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

211–220 of 279 posts

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#211

Post by dotnet00 »

dthul wrote: post #74
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.

> which you would know if you ever tried to draw anything I know exactly how hard it is to draw anything because I tried a bunch of times, and failed. I for one am happy that I can now express my creative ideas, which I couldn't do before due to missing talent / practice.

You're free to personally be happy that you can express your creative ideas, but it is a bit absurd to expect people who did put in the effort in practicing to not see you in a negative light as someone who wants the 'benefits' without putting in the hard work of self-improvement.

This is a uniquely AI related issue, as artists of all mediums can relate with each other about their struggles learning and improving their skills and ability to express themselves.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#212

Post by boppo1 »

thot_experiment wrote: post #168
boppo1 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artist here. It's totally reasonable for artists to be mad about models being trained on their work without informed prior consent. Anger about using AI is less justifiied.

I'm more of an artist than a hacker, and > mad about models being trained on their work without informed prior consent This is the "your mind has been poisoned by a corporate view of intellectual property" take. The idea that copyright should extend this far is horrifying, it is another step toward stifling and controlling creative expression. The problem is capital being rewarded way more by IP law than labor, somet…

Well I should be more clear. I don't mean by informed consent "they put it in the TOS and it's software I have to use so I'm boned". I mean more like "I use Blender, Krita, and Procreate and none of them do that bullshit. As long as there's a notification on software that scans my work so I can avoid it, I'm happy. If I want to opt-in to contributing to a model at some point, that might be cool."

I guess I should worry a bit that important software without worthwhile alternatives might start to do this, but I don't think the blender foundation will as long as Ton is alive, and I bet the same for Krita. Procreate I'm a little less confident about, but only a little, as they know who their main userbase* is and they know how those people feel about AI.

*Arguably there are more people with Procreate that barely know how to draw than people who do. BUT part of Procreate's appeal is that it's software that 'the pros' prefer to use. If the talented artists start publicly dumping on Procreate, the people who can't draw will slowly but surely follow those artists to whatever their preferred software becomes.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#213

Post by thot_experiment »

pxoe wrote: post #203
thot_experiment wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

typing some text and pressing 'generate', iterating, or doing layering and photobashing, just isn't gonna be 'painting', or 'drawing', like, ever. on a fundamental level. you'll need to get over yourself asap if you're "screaming" over this

Man I know it's pointless for me to argue but it's just like... it's wild to me that people make these comments. Do my comments give the impression that I am unaware of what drawing and painting are? I have spent thousands of hours painting and drawing.

Photography isn't gonna be painting or drawing either, it's still art that affords the artist an enormous amount of control. This is the "meme" I'm talking about. The way you talk about AI art is what's making me go AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

> typing some text and pressing 'generate', iterating, or doing layering and photobashing

It's such a self report, you have no idea what is going on, you are quick to discount it without any understanding. We are still in the infancy of the space and people are fixated with these idiotic reductive arguments. Prompt -> image is the tiniest fraction of what's possible with this technology. I wish I was better at communicating how fucking epic the set of possibilities that this opens up is, I'm sure we will see it eventually. It frustrates me to no end that people are so blind to it.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#214

Post by dotnet00 »

ajuc wrote: post #165
boppo1 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artist here. It's totally reasonable for artists to be mad about models being trained on their work without informed prior consent. Anger about using AI is less justifiied.

Would you object to somebody looking at your images and imitating the style? How is AI different?

Have you ever actually looked into people who do that? They put in a lot of effort into understanding the original creator, their intent, process, materials etc. The copies are still very much art as they are expressions of the imitator's feelings towards the work. Performing studies of popular art by trying to replicate it is a powerful tool for learning precisely because it allows you, as an artist, to understand how the original artist thought, helping you learn to think like an artist and leading you to develop your own ideas and means of expression.

