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

291–300 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#291

Post by [deleted] »

roughly wrote: post #239
krisoft wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#292

Post by waboremo »

nickelpro wrote: post #152
waboremo wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Artists get into trouble all the time for producing works very close to something that already exist. That's like the number one reason artists get shunned in the communities they were in.

Every filmmaker watches movies Every author reads books Every painter view paintings Unless you're arguing that every single artist across every field of artistic expression is constantly being jeopardized by claims of copyright infringement, this is a nonsensical point to make.

But they’re not creating similar works, unlike AI which IS. Why is this so complicated for you?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#293

Post by judge2020 »

egypturnash wrote: post #236
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They do not currently operate on the basis of fair use. Operating as a human by looking at images and learning how to draw or paint is not 'fair use', it's a right given to you by either God or Mother Nature, so the legal basis for neural nets learning from other art is that it's learning like a human and creating new art from just knowing what art human think is good and optimizing its creation of art to mimic if not borrow the same qualities while still making something new.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#294

Post by brookst »

bash-j wrote: post #290
brookst wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Could you not use tags used to label the image? If your image contains more niche tags that match the user input, your revenue share will be higher. Depending how much extra people earn for certain tags, it might incentivise people to upload more images of what is missing from the training data.

That's interesting, but I'm not sure it works. I think that works out to "for any given prompt, distribute credit to every source image that has a keyword that appears in the prompt, proportional to how many other source images had that same keyword".

If I include the tag "floor", do I get some (tiny) percentage of every image that uses "floor" in the prompt, even if the bits from my image did not end up affecting model weights much at all in training?

Worse, for tags like "dramatic lighting", it's likely that the important source images will depend on the other words in the prompt; "sunset, dramatic lighting" will probably not use the rely on the same weights or source images as "theater interior, dramatic lighting".

And then you get the perverse incentives to tag every image with every possible tag :)

I'd love to be convinced otherwise, but I'm not seeing prompt-to-tag association working.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#295

Post by worrycue »

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…

What if you need to generate a picture of Hello Kitty for an article someone is writing about the art style of Hello Kitty or something? I.E. Fair Use cases.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#296

Post by dragonwriter »

dragonwriter wrote: post #217
HeavyFeather wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> You don’t want Disney to sue Adobe No, you don’t want Disney to sue Adobe.

So, the above was somewhat flip and terse, but the kind of lawsuit being avoided is also the kind of thing that provides clarity on legal issues and removes spaces of doubt. This can be broadly beneficial.

Giants battling it out can result in a clearer environment for everyone else that couldn’t afford legal risk in an environment of doubt.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#297

Post by gradys »

brookst wrote: post #269
roughly wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04730

> How can we explain the predictions of a black-box model? In this paper, we use influence functions -- a classic technique from robust statistics -- to trace a model's prediction through the learning algorithm and back to its training data, thereby identifying training points most responsible for a given prediction.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#298

Post by rchaud »

kitsunesoba wrote: post #156
lelandfe wrote: post #50

From that page's FAQs: > trained on a dataset of Adobe Stock, along with openly licensed work and public domain content where copyright has expired > We do not train on any Creative Cloud subscribers’ personal content. For Adobe Stock contributors, the content is part of the Firefly training dataset, in accordance with Stock Contributor license agreements. The first model did not train on Behance. Not sure what "firs…

It's also worth considering is that there are quite a number of fraudulent images on Adobe Stock, which means that the Firefly dataset without a doubt contains some amount of unlicensed material.

LLM-based AI is tech's equivalent of mortgage-backed securities. Lump in the bad stuff with the legitimate, hope no one notices, and when they do, blame the inherent black-box nature of the product.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#299

Post by skybrian »

worrycue wrote: post #295
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…

What if you need to generate a picture of Hello Kitty for an article someone is writing about the art style of Hello Kitty or something? I.E. Fair Use cases.

Copy it? Use a different image generator?

This is just one tool. It doesn't need to be fully general.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#300

Post by worrycue »

m3kw9 wrote: post #21

This will supercharge artists, it won’t replace them because details matter and when you need to get it just right, you cannot just keep rolling the dice by “prompting better”

Not everyone requires “just right” though. There are no wrong answers in art.

Although in this case, it’s an adobe product, the only people who will use it are artists.

Post reply on HN