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

111–120 of 279 posts

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#111

Post by simbolit »

axytol wrote: post #34

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?

user @bArray 35minutes ago:

"Tested on a NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 under Ubuntu with 4GB VRAM. (...) lowered the canvas to 2Kx2K and it seems to just about be okay. My test prompt (...) produces a picture of rocks. (...) I get a nice scene (...) Both take about two minutes."

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#112

Post by dartos »

Almondsetat wrote: post #87
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…

>My friends that work as illustrators for PC and mobile games You mean your friends that work to produce generically pleasant looking props in order to maximize player retention and profits? It seems like artists complaining about AI don't actually work like artists but more like office drones

Office drones with salaries, dependents, livelihoods, and skills to hone.

I think AI use in art tools is inevitable, but replacing artists at any level is not a good thing.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#113

Post by lancesells »

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

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.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#114

Post by jasonjayr »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly6USRwTHe0 the video is mindblowing because on one hand, adobe photoshop announced this as "their own next big thing" and here we have an open source software replicating this same thing, so cool. edit: this also means photoshop doesnt have the "moat" they seem to have built around the generative ai thing and their software.

From that video you posted:

https://youtu.be/Ly6USRwTHe0?t=127 <-- "now draw the rest of the owl"

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#115

Post by unstuck3958 »

qwertox wrote: post #21
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly6USRwTHe0 the video is mindblowing because on one hand, adobe photoshop announced this as "their own next big thing" and here we have an open source software replicating this same thing, so cool. edit: this also means photoshop doesnt have the "moat" they seem to have built around the generative ai thing and their software.

While watching the video I was also thinking "just like Adobe's stuff". Many of the Photoshop users will ask themselves why they should continue to pay them, if the evolution continues this way. Nice to see. Sure, Krita is not Photoshop, but for the tasks certain creators will be doing in the next decade, they won't have a need for Photoshop anymore. Interesting to see that the video is 2 months old.

> they won't have a need for Photoshop anymore.

That is already true for not just Photoshop, but for almost any kind of proprietary software. If you are willing to embrace the caveats and DIY nature of FOSS, for almost every task FOSS Software is good enough (and sometimes better than proprietary).

I think one of the major reasons of popularity of proprietary software vs FOSS is marketing.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#116

Post by bayindirh »

thot_experiment wrote: post #13
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.)

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 repositories regardless of its license and without asking for consent.

This is not about scarcity, but respect and ethics mostly. At least, from my perspective.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#117

Post by Kiro »

lionkor wrote: post #110
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…

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…

> 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 second point Copilot helps me when I least expects it. I think the video illustrates what I mean with that as well.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#118

Post by tambourine_man »

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’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).

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#119

Post by tambourine_man »

Kiro wrote: post #117
lionkor wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

It really is amazing and Andreas Kling is awesome. Thanks for the link

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#120

Post by makeitdouble »

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…

In an ideal world I'd choose stacks with not enough boilerplate to warrant copilot.

I had my share of auto generation with enterprise Java stacks, and tried as hard as I could to move to stacks where what we write is concise and relevant (rails is the closest I came to this, not perfect but clearly going in the right direction).

I think AI has its place, but I also hope to be lucky enough to not have to use it.

Illustrators might have similar issues, where some of them need to produce boilerplate drawings a lot, but I think they'd also prefer working on project that aren't that.

Post reply on HN