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

231–240 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#231

Post by unreal37 »

airstrike wrote: post #172
open-paren wrote: post #81

Adobe 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…

> 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) are you saying it won't work? if that's the case, that seems really silly. actually, it goes against everything I believe in (as well as my understanding of even the kindest meaning of the word "hacker"). it drives me up the wall, it makes my blood boil who is going…

There will be open source tools replicating this within months. You can build your own model based on billions of images on the web or use someone else's or contribute to one.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#232

Post by flangola7 »

krisoft wrote: post #228
unreal37 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody owes creators who have been paid fully for their work "extra" compensation just because AI is involved. Assuming they have been paid, the work belongs to Adobe.

> Assuming they have been paid That is the question we are asking, yes. Based on the reading of the contributor agreement it sounds like Adobe doesn’t have to pay a cent to the creators to train models on their work. Does that sound fair to you?

ChatGPT trained on my GitHub code and I wasn't paid anything at all. Is that preferable?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#233

Post by mesh »

Filligree wrote: post #184
mesh wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. Although we are working on allowing you to train on your own content.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#234

Post by egypturnash »

mesh wrote: post #226
egypturnash wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

We are working on a compensation model for Stock contributors for the training content, and will have more details by the time we release. The training is based on the licensing agreement for Adobe contributors for Adobe Stock. (I work for Adobe)

Thanks! I am delighted to know that Adobe's got plans on that front.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#235

Post by Bjorkbat »

daveslash wrote: post #96

When 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…

I won't argue with you that they have gotten more colorful, but I feel like they've also lost a lot of originality as well. Advertising in the 60s and 80s seemed more fun and witty, and you had commercial artists like Andy Warhol giving ads a wholly unique style, despite the limitations of the craft back then.

Nowadays, we have Corporate Memphis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis).

Funny really. Despite creative tooling opening up new possibilities, I see the end result as a net loss in quality. Cheap generally wins out over great.

Ever the optimist, I like remind myself that in a world where good loses out to mediocre every single time, it's easier to stand out for being great.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#236

Post by egypturnash »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #200
egypturnash wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hi, I'm an artist, I do not give a shit about other humans looking at my work, I am delighted when a younger pro comes to me and thanks me for what they learnt from my work. That tells me they were fascinated enough with it to look at it and analyze it again and again. I made a connection with them via my drawing skills. I am catastrophically unhappy at the prospect of a corporation ingesting a copy of my work and st…

Is there a license that exists that you could put on your work to prevent its use in model training?

Not as far as I know. There needs to be one, and internet-scrapers need to be able to be sued for ludicrous amounts of money if they violate it, IMHO. Training AI models feels way outside the scope of what I think "fair use" should cover.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#237

Post by ryanjshaw »

spoiler wrote: post #202
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).

It's not quite the same... And I'm not sure how people on HN of all places are failing to grasp that these algorithms aren't sentinet, much less people. I think this is incredibly cool technology, but using other people's property without their consent is stealing (I'm not talking about legality, but morality here). The second reason why it's not the same is that people can't look at X million pictures and become pro…

I'm curious, do you hold the same beliefs about text?

Do you think ChatGPT should not be allowed to read books and join ideas across them without paying the original authors for their contribution to the thought?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#238

Post by balls187 »

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…

It's important to note that this is generative AI.

As pretty much everyone on HN is aware, AI is a broad term for a variety of technologies.

AI has been in our everyday lives for quite some time, but not in a way that generated (no pun intended) such buzz.

Having my iphone scan emails and pre-populate my calendar with invite suggestions is far less newsworthy as the ability to generate a script for an Avengers film where all the members are as in articulate as the Incredible Hulk.

If anything, with generative AI being so buzzy, this latest round of AI integration is more marketing.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#239

Post by roughly »

krisoft wrote: post #201
egypturnash wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not a lawyer and I don't work for Adobe. :) The contributor agreement linked from here[1] is this: [2] "You grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, fully-paid, and royalty-free license to use, reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, index, translate, and modify the Work for the purposes of operating the Website; presenting, distributing, marketing, promoting, and licensing the Work to u…

> They can use your work to develop new features and services, and they do not have to pay you for that at all, since it is not a sale of a license.

And in this case, to develop new features and services that specifically undercuts your existing business, viz. selling stock photos for money. Sucks to the artists, indeed.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#240

Post by irrational »

krisoft wrote: post #228
unreal37 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody owes creators who have been paid fully for their work "extra" compensation just because AI is involved. Assuming they have been paid, the work belongs to Adobe.

> Assuming they have been paid That is the question we are asking, yes. Based on the reading of the contributor agreement it sounds like Adobe doesn’t have to pay a cent to the creators to train models on their work. Does that sound fair to you?

If they signed the contract, then yes.
Post reply on HN