Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective • Hacker News Board

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#211

Post by e12e » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 11:51 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #137

e12e wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The difference is that now only the owner of a machine profits where before lots of individuals profited. Hello post-industrial/ai/ml capitalism. This development will do to designers, programmers, support what the industrial revolution did to cobblers and weavers ...

> support what the industrial revolution did to cobblers and weavers Which made cheap shoes and clothes available to everybody. If you want to buy a tailor made shirt, it'll cost you at least $500. And that's still with machine made cloth. What do you think it would cost if the cloth was made by hand by a weaver?

> Which made cheap shoes and clothes available to everybody.

I'd argue the efficiency in production led to lower prices - while the concentration in wealth mostly kept buying power/living standards lower for the workers (or; capitalist class reaped an unfair share of productivity gains).

I believe commodisation of "knowledge" work will lead to lower prices (and unfair distribution) too.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#212

Post by storkhm » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 1:32 PM UTC

prawn wrote: post #9

jiggawatts wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish MidJourney had some decent competition. Dall-E hasn’t improved since it was released, and the other good models like Google’s Imagen weren’t made public…

What's behind MidJourney, and how has it not been matched/defeated? There's a lot of interest in the space and money to be made, and MidJourney proves that quality results are possible. Is it because of the sheer costs or a secret sauce?

Well you can gain a free GPU hour by rating images. I am pretty sure midjourney is doing some kind of reinforcement learning from human feedback.

The 5.1 raw model is simply unbelievable for photo realistic images. There is 4a,4b,4c, 5, 5.1, 5.1 raw, the anime model I never use. All are interesting but how often do you read anyone mention what midjourney model they are talking about? Basically never.

There are certain circumstances that I have seen stable diffusion match the output but overall I don't even think it is close.

Personally, it wouldn't even occur to me to look for stock photos now as opposed to just making variations in midjourney. There is a bit of a learning curve with so many options in midjourney so I take anything I read about it with a grain of salt. Most people are using these tools to make absolute shit.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#213

Post by snapcaster » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 2:05 PM UTC

wilimitis wrote: post #194

snapcaster wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI art has won multiple competitions for photography and art. Is your claim that all the judges of these competitions were "untrained eyes"?

If they couldn't tell it was AI, yes. Winning an art competition is by itself paradoxical in undermining the point of art, so I don't know how that's relevant, but it is certainly an impressively weak point.

So how would one define "trained eye" without having to defer to your personal opinion? You don't think there is any merit to the point that people chosen by the community of artists to judge art are fooled by it?

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#214

Post by WalterBright » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 5:17 PM UTC

e12e wrote: post #211

WalterBright wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> support what the industrial revolution did to cobblers and weavers Which made cheap shoes and clothes available to everybody. If you want to buy a tailor made shirt, it'll cost you at least $500. And that's still with machine made cloth. What do you think it would cost if the cloth was made by hand by a weaver?

> Which made cheap shoes and clothes available to everybody. I'd argue the efficiency in production led to lower prices - while the concentration in wealth mostly kept buying power/living standards lower for the workers (or; capitalist class reaped an unfair share of productivity gains). I believe commodisation of "knowledge" work will lead to lower prices (and unfair distribution) too.

The standard of living of the poor in America went up all through the 19th century. Things like average height and longevity are strong markers of that. Also, average clothing sizes increased dramatically.

Go take a look at Fort Williams, and at the clothes in it they preserved. They look like kids' clothes. The same for Civil War uniforms. Larger than the FW clothes, but still looking like kid clothes.

I flipped through a high school history book a few years ago, and it insisted that the middle class in America didn't emerge until FDR. This is laughably wrong. It was there from the beginning.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#215

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 6:24 PM UTC

wilimitis wrote: post #193

Kuinox wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are saying that all artists that got fooled by AI art, have untrained eyes ?

If notion of "trained eyes" were to ever have meaning, this would be it.

If "No True Scotsman" were to ever have meaning, this would be it.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#216

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 9:47 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #133

aloisdg wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there is something to do about workers owning their own means of production.

Start your own business and you'll own that means of production.

Why don't poor people just buy a factory to work in??? /s

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#217

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 2:05 AM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #216

WalterBright wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start your own business and you'll own that means of production.

Why don't poor people just buy a factory to work in??? /s

Your computer is a means of production.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#218

Post by starttoaster » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 7:10 AM UTC

thuuuomas wrote: post #184

bheadmaster wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many humans I'd turn off if it wasn't illegal. And even more of them I'd turn off only if I knew with certainty that I could turn them back on whenever I want, and that their memories would simply continue where they stopped.

Frame this - iconic. How many people would you estimate are deserving of your judgement? “Billions”?

I, like most people here (I presume), do not murder. But can you truly say you have never met a person, or got to know them really well, and thought, “this person doesn’t deserve oxygen”? I think most can at least somewhat empathize with having that thought.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#219

Post by ben_w » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 9:47 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #217

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't poor people just buy a factory to work in??? /s

Your computer is a means of production.

Yeeaasss, but so is a lathe or a kiln or a chainsaw.

I don't know if OpenAI has actually confirmed what hardware they use or if the press and bloggers did citeogenesis on each other, but the claim is they're using A100 GPUs, and the bigger models have to use several in parallel. I've seen detached houses in Eastern Europe going for the price of two of those cards.

The DGX-2 is (was?) priced more like a detached house in Western Europe; the GH200 they just announced appears to be "if you have to ask, you can't afford it".

This is similar to how, despite that lathes, kilns, and chainsaws can be bought in supermarkets as impulse purchases, industrial versions of each are rather more expensive.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#220

Post by ben_w » Fri, Jun 09, 2023, 1:40 PM UTC

barbariangrunge wrote: post #152

pdntspa wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's truly evil that aspiring artists go to museums, copying (^H^H learning from) the masters

These stacks of gpus are not people. Repeat with me. These stacks of gpus are not people.

That's a cute line to stochastically parrot, not something which anyone yet knows how to even test the truthfulness or falsity of.