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

141–150 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#141

Post by jstummbillig »

nvr219 wrote: post #47
dopeboy wrote: post #11

What this reinforces is that unlike with previous big innovations (cloud, iphone, etc), incumbents will not sit on their laurels with the AI wave. They are aggressively integrating it into their products which (1) provides a relatively cheap step function upgrade and (2) keeps the barrier high for startups to use AI as their wedge. I attribute the speed at which incumbents are integrating AI into their products to a…

> * Whereas AI was a hand-wavey marketing term in the past, it's now the real deal and provides actual value to the end user. Ehhh.... Sometimes. It's still a hand-wavey marketing term today. Almost every sales call I'm in either the prospect is asking about AI, or more likely the vendor is saying something like "We use our AI module to help you [do some function not at all related to AI]". Also, even when it's "real…

Yes, not everything AI is working out – never has, and never will. The same is true in any field. And yes, there will be a display of incompetence, delusion and outright fraud. Again, in any field, always.

However, with AI in general, we have very decidedly passed the point where it Works (image generation probably being the most obvious example of it)

Even if, starting now, the underlying technology did not improve in the slightest, while adoption rises as it is going to with any new technology that provides value, anyone who does not adopt is going to be increasingly uncompetitive. It quite simply is too good already, to not to be used to challenge what a lot of average humans are paid to do in these fields.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#142

Post by Riverheart »

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…

Except now you’re competing for the attention and disposable income of everybody else doing that. How are consumers going to tell your stuff apart from all the other AI placeholder games that will flood the market?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#143

Post by waboremo »

grondo4 wrote: post #135
supermatt wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, f…

Artists get into trouble all the time for producing works very close to something that already exist. That's like the number one reason artists get shunned in the communities they were in.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#144

Post by samstave »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #57
dopeboy wrote: post #11

What this reinforces is that unlike with previous big innovations (cloud, iphone, etc), incumbents will not sit on their laurels with the AI wave. They are aggressively integrating it into their products which (1) provides a relatively cheap step function upgrade and (2) keeps the barrier high for startups to use AI as their wedge. I attribute the speed at which incumbents are integrating AI into their products to a…

I think you're missing a fundamental reason: adding AI functionality into products is simply easier. That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. The examples you gave of of cloud and iPhone have both huge capital barriers to entry, and in iPhones case other phone companies just didn't have the unique design talent combination of Jobs an…

I think you are both correct

But this phrase from GP is pretty darn salient:

>>"They are aggressively integrating it into their products which (1) provides a relatively cheap step function upgrade and (2) keeps the barrier high for startups to use AI as their wedge."

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#145

Post by sebzim4500 »

Kye wrote: post #48
l33tman wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would consider both Stable Diffusion and MidJourney to be startups and both are better by far than the established companies like OpenAI, and there are dozens of LLMs soon catching up with GPT3/4. As you say, it will be a very interesting next 6-12 months..

Stable Diffusion is a thing you can run on your computer for free and train models for. It's from a research university. Is this one of those more expansive definitions of startup?

Presumably he means stability.ai is a startup.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#146

Post by samstave »

mesh wrote: post #124
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing a fundamental reason: adding AI functionality into products is simply easier. That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. The examples you gave of of cloud and iPhone have both huge capital barriers to entry, and in iPhones case other phone companies just didn't have the unique design talent combination of Jobs an…

>That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. fyi, for Adobe Firefly, we are training or models. From the FAQ: "What was the training data for Firefly? Firefly was trained on Adobe Stock images, openly licensed content and public domain content, where copyright has expired." https://firefly.adobe.com/faq (I work for Adobe)

Ha, I didnt even need to read the article to assume this!

I instantly thought of how bitchin' their library of images must be.

Can you tell us how many images/size of set?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#147

Post by layer8 »

turnsout wrote: post #84

How long do we think this "big company gates access to an impressive AI model" moment will last? I wonder if generative models will become such a commodity that they cease to be a revenue driver or differentiator.

There will be moats around training data (Adobe probably has huge amounts of high-quality training data that isn’t available to the public), and around fine-tuning for specific fields. The more specialized the application, the less of a commodity it will be.

And it remains to be seen how long it will take until there is an open-source model on the level of GPT-4. It may be harder than many expect, and the commercial offerings may be on yet another level by then.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#148

Post by mesh »

epups wrote: post #138

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.

Not specifically in comparison to Stable Diffusion, but in general our approach is to provide a model that is really easy to use, can be used commercially, and has deep integration with our our creative tools.

On this last point, we have really only shared about the model and "playground" which is a web based interface to play around with Firefly. We are working on initial integrations in the tools, and will have more info on that in the coming weeks / months (particularly for Adobe Express and Photoshop).

While you can do a LOT with plugins in tools like Photoshop (which may be enough for some users), we can do much deeper integration into the tool, and integrate it in ways not otherwise possible.

(I work for Adobe)

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#149

Post by egypturnash »

mesh wrote: post #124
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing a fundamental reason: adding AI functionality into products is simply easier. That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. The examples you gave of of cloud and iPhone have both huge capital barriers to entry, and in iPhones case other phone companies just didn't have the unique design talent combination of Jobs an…

>That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. fyi, for Adobe Firefly, we are training or models. From the FAQ: "What was the training data for Firefly? Firefly was trained on Adobe Stock images, openly licensed content and public domain content, where copyright has expired." https://firefly.adobe.com/faq (I work for Adobe)

I am definitely glad to see attention being paid to ethical sourcing of training images but I am curious: did the people who made all those stock images get paid for their work being used for training? Did they check a box that explicitly said "Adobe can train an AI on my work"? Or is there a little clause lurking in the Adobe Stock agreement that says this can be done without even a single purchase happening?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#150

Post by waboremo »

zirgs wrote: post #117
judge2020 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still on the fence for whether or not you should be able to opt out of training (I'm sure many artists would love to "opt out" of humans looking at their art if the human intends to, or might, copy the artists' style at some point).

I can train a LORA on my own PC in less than an hour. Good luck opting out of that.

What does that matter? Generate as much as you want for your own personal reasons.

It's about actually being able to use that content legally (and commercially) that matters to most in this conversation.

Post reply on HN