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

101–110 of 279 posts

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#101

Post by vouaobrasil »

ben_w wrote: post #94
vouaobrasil wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I suppose your need to create AI diversions is more important than the need of others to feel a sense of purpose through their work through their actual talent that you don't have? Good thing you have a full-time job.... Big Tech will benefit immensely from AI. Even if Stable Diffusion is free, it will spurn the development of new computers and new technology to run models like Stable Diffusion, so even not immedi…

> So I suppose your need to create AI diversions is more important than the need of others to feel a sense of purpose through their work through their actual talent that you don't have? Not so. Sense of purpose is important. Your sense of purpose conflicts with the opportunity of everyone else to express themselves as they wish. How familiar are you with utilitarian ethics, and the "mere addition paradox" criticism o…

> Your sense of purpose conflicts with the opportunity of everyone else to express themselves as they wish.

I do not believe people should be able to express themselves as they wish unconditionally. They should not be able to express themselves to the point of destroying the environment, they should not be able to express themselves by creating nuclear weapons or something EXTREMELY dangerous (AI), they should not be able to express themselves by disrupting society.

AI is just as disrupting as creating biological or chemical weapons, and perhaps even worse.

And it would horrible if AI could make us immortal. We should die...

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#102

Post by dbrgn »

gyy52380 wrote: post #66
dthul wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a very Luddite view. Why wouldn't artists be able to use AI selectively to automate "boring" tasks (such as filling the sky of an image with clouds) while still retaining overall artistic control?

Because that is not what's happening. My friends that work as illustrators for PC and mobile games say it's the exact opposite. AI is used for the bulk of the creative work - composition, posing, even the general artstyle. Illustrators are then tasked with "fixing" visual artefacts, stitching together generated images and giving the final polish. They describe it as being reduced from a creative writer to a grammar c…

When I watch a video like the demo-video for the Krita plugin we're discussing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QDPEcVmdLI), I do see a lot of creativity happening. The person is using stable diffusion as a tool to achieve the look, style and composition they want. The skill to be able to use such a model for creating art is definitely an acquired skill, and I would definitely consider it a form of art.

Of course there will be people just clicking "generate" on a website. But isn't that the difference between consumer and artist? Everyone can press the shutter button on a digital camera to take a snapshot. But the artist knows how to use light, angle and technology to create a photograph with the looks and composition that they intend. (If you compare snapshots from amateur photographers and from professionals, the differences are astounding. And it's not just about the cost of the equipment.)

Certainly, there will be jobs – especially the rather repetitive jobs – that will be replaced by the use of AI, just like stock photos replaced jobs of certain photographers, or just like industrialization and automation replaced the jobs of a lot of craftsmen and artisans. But craftsmen and artisans are still around, and they are paid a lot more than they used to be paid, as long as they provide added value on top of the generic products available on the market!

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#103

Post by jdiff »

ben_w wrote: post #78
vouaobrasil wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a luddite and I agree with most luddite sentiments. Most of this generative AI is NOT about using AI for boring tasks, and have you ever even tried to draw clouds? Not easy. Everyone draws clouds differently, which you would know if you ever tried to draw anything. Moreover, AI as a societal phenomenon goes way beyond AI drawing clouds.

> Most of this generative AI is NOT about using AI for boring tasks, and have you ever even tried to draw clouds? Not easy. Everyone draws clouds differently, which you would know if you ever tried to draw anything. Perlin noise on a plane, can be either in line with the camera or off at an angle. Nice effect. Very easy. I don't even count myself as a proper artist. Clouds can obviously be hard when you have a specif…

> Perlin noise on a plane, can be either in line with the camera or off at an angle.

