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

261–270 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#261

Post by ClumsyPilot »

grondo4 wrote: post #75
madeofpalk wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should Github Copilot be trained on private, closed-source, proprietary code?

Yes, AI should be trained on every piece of information possible. Am I allowed to become a better programmer by looking at private, (illegally leaked) closed-source, proprietary code?

> Am I allowed to become a better programmer by looking at private code?

Your argument is based on the idea that you and AI should have the same rights?

I do not see how this works unless AI going to be entitled to minimum wage and paid leave?

Otherwise it is just a money grab

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#262

Post by saberience »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #158
bitL wrote: post #80

Generative AI with ClipSeg/ControlNet is the main way to make Adobe products obsolete. No wonder they are pushing it into production ASAP but their investments to advanced tools they had edge over competition like e.g. intelligent background filling can be easily replicated/overcome now. We might see a quick commoditization of Adobe image processing tools.

Yeah but Adobe will presumably outspend stability.ai/midjourney/the stable diffusion community 10 to 1, plus they have access to better datasets. I think if they play this right this could end up building them a moat rather than filling it in.

Yes but Adobe tools are both expensive and their subscription system and website are full of horrible dark patterns. There's a reason Figma users were upset and pissed to hear Adobe was buying them. Adobe used to be a loved company, but this was many many years ago at this point.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#263

Post by krisoft »

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?

> Is that preferable?

I don’t see why you are asking this. Which part of my comment made you think it is preferable?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#265

Post by KineticLensman »

biccboii wrote: post #41
sourcecodeplz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, when signing up for the waitlist, they don't ask for your Adobe account.

it's only a matter of time i'm sure. I don't think you can use any adobe product today without Adobe Creative Cloud™

> I don't think you can use any adobe product today without Adobe Creative Cloud

The Elements versions of Photoshop and Premiere are paid for with a one-off purchase and are not part of a cloud subscription.

I use Creative Cloud photoshop but a while ago purchased a separate Premiere Elements license for video editing - this was cheaper than extending my CC subscription to include Premiere Pro. But I switched to (the awesome) Davinci Resolve for video editing when my copy of Premiere elements wasn't able to open video clips from just-released cameras and phones.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#266

Post by airstrike »

balls187 wrote: post #249
airstrike wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 kink…

Whoever put the poster up for display and reaped some reward out of it is liable for damages. Everyone else is just doing their job in the supply chain. We want supply chains to work for the good of the economy, which is a proxy for increasing availability and reducing prices of "goods and services" to the average person.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#267

Post by spoiler »

ryanjshaw wrote: post #237
spoiler wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I do! If they aren't in some way public domain, then the authors should have a say, or be if the work is purchased.

I have a bit of cognitive dissonance on the subject of blog posts or articles in general, since those are kinda public domain? But I still think it should be opt in/out-able.

I realise I'm also a bit of a hypocrite since I've enjoyed playing with these AI tools myself, and I realise they'd be nowhere as cool if they didn't have access to such large datasets.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#268

Post by airstrike »

HeavyFeather wrote: post #216
airstrike wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I hate limitations as much as the next person, but these tools are viewed as generators by company xyz. You don’t want Disney to sue Adobe because the tool can circumvent IP and abuse it. “Draw a Disney logo but for adults” That image now lives on Adobe.com

What if I draw the logo with a regular 2B pencil?

I want to see Disney sue Faber-Castell for making great pencils I used for my deviant art

Also IANAL but even then there's probably fair use rights in parodying their logo

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#269

Post by brookst »

roughly wrote: post #243
mesh wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 attrib…

I've looked a few times, but have not seen any research on assigning provenance to the weights used in a particular inference run. It's a super interesting space for a bunch of reasons.

But the naive approach of having a table of how much each individual training item influenced every weight in the model seems impossibly big. For DALL-E 2's 6.5B parameters and 650m training items, that's 4.2 quadrillion associations. And then you have to figure out which weights contributed the most to an output.

I would love to see any research or even just thinking that anyone's done on this topic. It seems like it will be important in the future, but it also seems like a crazy difficult scale problem as models get bigger.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#270

Post by int_19h »

lmarcos wrote: post #225
petilon wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but by "supercharging" artists, each artist will be able to do more, which means fewer artists will be needed.

That artists will be able to do more not necessarily mean that fewer of them will ne needed. I bet the opposite actually. Companies will want to produce more (with more resources) not the same (with less resources).

But do the companies actually need more art?

I guess a better way to rephrase that: would it make them more profitable to produce more art? Or to keep producing the same amount but paying fewer people to do so?

Post reply on HN