team have been pretty explicitly anti-AI. https://krita-artists.org/t/change-in-policy-for-topics-rela... (I am part of a group that builds UI on top of open models, but we stopped working on our Krita version for that reason.)

Huh, I wasn't aware Krita was a thing. As a software engineer that rarely needs image editing Gimp was my go to software. Why there is a second open source image editing software now?

Krita aims for SAI/CSP, GIMP aims (well... sorta) for PS.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#33

Post by dahhowl »

kranke155 wrote: post #18
thot_experiment wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AI hate is suuuch a meme in the art community, it's very frustrating/alienating. (Though understandably, neoliberal capitalism is also extremely frustrating, so I see why artists mad, I just wish they'd be mad at the root cause.) ((the root cause is that an economic system fundamentally based on scarcity == value doesn't make sense when applied to things that are essentially infinite, and kludgeing in artificial…

Yet this terrible economic system you describe determines whether these people can afford food, rent and their children's education. Yeah it must be a meme.

Surely, there exists no other economic system where a percentage of the world's population is allowed access to food, rent and education for their children.

And there certainly doesn't exist any where the entirety of the world population can be given access to these things.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#34

Post by axytol »

They list under hardware requirements "a powerful graphics card with at least 6 GB VRAM is recommended. Otherwise generating images will take very long"

Does anyone have any idea what would very long mean on a 4GB VRAM card?

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#35

Post by duckmysick »

shultays wrote: post #22
hafriedlander wrote: post #8

Somewhat tangential, but the Krita community and core team have been pretty explicitly anti-AI. https://krita-artists.org/t/change-in-policy-for-topics-rela... (I am part of a group that builds UI on top of open models, but we stopped working on our Krita version for that reason.)

Huh, I wasn't aware Krita was a thing. As a software engineer that rarely needs image editing Gimp was my go to software. Why there is a second open source image editing software now?

> Why there is a second open source image editing software now?

Because it's possible and someone wants to. Same reason why we have multiple Linux distros, multiple databases, multiple browsers, multiple text editors.

Are you surprised that open source software in general is duplicated? Or is this specific just to image editing software. If yes, what makes image editing software special so that having a second option is surprising?

Yes, open source promotes collaboration. It also promotes forking and starting new projects.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#36

Post by dbrgn »

Lacerda69 wrote: post #27
wokwokwok wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's very frustrating/alienating Mm. I’ve spoken to a number of artists who have expressed similar feelings of despair, frustration and anger. There are many upset people over this technology, and calling it a meme diminishes them to meaningless copycat haters. I don’t think that’s true; and doing it, really reallllly makes them angry. Consider: this attitude it part of the reason why that attitude exists. :| If th…

IMO all of this will blow over in a few years and most artists will accept that "AI" is just another tool that one can use to create art. It took some time for photography as well... edit: typo

That's an interesting point. Retouching a photo after taking it used to be "manipulating reality", frowned upon by "real" photographers. Nowadays, postprocessing digital negatives and adding your own style to it is part of a normal photographer's workflow.

(However, I think the negative feelings don't come from a discussion of "real vs fake" or "classical vs new", but mostly from the point of view that using artwork as training data is stealing. I don't agree with that view, but I think it's at the core of the argument.)

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#37

Post by dbrgn »

Zetobal wrote: post #11
irusensei wrote: post #5

> AMD GPU: supported via DirectML, Windows only Uh... I'm not happy with this trend. Thankfully there is an option for using a ComfyUI, a torch based project as a backend.

That's not a trend that's basically the norm for generative ai and AMD is to blame for it not the devs.

Why is that the case? Tools like OpenCL do exist, but I assume CUDA is simply better suited for these tasks, is that true?

(With the dominance of CUDA, choice of a GPU on Linux gets even harder. It used to be a clear "fuck you Nvidia" if you wanted to use Wayland, but Nvidia definitely has the lead when it's about video editing and machine learning.)

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#38

Post by tannhaeuser »

It says Mac OS support is untested, but wouldn't Mac OS be a great test bed, with many graphic pro users, and Apple Silicon running Stable Diffusion out of the box? DiffusionBee already does in-/outpainting and basically all the other things this integration is promising, you only have to copy/paste image data and resolution/context parameters I guess. But then this brings in the Python ML stack which seems like a no-go for an end-user product AFAICS, unless you wanted to generate endless support tickets.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#39

Post by jdiff »

dbrgn wrote: post #36
Lacerda69 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO all of this will blow over in a few years and most artists will accept that "AI" is just another tool that one can use to create art. It took some time for photography as well... edit: typo

That's an interesting point. Retouching a photo after taking it used to be "manipulating reality", frowned upon by "real" photographers. Nowadays, postprocessing digital negatives and adding your own style to it is part of a normal photographer's workflow. (However, I think the negative feelings don't come from a discussion of "real vs fake" or "classical vs new", but mostly from the point of view that using artwork…

People have been doing post processing of photographs as long as photographs have existed.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#40

Post by neoromantique »

raincole wrote: post #23
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s more just ridiculous because the same community is completely fine with photobashing and “paint overs” (aka tracing) and “fan art” (aka profiting from IP you don’t own).

Photobashing was hated to death when it was new. Now it's the norm (for environmental concept art at least). AI will go through the same process.

AI is the norm for concept art already, it's too useful for it not to be.
Post reply on HN