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

221–230 of 279 posts

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#221

Post by pawelmurias »

vonjuice wrote: post #69
ben_w wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mm. Possibly, but not necessarily. I have a suspicion that art is to humans as fancy tails are to peacocks: the difficulty is the point. I believe this is why we have art galleries proudly displaying oil paintings of fruit bowls, but don't do this for random food snapshots. It's also why photographs as a category were initially dismissed (in an era that had come to praise extreme realism in paintings), but when photo…

We have art galleries displaying things like empty canvases or toilet bowls that make a statement, it's definitely not about difficulty. The fact is that the debate about what art is is part of what makes art art, it escapes definition because part of the spirit of art is rebelling against definition.

Those are the old school NFTs, the AI tools are for the skillfull kind of art.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#222

Post by syntheweave »

gyy52380 wrote: post #66
dthul wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a very Luddite view. Why wouldn't artists be able to use AI selectively to automate "boring" tasks (such as filling the sky of an image with clouds) while still retaining overall artistic control?

Because that is not what's happening. My friends that work as illustrators for PC and mobile games say it's the exact opposite. AI is used for the bulk of the creative work - composition, posing, even the general artstyle. Illustrators are then tasked with "fixing" visual artefacts, stitching together generated images and giving the final polish. They describe it as being reduced from a creative writer to a grammar c…

That's actually a problem for the business model of mobile games. A consumer can - or very soon will be able to - pick up AI tools and cut out the middleman org churning out these illustrations, just like they cut out the professionals. It won't be too long before games are made that advertise "put your original characters in the game", and it won't be some complicated character creation tool - it'll be generative stuff.

There's a lot of "but wait, there's more" in what's happening around AI.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#223

Post by deely3 »

opyate wrote: post #209
thot_experiment wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AI hate is suuuch a meme in the art community, it's very frustrating/alienating. (Though understandably, neoliberal capitalism is also extremely frustrating, so I see why artists mad, I just wish they'd be mad at the root cause.) ((the root cause is that an economic system fundamentally based on scarcity == value doesn't make sense when applied to things that are essentially infinite, and kludgeing in artificial…

I don't get AI hate. It's nothing other than "technology hate". As a web developer who started out in 2001/2002, I watched as custom web design jobs dried up, and more and more people (and ahem artists) started using online tools to create a templatised website on the cheap. Did I throw a tantrum? Nope! I learned to do backend dev so I could make my own automation tools. Seriously, just embrace these new superpowers…

I get AI hate. How many AI models out there created with clear consent from authors of source materials? Zero?

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#224

Post by pxoe »

thot_experiment wrote: post #213
pxoe wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

typing some text and pressing 'generate', iterating, or doing layering and photobashing, just isn't gonna be 'painting', or 'drawing', like, ever. on a fundamental level. you'll need to get over yourself asap if you're "screaming" over this

Man I know it's pointless for me to argue but it's just like... it's wild to me that people make these comments. Do my comments give the impression that I am unaware of what drawing and painting are? I have spent thousands of hours painting and drawing. Photography isn't gonna be painting or drawing either, it's still art that affords the artist an enormous amount of control. This is the "meme" I'm talking about. The…

it's not the "unaware" part, it's the 'endless possibilities' (snake oil) part. ai ppl looooove to draw clouds and expect everyone to buy into that shit, yet it's not that hot. it'll always be just an app, unfortunately. it's reductive but that's just its limitation and confines.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#225

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> UNLIKE other tools, AI makes creative decisions

No, it doesn’t.

That's just an anthropomorphization of “produces deterministic results of its inputs that are practically intractable to compute by other means”. But Stable Diffusion doesn’t “make creative decisions” any more than POV-Ray or (pre-Generative fill) Photoshop.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#226

Post by thot_experiment »

pxoe wrote: post #224
thot_experiment wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man I know it's pointless for me to argue but it's just like... it's wild to me that people make these comments. Do my comments give the impression that I am unaware of what drawing and painting are? I have spent thousands of hours painting and drawing. Photography isn't gonna be painting or drawing either, it's still art that affords the artist an enormous amount of control. This is the "meme" I'm talking about. The…

it's not the "unaware" part, it's the 'endless possibilities' (snake oil) part. ai ppl looooove to draw clouds and expect everyone to buy into that shit, yet it's not that hot. it'll always be just an app, unfortunately. it's reductive but that's just its limitation and confines.