AI is none of that.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#215

Post by sndwnm »

awfulneutral wrote: post #206
sndwnm wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems pointless to learn to make singular highly detailed visual art pieces? Maybe. Maybe it always was pointless. But most visual art is not just single pictures in a vacuum. Say you want to make a game with 2d still-art, or say a comic. You will need dozens or hundreds of images and they will have to be tied together by a common design — characters and style that look similar in the different images, and most of al…

> Finally, most artists don't think like you. It's not "pointless" to do something that can be technically repeated by other humans or AI. You do art because you want to express yourself. I've seen this sentiment a bunch of times, but I don't agree. Most people practice skills and make art in order to demonstrate their value to society. Art (and media) doesn't exist in a vacuum, it surely exists for societal reasons.…

I don't think you are disagreeing with me. I also mean by "expressing yourself" that the artist is trying to communicate with the community and be of value to them.

I'm saying AI does not allow anyone to easily make games and comics, at least not for a some while. Currently AI allows you to easily make still pictures, maybe a written chapter of a story. It does not yet compete with artists who do larger pieces of work like a book. And I'm not sure AI ever(?) will make "complete" works because it doesn't have full human background required to have "something to say". It only "mimics" in a manner that many artists focused on technical ability find threatening. So yeah some "artists" will be out of work because of AI, but it will not be a big loss for the community if they are merely replaced.

The surface area of "art with message or meaning" within "all art AI can randomly generate" is so vanishingly small that it doesn't matter. Humans will be in control of the message, and thus in control of art for the foreseeable future.

When the AI finally is smart enough to have something to say, it will be an AGI and humanity will quickly be enslaved to it. No point thinking that far.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#216

Post by radlad »

bheadmaster wrote: post #124
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…

> 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.

Just as a data point counter to yours, I'm a Vim user with a 150+ wpm typing speed, and I have to say I find Copilot massively useful.

In Go, it's great for dealing with a lot of the repetitive code one finds themselves writing.

When writing Android apps, it's useful for API discovery!

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#217

Post by __loam »

dragonwriter wrote: post #192
orbital-decay wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked with 2D artists for 5 years, and the actual attitude is much more mixed than it might appear from listening to the vocal folks. Eventually most will accept this as another tech-heavy field like 3D CGI, especially when these tools will start to give more usable results in the hands of skilled artists. (they mostly don't, yet)

Yea, the people that are refusing new tools are always louder than the ones that just learn, adapt, and adopt them.

The new tools weren't made for or by artists. They're labor alienation machines that extract value from our communities and remove nearly all creative agency from the process. It's not cool to just dismiss this as people refusing to learn a new tool when that tool is the product of one of the biggest acts of abuse directed towards creative labor in decades.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#218

Post by nine_k »

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…

There is a big difference between AI generating a piece of picture which you completely observe, and AI generating a piece of code that may contain a subtle, hard-to-spot bug.

In both cases you're also risking being accused of plagiarism, when the model literally remembers, or reconstructs, a piece it has seen, and finds it perfectly matching your request.

I think "AI" tools in Krita may have their place: object detection and selection / tracing, upsampling, seamless resizing, cutting and pasting, texture generation, light adjustment, stuff like that. An integrated analog of DALL-E or Midjourney would likely be a poor for.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#219

Post by skeaker »

wokwokwok wrote: post #17
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…

> 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…

> I don’t think that’s true; and doing it, really reallllly makes them angry.

It is in some cases. Obviously not all of them, but there is definitely bandwagoning going on. Go on any social platform where this is up for debate and ask why they have this position, and you will be mocked or ignored while they fail to formulate any actual reasoning for their belief.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#220

Post by skeaker »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #56
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

This is absolutely ridiculous and short-sighted. AI is a tool that is and always will make the creation of art less a matter of the expression of the human soul. What techies NEVER understand about art is this: that art is not just the end product for the artist but something they use to express THEMSELVES. UNLIKE other tools, AI makes creative decisions. No other tool has done this, and moreover, its primary purpose…

The reduction of "techies" to emotionless robots is an unfair generalization. The inappropriate and wildly inaccurate comparison to slave labor is out of line.

Even taking your arguments at face value, it doesn't really make sense: Let's agree and say that AI can never make "real art." How does AI art existing prevent human-made art with the intent of self expression from existing? You say it will make human art less commercially viable, but that's hardly related to the expression behind the art. Human art has just as much expression whether or not it is a commercial success. Is your argument about financial viability or expression? Would you agree that having deep human expression enhances the value of a piece of art? Are you aware that artists who focus wholly on expression were already stereotypically "starving," even before AI art was a thing?

Post reply on HN