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

151–160 of 279 posts

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#151

Post by Filligree »

Sol- wrote: post #71
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

Most professional artists will be unemployed and hobbyist artists using AI seems to be kind of against the point of creating art for the art of creation. But for one-click self-expression, AI tools will certainly come in handy.

It kind of depends on the type of artist. I use it to illustrate my stories, for example, and I'd be upset if someone claimed my writing doesn't count as art-

But I've spent well over a decade learning to write. I don't have any skill in drawing, and I don't earn any money from my writing. (...and last time I tried to hire an artist, they bit my head off when I offered an example of what I was after.)

So I'll use AI art, because it's that or no art.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#152

Post by irusensei »

sorenjan wrote: post #53
irusensei wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My comment was about the “AMD - Windows only” part of readme.

My point was that it's not a matter or DirectML or torch, it's simply a choice of backend for torch. It's an easy way of adding AMD support to torch based projects in Windows, there's probably an equally easy way of adding ROCm support in Linux. It's just that using cpu or Cuda is built in and usually the two default options when writing torch code, and somebody have to care enough to explicitly add AMD support. It's…

It was more like a case of the author not having AMD hardware to test their automated installer: https://github.com/Acly/krita-ai-diffusion/issues/76

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#153

Post by [deleted] »

Nullabillity wrote: post #133
Kiro wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The code is usually the same code I'd get a few web searches away My impression is that people normally don't use Copilot as a substitute for finding solutions (ChatGPT is much better for that), but as a way to help with otherwise tedious tasks that are really specific to your codebase. Check out 6:05 and 6:25 in this Andreas Kling video for a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxubNQC5O8 Regarding your…

> Check out 6:05 and 6:25 in this Andreas Kling video for a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxubNQC5O8 Oof. So not only was it a poor replacement for a macro, it didn't even generate the correct code!

[deleted]

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#154

Post by [deleted] »

Nullabillity wrote: post #133
Kiro wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The code is usually the same code I'd get a few web searches away My impression is that people normally don't use Copilot as a substitute for finding solutions (ChatGPT is much better for that), but as a way to help with otherwise tedious tasks that are really specific to your codebase. Check out 6:05 and 6:25 in this Andreas Kling video for a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxubNQC5O8 Regarding your…

> Check out 6:05 and 6:25 in this Andreas Kling video for a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxubNQC5O8 Oof. So not only was it a poor replacement for a macro, it didn't even generate the correct code!

[deleted]

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#155

Post by thot_experiment »

lancesells wrote: post #113
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

I'm an artist and look at generative AI as a tool that's almost always going to produce content but not art. I refuse to use it from a moral standpoint but I also don't use any digital tools at all in the creation of my work. Even if I worked digitally I don't create art to produce pretty pictures as fast as possible. Typing in a prompt and fiddling with some things back and forth is just that.

This comment hurts me to my very core, I actually screamed when I read it. I'm in one of the most artistically productive periods of my life right now. I've been doing multiple notebook pages of gouache and india ink a day. I also have a homebuilt plotter that I've written an entire suite of software for. I've been doing 3D graphics and photomanipulation, I've been dabbling in video editing.

AND I've been pushing what can be done with Stable Diffusion, and it's absolutely a tool to create art. The idea that "Typing in a prompt and fiddling with some things back and forth" is all there is to AI art is so fucking absurd. This is the "meme" I'm talking about. There SO much more to AI art from an artistic control perspective than the prompt, and not only that, there's so much we haven't even fucking invented yet which is clear from the rate of progress in the field. These reductive "it's not real art" are even worse than the "theft" moralizing. It's akin to saying photography isn't art because you just click a button.

> I don't create art to produce pretty pictures as fast as possible.

I create art because I like to make art, sometimes that means laboring over the placement of every line. Sometimes I need three hundred frames and there's only me and my GPU against the world. AI opens up possibilities that were completely unreachable before, just like everything else I'm able to do artistically with my computer.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#156

Post by elcomet »

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…

It seems like you tried used copilot did you? To me the best thing about it is not the full function generation, which doesn't work very reliably, it's to finish the end of the line, when you already know what you will type, and it just types it for you faster. It feels like magic and checking the code is extrême fast as it's just one line, much faster than writing it.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#157

Post by pedrovhb »

esjeon wrote: post #132

I saw a person using this. The system had 4090, which can pull about 20-30 iter/sec. This roughly translates to 4 image/sec with 8 iter/image. This allows interactive AI drawing (thou a bit quirky). Once the desired image is reached, the user can re-run w/ 30-50 iterations to finalize the image. This is really cool.