This looks like trash and doesn't look like clouds. Even if you're doing procedural clouds, everyone does them differently. And a lot better than just slapping Perlin noise on a plane. Photoshop filters cannot change the bones of a cloud, and when people are illustrating clouds they're taking entirely different approaches. They're not just "this cloud, but flat" or "this cloud, but with a fuzzy diffused look." All you're doing is showcasing your own lack of knowledge on the subject while filling the arrogant techbro stereotype perfectly.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#104

Post by lancesells »

vonjuice wrote: post #69
ben_w wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mm. Possibly, but not necessarily. I have a suspicion that art is to humans as fancy tails are to peacocks: the difficulty is the point. I believe this is why we have art galleries proudly displaying oil paintings of fruit bowls, but don't do this for random food snapshots. It's also why photographs as a category were initially dismissed (in an era that had come to praise extreme realism in paintings), but when photo…

We have art galleries displaying things like empty canvases or toilet bowls that make a statement, it's definitely not about difficulty. The fact is that the debate about what art is is part of what makes art art, it escapes definition because part of the spirit of art is rebelling against definition.

> art galleries displaying things like empty canvases or toilet bowls

This is so far from the norm and feels like a television lens version of artists and art galleries. Yes, Duchamp used a toilet bowl in 1917 as art which was over 100 year ago. This is known because no one had done it before and presented an everyday object as art. This is 106 years old but still referred to so you can guess it was a big deal.

My suggestion is to visit a modern art museum in a larger city and you'll see this kind of "easy bullshit art as a statement" doesn't really exist.

https://www.tate.org.uk https://www.hauserwirth.com https://www.moma.org https://www.davidzwirner.com https://gagosian.com

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#105

Post by vouaobrasil »

greatpatton wrote: post #98
vouaobrasil wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well: (1) AI has already been used for IDENTIY THEFT in many places. Check this out: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-scam-voice-clone-fake-kid... AI here to clone a voice was used to make a mother think her daughter had been kidnapped (2) People getting fired from their jobs such as illustrators because AI can now do things. Also, people NOT getting hired when they could. (3) I am a professional writer, and I know…

Ok but that can be said of any technology. Chemistry is bad because someone used it to poison their friend. Phones are bad because it can be used for bomb threats, cars are bad because they put out of work the whole horse industry and you can go on and on forever. Every single technology can be abused but it doesn't mean that they mainly cause damage.

(1) You are right, and that is why we should be much more cautious with technology.

(2) AI is unique in the sense that it has a much wider range and acts much faster. Therefore, it is much more dangerous, similar to how both salt and sodium cyanide are dangerous but the latter is much worse. You need to think in terms of the magnitude of the effect, not just its qualitative nature.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#106

Post by ben_w »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #101
ben_w wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So I suppose your need to create AI diversions is more important than the need of others to feel a sense of purpose through their work through their actual talent that you don't have? Not so. Sense of purpose is important. Your sense of purpose conflicts with the opportunity of everyone else to express themselves as they wish. How familiar are you with utilitarian ethics, and the "mere addition paradox" criticism o…

> Your sense of purpose conflicts with the opportunity of everyone else to express themselves as they wish. I do not believe people should be able to express themselves as they wish unconditionally. They should not be able to express themselves to the point of destroying the environment, they should not be able to express themselves by creating nuclear weapons or something EXTREMELY dangerous (AI), they should not be…

> AI is just as disrupting as creating biological or chemical weapons, and perhaps even worse.

Perhaps? You had death by paperclip optimiser right there in my comment :P

> And it would horrible if AI could make us immortal. We should die...

Samuel Johnson tires of London, visits an undisclosed location somewhere near Zürich.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#107

Post by vouaobrasil »

dbrgn wrote: post #102
gyy52380 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that is not what's happening. My friends that work as illustrators for PC and mobile games say it's the exact opposite. AI is used for the bulk of the creative work - composition, posing, even the general artstyle. Illustrators are then tasked with "fixing" visual artefacts, stitching together generated images and giving the final polish. They describe it as being reduced from a creative writer to a grammar c…

When I watch a video like the demo-video for the Krita plugin we're discussing ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QDPEcVmdLI ), I do see a lot of creativity happening. The person is using stable diffusion as a tool to achieve the look, style and composition they want. The skill to be able to use such a model for creating art is definitely an acquired skill, and I would definitely consider it a form of art. Of course…

I would never argue that you CAN'T do something creative with it. The problem is not even this single tool itself, but the greater amalgamation of all AI tools that arise from the general soceital phenomenon of using AI.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#108

Post by dartos »

hutzlibu wrote: post #95
makeitdouble wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it that different from how we view Github copilot ? As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who don't intend to ever rely on copilot, and I would expect the a similar trend in the drawing community with amateurs and pros not specially anti-AI, but not wanting to have a random generator meddle with their art.

