Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

adobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#131

Post by mesh »

capableweb wrote: post #85
Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adobe in particular, however, has been more twords the forefront of AI research. I'm pretty sure they aren't just using SD here. They might not even be using transformers at all. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35089661

They also have the resources to build a huge training set, together with people who willingly upload their art and photos to them, which they can use to make the training set better than publicly available data.

Just to be really clear what we do and do not train on:

Firefly was trained on Adobe Stock images, openly licensed content and public domain content, where copyright has expired.

https://firefly.adobe.com/faq

We do not train on user content. More info here:

https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learnin...

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#132

Post by acomjean »

codetrotter wrote: post #29

Imagine paying for Adobe products. I did that once. Never again. What a shit company. Cancelling the subscription was a total drag. Fuck you Adobe, I hope you go bankrupt sooner rather than later.

Lamentably adding their training set will make Adobe's value proposition much higher.

Open source creative alternatives have a even harder time (Blender, inkscape, krita, Gnu Image Manipulation Program)...

Since Adobe lack of Linux support holds it back significantly with creatives, this makes opens source more of a challenge.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#133

Post by ghaff »

nickelpro wrote: post #103
ghaff wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you study a closed source compiler (or whatever) in order to write a competitive product, and the company who wrote the original product sues you for copying it, as the parent suggests, you're on shaky legal ground. Which is why clean room design is a thing.

A clean room design ensures the new code is 100% original, and not a copy of the base code. That is why it is legally preferable, because it is easy to prove certain facts in court. But fundamentally the problem is copyright, the copying of existing IP, not knowledge. grondo4 is completely correct that there is no legal framework that prevents learning from closed-source IP. If such a framework existed, clean room de…

>The initial spec-writers in a clean room design are reading the closed-source work.

Right. And they're only exposing elements presumably not covered by copyright to the developers writing the code. (Of course, this assumes they had legitimate access to the code in the first place.)

Clean room design isn't a requirement in the case of, say, writing a BIOS which may have been when this first came up. But it's a lot easier to defend against a copyright claim when it's documented that the people who wrote the code never saw the original.

Unlike with patents, independent creation isn't a copyright violation.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#134

Post by [deleted] »

ModernMech wrote: post #86
petilon wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but by "supercharging" artists, each artist will be able to do more, which means fewer artists will be needed.

Maybe, maybe not. For instance, I'd like to make a game. But I don't have enough money to even hire an artist to help with concept art. So I don't get to the point where I can raise money off that art, and hire an artist to make game assets. Now I can generate all the concept art I want for free, and I can raise money off of that (wallets open faster with pretty pictures than with words). What am I going to do with i…

[deleted]

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#135

Post by grondo4 »

supermatt wrote: post #100
grondo4 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't ask if can I use other people's proprietary closed source code, obviously they have the right to that code and how it's used. I asked if I can learn from that code, which obviously I can. There is no license that says "You cannot learn from this code and take the things you learn to become a better programmer". That's exactly what I do and it's exactly what AI do.

> I asked if I can learn from that code, which obviously I can. Did you actually read the link you were given? Clean room design is because you may inadvertently plagiarize copyrighted works from your memory of reading it. i.e. the act of reading may cause accidental infringement when implementing the "things you learn"

> i.e. the act of reading may cause accidental infringement when implementing the "things you learn"

Surely you know this isn't the case right? Maybe you're confused because we're talking about programming and not a different creative artform?

Great artists read, watch and consume copyrighted works of art all day, if they didn't they wouldn't be great artists. And yet the content they produce is entirely there own, free from the copyright of the works they learned from.

What's the difference then in programming? Why can an artist be trusted not to reproduce the copyrighted works that they learned from but not the programmer?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#136

Post by nickelpro »

ghaff wrote: post #133
nickelpro wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A clean room design ensures the new code is 100% original, and not a copy of the base code. That is why it is legally preferable, because it is easy to prove certain facts in court. But fundamentally the problem is copyright, the copying of existing IP, not knowledge. grondo4 is completely correct that there is no legal framework that prevents learning from closed-source IP. If such a framework existed, clean room de…

>The initial spec-writers in a clean room design are reading the closed-source work. Right. And they're only exposing elements presumably not covered by copyright to the developers writing the code. (Of course, this assumes they had legitimate access to the code in the first place.) Clean room design isn't a requirement in the case of, say, writing a BIOS which may have been when this first came up. But it's a lot ea…

I don't understand what your point here is. The initial spec-writers learned from the original code. This is not illegal, we seem to be agreed on this point. grondo made the point that learning from code should not be prohibited.

What are you contesting?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#137

Post by mesh »

spookie wrote: post #126
lelandfe wrote: post #50

From that page's FAQs: > trained on a dataset of Adobe Stock, along with openly licensed work and public domain content where copyright has expired > We do not train on any Creative Cloud subscribers’ personal content. For Adobe Stock contributors, the content is part of the Firefly training dataset, in accordance with Stock Contributor license agreements. The first model did not train on Behance. Not sure what "firs…

I strongly suggest everyone to read this: https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/06/is-adobe-using-your-photos... I hope it's fair to say that they do train on your work.

We dont. More info here:

>The insights obtained through content analysis will not be used to re-create your content or lead to identifying any personal information.

https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learnin...

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#138

Post by epups »

It doesn't seem to do be able to do anything that Stable Diffusion cannot do, and I bet they put a ton more restrictions too. Other than OpenAI, most of these closed-source AI developments are quite underwhelming.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#139

Post by mesh »

Filligree wrote: post #120
open-paren wrote: post #81

Adobe employee, not in Creative Cloud. We got access to this in beta a week ago and it was an instant hit across the whole company. This is just the tip of the iceberg and there is a lot of really cool, in-house products around generative AI. The team is going to great lengths to make this ethical and fair (try and generate a photo of a copyrighted character like Hello Kitty or Darth Vader). I'm excited to see the fi…

One of the great aspects of open-source stable diffusion (civitai.com et al.) is there's a model for every purpose. Does your inpainting model work with every style? Or is it going to have trouble matching the content for e.g. specific fanart?

It would have trouble matching on trademarked styles, or individual artists / creators styles.

One of the primary goals for Firefly is to provide a model that can generate output that respects creators and is safe for commercial use.

(I work for Adobe)

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#140

Post by time_to_smile »

Dalewyn wrote: post #129
time_to_smile wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI is a feature, not a product Part of the reason for this is that very often the best applications of AI are really invisible to the user, making everything a little bit better, quietly behind the scenes. The same is true for software in general. The best software products automate loads of stuff behind the scenes so from the user perspective they just click a button and the thing they want to happen, happens. Per…

I don't fundamentally disagree, but if spam filters are "AI" then my bloody toaster is also artificially intelligent.

You must have a smarter toaster than I do. My toaster is a completely deterministic mechanism that knows nothing about my past toasting experience, nor makes any inference about future toast.

A spam filter:

- Is provided historic information about the problem

- Learns from this information to construct a basic model of language

- Is then provided unseen information

- Then makes a probabilistic decision based on a degree of uncertainty.

The exact model behind the spam filtering can be extremely simple (naive Bayes) but could easily (and probably will without you even realizing it) expand to include things like GPT.

A spam filter is making decisions under uncertainty with new information based on patterns it learned from previous information. If this doesn't fit your definition of "AI" then I think if you understood what was happening under the hood I don't think you would consider GPT to be AI either.

If you toaster does learn your toast preference over time from your toasting behavior (unlike mine) then I would consider that AI as well.

Post reply on HN