Latent consistency models are a pretty radical game changer that came up recently. There are LoRAs [0] that you can just use alongside any SD or SDXL that just cut the number of inference steps you need to 2-8, rather than the usual ~25+. It's as close to magic as one could expect, and on ComfyUI my modest RX 5700XT spits out 512x512 images in probably around a second each, or a couple of seconds for a 4x batch. A more beefy GPU could certainly enable high res, very low latency interactive use.

For even better latency perception, you could hook into the generation steps and have TAESD [1] decoding intermediate latents.

[0] https://huggingface.co/collections/latent-consistency/latent... [1] https://github.com/madebyollin/taesd

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#158

Post by ben_w »

Dioxide2119 wrote: post #140
dale_glass wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an interesting question, because AI breaks the intuitiveness of this dramatically. You can look at say, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wedding_at_Cana and quickly get that yup, this took a whole lot of time and effort. But AI has nothing like that. Some things that look like an awful lot of work it spits out with ease, some things that sound simple can take a whole lot of fiddling. Like the other day I was pl…

In the same way that using a limited medium like some oil paints, paintbrushes, and canvas to create images = the art of painting, there will become the art of hacking / abusing / advanced prompt engineering / pushing AI to do things that are close to or at its limits of capabilities. A: Oh so your LLM generated an image of a spaceship cockpit, so what? B: So what? This LLM was trained on nothing but tax records from…

> B: So what? This LLM was trained on nothing but tax records from 1929!

I recon a sufficiently advanced AI could learn enough to do that from only that training data and some appropriate prompting.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#159

Post by chefandy »

loki-ai wrote: post #138
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.

Like the artists, this won't be an option. Market pressures will force devs to use AI assistance. For example, this recent GitHub presentation about productivity improvements: 35% acceptance rate, 50% more pull requests, etc. I believe these numbers, and even if you don't, they will be a reality soon. https://youtu.be/AAT4zCfzsHI?t=486

That's true. However, as an adjacent point, I do want to highlight how the impact will be totally different in art than in development, because many seem to be equating them.

The main difference is that in development, more of the tedium gets removed-- e.g. interacting with some API or UI boilerplate-- and more of the more satisfying work-- how the program, generally, is going to solve a problem-- remains. In art, the more satisfying part-- conceptualization and forming those ideas into images-- is entirely removed but the tedium remains.

Commissioning a piece of art from an artist entails describing what you want, maybe supplying some inspo images, and then going through a few rounds of drafts or waypoint updates to course-correct before arriving at a final image. Sound familiar? Generative AI art isn't making art: it is commissioning art from a computer program that makes it from an amalgam of other people's art. It reduces the role of the "artist" to making up for the machine artist's shortcomings.

When you're making art, making the details are ingrained in that process-- a requisite step to forming your ideas into images. Details are critical in high-level commercial art, and despite the insistence of many developers who know far less than they realize, current generative AI isn't even close to sufficient.

Economic realities aside, when you're merely editing someone else's images, you've basically transitioned from "writer" to "spell checker" and I don't understand how so many refuse to see how a professional artist would be distraught about that.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#160

Post by boppo1 »

makeitdouble wrote: post #91
raincole wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think at one point Krita will fork to two apps because of this exact reason. AI-based tools are clearly the next step of painting apps (to me at least, but I can't be the only one who believes in this). I think in 3~5 years an painting app without AI generation feature is just like a painting app without pen pressure today. It's still usable, you can make great art with it if you have the skill, but it will be so o…

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.

>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.

Hi! This is me! I'm good enough that I can draw and paint whatever I want manually. I (generally) don't want it in my (main) workflow and I don't want telemetry training models against my work (without knowledge & consent). However, I don't have any qualms against other people using it and I think it's exciting technology.

Post reply on HN