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

241–250 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#241

Post by yoden »

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?

The creators of these images assigned the rights to adobe, including allowing Adobe to develop future products using the images. So yes, this is perfectly fair.

It's completely different than many (most?) other companies, which are training on data they don't have the right to re-distribute.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#242

Post by irrational »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #171
mesh wrote: post #124

Earlier 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.

Where did you read that they were using Stable Diffusion?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#243

Post by roughly »

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)

I would be very, very interested to see a compensation system that took into account the outputs of the trained model - as in, weights derived from your work are attributable to X% of the output of this system, and therefore you are due Y% of the revenue generated by it. It sounds like Adobe is taking seriously the question of artist compensation, and I'd love to see someone tackle the "Hard Problem" of actual attribution in these types of systems.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#244

Post by skeaker »

Alchemista wrote: post #173
grondo4 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a joke? Yes you are allowed to read closed-source, proprietary code and become a better programmer for it. I've decompiled games to learn how they structure their code to improve the structure of games that I program. I had no right to that code and I used it to become a better programmer just like AI do. That's not copyright infringement. You have a right to stop me from using your code, not learning from it…

This is a pretty extreme stance. There is a fine line between "learning from" proprietary code and outright stealing some of the key insights and IP. Sometimes it takes a very difficult conceptual leap to solve some of the more difficult computer science and math problems. "Learning" (aka stealing) someone's solution is very problematic and will get you sued if you are not careful.

If you think that's extreme, wait until you hear my stance that code shouldn't be something that you can own (and can therefore "steal") to begin with.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#246

Post by user3939382 »

Adobe has lost any good sentiment I had for them with their forced subscriptions and dark patterns. I use their products begrudgingly, it’s a sunk cost fallacy from decades of muscle memory.

My reaction to seeing any announcement from them is, yeah whatever Adobe.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#247

Post by stale2002 »

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?

And I am sure that you use your computer for work, to make money, and yet you based on the reading of the contributor agreement it sounds like [The computer buyer/you] doesn’t have to pay a cent to the [computer creator] for all the money you make using that computer.

Does that sound fair to you?

See how stupid that sounds?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#248

Post by akira2501 »

motoxpro wrote: post #8

Interesting that the large company AI products (this, Microsoft copilot, etc) are so much more compelling than any of the startups I’ve seen. Makes me think that we haven’t seen what true innovation looks like in this space. Right now, AI is a feature, not a product. Edit: Not talking about the models themselves (stability, mid journey, GPT-x), talking about what is built on those models.

> Interesting that the large company AI products (this, Microsoft copilot, etc) are so much more compelling than any of the startups I’ve seen.

This is an indicative signal. It's amazing how easily it is ignored.

> Makes me think that we haven’t seen what true innovation looks like in this space.

It's interesting that a bunch of product add-ons could be considered "innovation" in the first place.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#249

Post by balls187 »

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…

This runs into the core problem with technology--we answer "What can we do" before "Should we do it" and "What are the impacts"

Let's say you take your hello kitty dot art, and make a poster promoting a commercial event. You then take it to FedEx Kinkos and use a self-service copy machine to make 1000 copies. You could reasonable argue that you are violation of copyright infringement, and the photocopier / FedEx kinkos isn't.

Now instead, you have AI generate a poster, and it generates a very similar image to hello-kitty. It's arguably so similar than a reasonable person would say it's a copy. You take that poster and again make 1000 copies. Is there copyright infringement? If so, who if anyone, is liable for damages?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#250

Post by ClumsyPilot »

flangola7 wrote: post #232
krisoft wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

"Since someone screwed me, they should screw you"? Crab bucket mentality?
Post reply on HN