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

191–200 of 279 posts

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#191

Post by Gormo »

Sol- wrote: post #71
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

Most professional artists will be unemployed and hobbyist artists using AI seems to be kind of against the point of creating art for the art of creation. But for one-click self-expression, AI tools will certainly come in handy.

> hobbyist artists using AI seems to be kind of against the point of creating art for the art of creation

How do you figure that?

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#192

Post by dragonwriter »

orbital-decay wrote: post #174
__loam wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you don't know a lot of people in the art community if you think this. Good to see Krita standing with the people who actually use their tools.

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.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#193

Post by dragonwriter »

jdiff wrote: post #39
dbrgn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting point. Retouching a photo after taking it used to be "manipulating reality", frowned upon by "real" photographers. Nowadays, postprocessing digital negatives and adding your own style to it is part of a normal photographer's workflow. (However, I think the negative feelings don't come from a discussion of "real vs fake" or "classical vs new", but mostly from the point of view that using artwork…

People have been doing post processing of photographs as long as photographs have existed.

That doesn't mean there were purists arguing about it. Someone has to be doing it for the fight to exist.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#194

Post by Gormo »

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…

> 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.

And yet artists have always used tools and adapted themselves to the qualities of those tools. Paints, paintbrushes, canvases, chemicals, instruments of all kinds inform the end result just as much as the artist's initial intention.

Jackson Pollock's most famous works were produced by splattering paints on a canvas. Sure, he selected the paints, the canvas, and the trajectory and velocity of the splatters, but his works are as much the expression of stochastic fluid dynamics as they are of his vision.

Nothing is stopping people who see handcrafting every intricate detail of their work as an expression of their innermost sense of self from continuing to do so just as they always have.

If that's what they're getting out it, why should it bother them that people who do just want to obtain the end product for their own purposes are getting it from someplace else?

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#195

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#196

Post by boppo1 »

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?

>Would you object to somebody looking at your images and imitating the style?

Yes. It's quite difficult to do so, however. The people capable usually have better things to do with their skills.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#197

Post by dragonwriter »

dartos wrote: post #112
Almondsetat wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

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

Everything in the computing space has been shifting labor from one skillset to another skillset and maximizing the output per hour worked so that fewer workers are needed for the same output (but also more tasks are worth doing, because the costs are lower for any given benefit.) Why is displacing people manually building the visual component of video games any worse than, say, displacing typists, secretaries, people delivering interoffice mail -- all of whom also had salaries, dependents, and livelihoods -- while increasing the value of work in the field automating all those things?

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#198

Post by Gormo »

RunSet wrote: post #128
greatpatton wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity can you just give me pratical example of: "it's so cool but once that tech is out in the real world, it just mostly causes damage."

In a certain light smartphones resemble the moral equivalent of violating the Prime Directive. "Here, rural areas and undeveloped nations. Take this crippled, distorted window into the greater internet. It happens to be much better at viewing content than creating it and will surveil you more closely than ever you watch it. The preinstalled software is forbidden to remove. Don't view it more than ten minutes a day or…

I think you'd be better served making moral arguments rooted in ethical principles that people adhere to in real life, not science fiction.

This is especially important when you consider how unethical the Prime Directive itself is as a principle, and how often Star Trek portrays violating it as the morally superior choice.

The position you're advancing here seems to infantilize people in rural areas and undeveloped nations, and aims to deny them the agency to make their own choices about how to fit modern technology into their lives and communities. It sounds like a modern variation on "noble savage" and "white man's burden" notions -- not exactly a good look.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#199

Post by mcpackieh »

shultays wrote: post #22
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.)

Huh, I wasn't aware Krita was a thing. As a software engineer that rarely needs image editing Gimp was my go to software. Why there is a second open source image editing software now?

GIMP isn't designed for drawing. Sounds like bullshit, right? But that's what the GIMP manual says: "GIMP is not designed to be used for drawing." https://docs.gimp.org/2.10/en/gimp-using-rectangular.html

Krita on the other hand is designed for drawing and painting.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#200

Post by bombela »

southerntofu wrote: post #109
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…

> "As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who don't intend to ever rely on copilot" I'm one of those. I've been programming for a while now and there's no way i'm gonna trust a neural network with my code. Debugging is painful enough without having to deal with subtle bugs hallucinated by ML. Some machines are really useful to reduce human suffering and augment our collective capabilities. Some machines a…

I found copilot most useful as an code editing assistant. A smart `sed` of sort.

Moving code around a loop, extracting a series of variables etc.

Like a sibling comment I also find it useful to complete the end of the line.

As for writing code, it mostly produces very convincing looking code at a glance, but full of shit on a second look.

But as a smart completion and local refactoring tool, I really find it useful.

Post reply on HN