"As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who don't intend to ever rely on copilot" Is that really a thing? I mean, I also don't want to rely on Microsoft and therefore also not on Copilot, but not using AI tools in general out of principle is probably a very rare minority. I simply would prefer my own local LLM. But in the thread linked above I read "AI never had and never will have it’s place in art." And…

Well think of how AI was trained. GitHub trained copilot on _mostly_ open source data with permissive licenses.

Giving away code and their rights for free is commonplace. Also it’s not like you can use “by Ryan Dhal” to make the output from copilot better.

But these art AI were trained on. CC, CC-BY, and closed license pieces of art. And you can use “by Greg Rotowski” to get art in that artist’s specific style.

I don’t think comparing the use of AI or the general attitude towards AI between artists and devs makes sense. Very apples and oranges.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#109

Post by southerntofu »

hutzlibu wrote: post #95
makeitdouble wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it that different from how we view Github copilot ? As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who don't intend to ever rely on copilot, and I would expect the a similar trend in the drawing community with amateurs and pros not specially anti-AI, but not wanting to have a random generator meddle with their art.

"As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who don't intend to ever rely on copilot" Is that really a thing? I mean, I also don't want to rely on Microsoft and therefore also not on Copilot, but not using AI tools in general out of principle is probably a very rare minority. I simply would prefer my own local LLM. But in the thread linked above I read "AI never had and never will have it’s place in art." And…

> "As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who don't intend to ever rely on copilot"

I'm one of those. I've been programming for a while now and there's no way i'm gonna trust a neural network with my code. Debugging is painful enough without having to deal with subtle bugs hallucinated by ML.

Some machines are really useful to reduce human suffering and augment our collective capabilities. Some machines are just useless, polluting gadgets. I think ML sits in the middleground: if your job is pissing meaningless code all day that's very repetitive it can probably do it for you... but if you have to actually do R&D to develop new tools i don't think ML will be any use.

So yes AI can reduce work, but arguably work that was never required nor beneficial to humanity to begin with. I would be way more interested in society reflecting on "bullshit jobs" and how to actually share the workload so that we can have 1-day work-weeks planet-wide, just as the scientists from the 19th/20th century envisioned. Instead of continuing to destroy the planet so we can run bullshitting neural nets in the cloud that produce arguably little value.

But sure, ML is fun. Let's just pretend we don't see the whole world burning outside the window.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#110

Post by lionkor »

hutzlibu wrote: post #95
makeitdouble wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it that different from how we view Github copilot ? As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who don't intend to ever rely on copilot, and I would expect the a similar trend in the drawing community with amateurs and pros not specially anti-AI, but not wanting to have a random generator meddle with their art.

"As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who don't intend to ever rely on copilot" Is that really a thing? I mean, I also don't want to rely on Microsoft and therefore also not on Copilot, but not using AI tools in general out of principle is probably a very rare minority. I simply would prefer my own local LLM. But in the thread linked above I read "AI never had and never will have it’s place in art." And…

Yes, that's a thing, I'm one of those people.

While impressive, the two issues I have with codepilot and other AI tools are:

1. The code is usually the same code I'd get a few web searches away, except then it would have the appropriate copyright. As a FOSS developer (in my free time), I do not want to risk using code I don't have a license for, and thus dirtying up my entire project and putting it in danger of being taken down.

2. I really don't need it. At very few points in a project do I both think "I want to continue this" and also "I want my code written for me". I like autocomplete, I use autocomplete, and I like Visual Studio's suggestions, too. It's only wrong 50% of the time, around about. I have no interest in a tool that writes my code for me, because I have learned everything I know from solving problems myself.

Edit: Clauses in the AI's ToS like "all code generated is yours" or something is akin to a sign on a bar saying "if you hit someone in here it's not assault" -- it doesn't change the facts whatsoever, and the fact is that it's still a crime to hit somebody, even if the bar's ToS say otherwise.

Post reply on HN