This sort factually incorrect dogmatic screed from a position of complete ignorance, this is why I find the discourse so frustrating and why I dismissively call it a meme. Look into ControlNets, look into Deforum, look into programmatic loopback, LoRa training, model alchemy; and that's just some of what's available TODAY in a field that's moving faster than most anything else.

You're someone looking at Amiga DPaint in 1986 and claiming to understand the limitations and confines of digital art. It's absurd.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#227

Post by tavavex »

deely3 wrote: post #223
opyate wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get AI hate. It's nothing other than "technology hate". As a web developer who started out in 2001/2002, I watched as custom web design jobs dried up, and more and more people (and ahem artists) started using online tools to create a templatised website on the cheap. Did I throw a tantrum? Nope! I learned to do backend dev so I could make my own automation tools. Seriously, just embrace these new superpowers…

I get AI hate. How many AI models out there created with clear consent from authors of source materials? Zero?

Who decided that they should have the power to rule over this? Not only does it appear to be legal, but deciding that dataset compilation is inherently immoral and consent-violating would represent a draconian expansion of IP law that almost no individual should agree to. If I perform statistical research and count the most common English words based on many books, should I be liable to go and ask every author if they're okay with me analyzing their works? If I see a thousand character designs and then pick up some cues and ideas to create my own, should I pay a licensing fee?

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#228

Post by dotnet00 »

dbrgn wrote: post #37
Zetobal wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a trend that's basically the norm for generative ai and AMD is to blame for it not the devs.

Why is that the case? Tools like OpenCL do exist, but I assume CUDA is simply better suited for these tasks, is that true? (With the dominance of CUDA, choice of a GPU on Linux gets even harder. It used to be a clear "fuck you Nvidia" if you wanted to use Wayland, but Nvidia definitely has the lead when it's about video editing and machine learning.)

AMD's OpenCL implementation and tooling on Windows is terrible, even worse than NVIDIA's OpenCL tooling, and on Linux their ROCm stuff has been so unreliable in terms of its hardware support that it isn't worth the investment.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#229

Post by awfulneutral »

sndwnm wrote: post #215
awfulneutral wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Finally, most artists don't think like you. It's not "pointless" to do something that can be technically repeated by other humans or AI. You do art because you want to express yourself. I've seen this sentiment a bunch of times, but I don't agree. Most people practice skills and make art in order to demonstrate their value to society. Art (and media) doesn't exist in a vacuum, it surely exists for societal reasons.…

I don't think you are disagreeing with me. I also mean by "expressing yourself" that the artist is trying to communicate with the community and be of value to them. I'm saying AI does not allow anyone to easily make games and comics, at least not for a some while. Currently AI allows you to easily make still pictures, maybe a written chapter of a story. It does not yet compete with artists who do larger pieces of wor…

Okay, I see. I'm less worried about AI running the whole thing, and more about the diminishing quality of life for creators. Also I'm less sure than you about AI being unable to compete with larger pieces of work in the near future, especially books and comics seem pretty doable. Humans might stay in control, but over time it moves from creation towards curation, which is pretty different and has different implications over who gets to experience artistic fulfillment, and who gets to make a living. But hopefully you are right and it takes long enough that we can make some sort of societal adjustment.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#230

Post by lancesells »

thot_experiment wrote: post #213
pxoe wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

typing some text and pressing 'generate', iterating, or doing layering and photobashing, just isn't gonna be 'painting', or 'drawing', like, ever. on a fundamental level. you'll need to get over yourself asap if you're "screaming" over this

Man I know it's pointless for me to argue but it's just like... it's wild to me that people make these comments. Do my comments give the impression that I am unaware of what drawing and painting are? I have spent thousands of hours painting and drawing. Photography isn't gonna be painting or drawing either, it's still art that affords the artist an enormous amount of control. This is the "meme" I'm talking about. The…

> It's such a self report, you have no idea what is going on, you are quick to discount it without any understanding. We are still in the infancy of the space and people are fixated with these idiotic reductive arguments. > I'm sure we will see it eventually

If your basis for your art is about the hot new tool, or a tool in the future then it's just novelty. Generative AI is incredible from a technological perspective, as was Photoshop before it, but neither of them are ushering in some profound new wave of art.

> fucking epic the set of possibilities that this opens up is

Most great art and great design is built on constraints. My suggestion in using these magical tools is to reduce your possibilities to find something that speaks true to yourself.

Post reply on HN