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

121–130 of 279 posts

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#121

Post by RunSet »

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…

I see a different future where people continue to write their own code rather than trust Microsoft AutoPlagiarist™. Perhaps I am wrong and this no-code solution will at last relieve us of our onerous cognitive burdens.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#122

Post by cwillu »

bayindirh wrote: post #116
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…

I don't agree. I take photographs as a hobby, and share them, just for showing them off. They're generally licensed with CC-NC-BY plus no derivatives (akin to GPL), but I don't want my images to be taken to a training set to feed a generative model without my consent , because you're violating the license terms I put on it. Same is valid for my code. I stopped using GitHub, because it devours any and all open reposit…

For what it's worth, CC-NC is not akin to the GPL, at all.

The GPL says “you can sell this if you want, but whoever you sell it to can still do whatever they want with it, subject to the same terms.”

CC-NC says “you can't do whatever you want with this”

Which isn't to say that you're wrong to use whatever license you like, just that it's very much not similar in spirit to the GPL. Protecting the right of others to make derivatives of the thing being licensed is, in fact, the entire point of the license.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#123

Post by happymellon »

tambourine_man wrote: post #118
hutzlibu wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I’m a Vim guy and I’m very impressed with VS Copilot, but: - Not enough to switch (yet, at least) - I would have to carefully review the generated code, which is not as fun writing The license issue is something I expect will be solved in the next few years (a dropdown menu to choose from, maybe).

> The license issue is something I expect will be solved in the next few years (a dropdown menu to choose from, maybe).

I'm not sure it will, as everyone who uses it don't appear to really care about other people's licences anyway. It's just a method of BSD washing GPL code.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#124

Post by bheadmaster »

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…

> Is that really a thing?

Yes.

I'm a Vim user with 100 WPM typing speed, and I can say with confidence that Copilot isn't that useful to me. Typing boilerplate is not an issue - understanding what I wrote is most of the work. And having an AI spew code that I have to read is more work for me than just writing it myself.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#125

Post by bayindirh »

cwillu wrote: post #122
bayindirh wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. I take photographs as a hobby, and share them, just for showing them off. They're generally licensed with CC-NC-BY plus no derivatives (akin to GPL), but I don't want my images to be taken to a training set to feed a generative model without my consent , because you're violating the license terms I put on it. Same is valid for my code. I stopped using GitHub, because it devours any and all open reposit…

For what it's worth, CC-NC is not akin to the GPL, at all. The GPL says “you can sell this if you want, but whoever you sell it to can still do whatever they want with it, subject to the same terms.” CC-NC says “you can't do whatever you want with this” Which isn't to say that you're wrong to use whatever license you like, just that it's very much not similar in spirit to the GPL. Protecting the right of others to ma…

By akin, I didn't mean it's functionally equivalent.

GPLv3 is one of the strongest copyleft licenses for software out there, forcing re-sharing of changes while preventing any source closing. CC-BY-NC is the strictest CC license which allows sharing, with credit, with no commercial use and no derivatives.

Hence I tried to aim for "I'm selecting the one of the most strict license for sharing my photos, as I do the same for my software, yet AI systems disregard my license every occasion and just rip what I put out without my consent or consideration of the license I use for these, hence I refuse to use, or support AI models which are fed like this".

Hope this helps.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#126

Post by hutzlibu »

southerntofu wrote: post #109
hutzlibu wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 a…

"So yes AI can reduce work, but arguably work that was never required nor beneficial to humanity to begin with"

Hm, just a suggestion, I would be careful with such statements, if you don't want to insult peoples work you know nothing about.

Because LLMs enable a very broad spectrum of work. I don't use them in my current workflow(nor am I that easily insulted), but the times I did use them, they were useful. My problem with them was mainly ChatGPT4 was out of date, but it did produce very useful results for me for WebGPU and Pixijs, which I had not used before and the solutions it gave me, I could not find on the internet. So for my novel work, they don't help me in general, but they do help me if I need a new custom part, without having to reinvent the wheel.

And then of course there are people who greatly benefit from them, who did not study CS, like a friend who is ecologist and all he wants are some custom python scripts, to modify his GIS tool. I think he is doing useful work and with LLMs he is indeed spending less time on his (freelance) work and has more time for his children. Isn't that, what you are also hoping for?

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#127

Post by hutzlibu »

dartos wrote: post #108
hutzlibu wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

I see the licence issue, so hypothetically, if a LLM was only trained on code that explicitely allowed LLM training, would you use that?

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#128

Post by RunSet »

greatpatton wrote: post #90
vouaobrasil wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with many technophiles is that they have a very distorted view of what they create. They often think it's going to do good because it's so cool but once that tech is out in the real world, it just mostly causes damage. If you're interested, feel free to reach out to me because I am starting an anti-AI coalition.

Out of curiosity can you just give me pratical example of: "it's so cool but once that tech is out in the real world, it just mostly causes damage."

In a certain light smartphones resemble the moral equivalent of violating the Prime Directive.

"Here, rural areas and undeveloped nations. Take this crippled, distorted window into the greater internet. It happens to be much better at viewing content than creating it and will surveil you more closely than ever you watch it. The preinstalled software is forbidden to remove. Don't view it more than ten minutes a day or the content recommended by social media algorithms may cause malaise. Like and subscribe for more content."

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#129

Post by [deleted] »

bayindirh wrote: post #125
cwillu wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, CC-NC is not akin to the GPL, at all. The GPL says “you can sell this if you want, but whoever you sell it to can still do whatever they want with it, subject to the same terms.” CC-NC says “you can't do whatever you want with this” Which isn't to say that you're wrong to use whatever license you like, just that it's very much not similar in spirit to the GPL. Protecting the right of others to ma…

By akin, I didn't mean it's functionally equivalent. GPLv3 is one of the strongest copyleft licenses for software out there, forcing re-sharing of changes while preventing any source closing. CC-BY-NC is the strictest CC license which allows sharing, with credit, with no commercial use and no derivatives. Hence I tried to aim for "I'm selecting the one of the most strict license for sharing my photos, as I do the sam…

[deleted]

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#130

Post by cwillu »

bayindirh wrote: post #125
cwillu wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth, CC-NC is not akin to the GPL, at all. The GPL says “you can sell this if you want, but whoever you sell it to can still do whatever they want with it, subject to the same terms.” CC-NC says “you can't do whatever you want with this” Which isn't to say that you're wrong to use whatever license you like, just that it's very much not similar in spirit to the GPL. Protecting the right of others to ma…

By akin, I didn't mean it's functionally equivalent. GPLv3 is one of the strongest copyleft licenses for software out there, forcing re-sharing of changes while preventing any source closing. CC-BY-NC is the strictest CC license which allows sharing, with credit, with no commercial use and no derivatives. Hence I tried to aim for "I'm selecting the one of the most strict license for sharing my photos, as I do the sam…

You can apply CC-BY-NC to software, people have done it. And it's recognized as _not_ being an open license, it's at best an “open-access” or “source-visible” license, because of the usage restrictions.

The entire point of an open-source license is that you're _preventing_ people from restricting modification and derivative use. The whole point of the AGPL was to prevent a hack that companies found to abuse the software's license and prevent derivative use of their changes.

I'm not saying you're morally in the wrong for choosing a license that doesn't permit commercial use, but I _am_ saying that it's contrary to the spirit of the license you're claiming it's akin to.

Hope this helps.

Post reply on HN