I hope this means that the next generation of Manga & Comics et al will be daily serializations
No more waiting 30 days for the next episode, hurray
Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
181–190 of 496 posts
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will there be a waitlist?
Of course, that would be at least 50% of the joke! haha
AI Waitlist Management Solutions (AWMS) is a startup that aims to streamline and manage the ever-increasing demand for AI services by providing a one-stop platform for tracking and managing AI waitlists. Leveraging the advanced capabilities of GPT-4, our service will analyze the market, monitor AI waitlist positions, and provide customers with real-time updates on their status. Additionally, AWMS will offer recommendations on alternative services and provide estimated wait times for better decision-making. Our target audience includes businesses and individuals who require AI services and are looking for a way to efficiently manage their place in multiple queues, as well as AI service providers seeking to optimize their waitlist management processes.
To further enhance our value proposition, we will incorporate a waitlist for our own platform, adding a sense of exclusivity and generating buzz around our service. This humorous, self-referential twist will serve as a unique marketing strategy, setting us apart from competitors and attracting potential clients. Our revenue model will include a tiered subscription plan, offering various features and services at different price points to cater to a wide range of customers. With a strong focus on customer satisfaction and continuous improvement, AWMS will strive to become the go-to solution for managing AI waitlists and revolutionize the way users access and interact with AI services.
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's completely different from reading and learning from code, which is what grondo described. AI (e.g. copilot) has already been shown to break copyright of material in its training set. Thats the context of this whole thread.
Perhaps, but not of Grondo's point. If an AI infringes on copyright then it infringes on copyright, that's unfortunate for the distributors of that code. Humans accidentally infringe on copyright sometimes too. It's not a unique problem to machine learning. The potential to infringe on copyright has not made observing/learning/watching/reading copyright materials prohibited for humans, nor should it or (likely) will…
> Perhaps, but not of Grondo's point.
Grondo said that AI should be given access to all code, including private and unlicensed code.
He was given a link to Clean Room Design demonstrating the problem with the same entity (the AI) reading and learning from the existing code and the risk of regurgitation when writing new code.
He goes on to say thats what he does, which doesn't change that fact.
> Humans accidentally infringe on copyright sometimes too.
Indeed we do, and its almost entirely unnoticed, even by the author.
> nor should it or (likely) will it become illegal for machine learning algorithms.
If those machine learning algorithms are taking in unlicensed material and then they later output unlicensed and/or copyrighted material, then they are a liability. Why would you want that when you can train it otherwise and be sure it NEVER infringes others IP? Its a no-brainer, surely. Or are you assuming there is some magic inherent in other peoples private code?
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
So that means it would have trouble matching my style, too.
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#185Adobe 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?
is civitai.com literally just 90% japanese porn?
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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)
Sure but are you standing on the shoulders of Stable Diffusion or not? Fine tuning Stable Diffusion with your own images is way easier than creating Stable Diffusion in the first place. If you're creating your own I stand corrected and that's some serious investment.
This is not based on just fine tuning Stable Diffusion.
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#187Looks pretty polished honestly. I wonder who they're partnering with for the GPUs. Does Adobe have their own data centers?
Yes, Adobe has their own datacenters as well as very large infrastructure on both AWS and Azure.
Source: I was on Adobe's container infrastructure team 2017-2021, most of that time as a lead.
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Exactly, and the moats largely boil down to: "Why is there no Open Source replacing for Google Search?" Big AI's advantage is still being made. Every time a user hits "Feedback" they're fine-tuning this proprietary model. You can absolutely make an Open Source model with enough compute, but if it is only e.g. "95%" good relative to the paid one at "97%" or "98%" are you going to prioritize it? How many of you use Goo…
If it's 95% as good and it can be rolled into every product at basically zero cost, then yeah, the paid version will die.
There are plenty of proprietary technologies that are better than say Postgres, or JPEG, or JSON. And some businesses need that marginal edge. But if the open source option is free, standardized, has great tooling, and is 95% as good, that's a real problem for OpenAI and their peers.
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#189When I look at older magazines, photos, billboards, and advertisements -- today's world of media is so much more colorful and vibrant than it was in the 60s & 70s. E.g. This [0] vs. this [1]. With the race to the bottom for generating high-quality, scalable, rich and colorful illustrations at almost no cost in massive quantities, I'm envisioning the world is about to get even more colorful and vibrant. [0] https://cd…
Alright so why's your first example look so much more colorful to me?
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, but not of Grondo's point. If an AI infringes on copyright then it infringes on copyright, that's unfortunate for the distributors of that code. Humans accidentally infringe on copyright sometimes too. It's not a unique problem to machine learning. The potential to infringe on copyright has not made observing/learning/watching/reading copyright materials prohibited for humans, nor should it or (likely) will…
> Perhaps, but not of Grondo's point. Grondo said that AI should be given access to all code, including private and unlicensed code. He was given a link to Clean Room Design demonstrating the problem with the same entity (the AI) reading and learning from the existing code and the risk of regurgitation when writing new code. He goes on to say thats what he does, which doesn't change that fact. > Humans accidentally i…
> If those machine learning algorithms are taking in unlicensed material and then they later output unlicensed and/or copyrighted material, then they are a liability. Why would you want that when you can train it otherwise and be sure it NEVER infringes others IP?
Because it could produce a better model that produces better code.
You're now arguing a heavily reduced point. That a model that trained on proprietary code is at higher risk of reproducing infringing code is not a point under contention. The clean room serves the same purpose, it is a risk mitigation strategy.
Risk mitigation is a choice, left up to individuals. Maybe you use a clean room design, maybe you don't. Maybe you use a model trained on closed-source IP, maybe you don't. There are risks associated with these choices, but that is up to individuals to make.
The choice to observe closed source IP and learn from it shouldn't be prohibited just because some won't want to assume that risk.