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

321–330 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#321

Post by joe_the_user »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #57
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…

I think you're missing a fundamental reason: adding AI functionality into products is simply easier. That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. The examples you gave of of cloud and iPhone have both huge capital barriers to entry, and in iPhones case other phone companies just didn't have the unique design talent combination of Jobs an…

That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place.

No, there is no real "hard part" to AI current. Training is simply "the expensive part".

It seems "the bitter lesson" has gone from reflection to paradigm[1] and with that as paradigm, the primary barrier to entering AI is cash for cpu cycles, other things matter but recipes is relatively simple and relatively available.

[1] http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#322

Post by spoiler »

jonahrd wrote: post #289
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…

But these stock image artists provided consent when signing a contract and selling their work to Adobe. The contract is pretty clear that you basically don't own the work anymore and Adobe can do whatever they want with it. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract.

Oh right, sorry. I was talking generally, not specifically to Firefly.

Yeah, I think Adobe is a publisher and as such, you give it distribution rights. So, I agree with you on this case.

Slightly tangential, but Imagine a singer or actor's voice of face being used without their consent just because the publisher has rights to distribute their performance. That probably wouldn't fly very well, and I assume this doesn't fly with some artists either (even though they signed a contract).

I assume publishers will probably have an AI consent form soon.

It's all very exciting, and I hope we don't ruin it with greed and disregard for the works of the very people that made these technologies so successful. Like, if it weren't for the scraped works, the AI feats would've been both much more underwhelming and and much more expensive to train.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#323

Post by danielbln »

wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #308
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…

Except for Chat GPT I havent yet seen super impressive implementations. Dall-e, codepilots, text to speech etc. are still all not good enough to use for more then playing around. However this landingpage looks amazing. Any good other tips?

Midjourney v5 might be ready for prime time, in most cases it seems to have solved faces, hands, etc. The difference between version 1 from exactly one year ago and v5 now is rather striking: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_...

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#324

Post by ShamelessC »

wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #308
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…

Except for Chat GPT I havent yet seen super impressive implementations. Dall-e, codepilots, text to speech etc. are still all not good enough to use for more then playing around. However this landingpage looks amazing. Any good other tips?

This is effectively DALLE-2 (apparently retrained on different data) with a native frontend designed by experienced designers.

You don't see the value in effectively not needing any art/design skills to make aesthetically pleasing logos/mockups/memes? Even just for "playing around" - I bet there's a large market of people who want to add "fun edits" to their existing personal photo library.

Focus less on landing pages and more on the implications a technology brings. Then you'll see where things are headed.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#325

Post by wouldbecouldbe »

ShamelessC wrote: post #324
wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for Chat GPT I havent yet seen super impressive implementations. Dall-e, codepilots, text to speech etc. are still all not good enough to use for more then playing around. However this landingpage looks amazing. Any good other tips?

This is effectively DALLE-2 (apparently retrained on different data) with a native frontend designed by experienced designers. You don't see the value in effectively not needing any art/design skills to make aesthetically pleasing logos/mockups/memes? Even just for "playing around" - I bet there's a large market of people who want to add "fun edits" to their existing personal photo library. Focus less on landing page…

I've tried to use DALL-E for practical purposes such as generating icons, art etc. for commercial products but most of it is unusable.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#326

Post by joe_the_user »

NaN1352 wrote: post #253

What’s interesting to me is how this only works because of prior art. BUT, when prior art will be AI-assisted if not 99% generated art, from a pool of prior human art ever so slowly diminishing… where is this going? For one, "art" can only lessen in value. Perhaps physical art will grow in value as digital art’s "made by without AI" tag becomes unprovable and meaningless. I think it’s bad. Whomever provides these too…

This could be a problem but it seems to like Adobe and other stock image owner may be in a better position to deal with it than companies scanning things from the open net.

Lots of arts/craft are kept alive because they form the basis for more automated processes and this may well continue with simple painting and photography.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#328

Post by Hard_Space »

I wish these schemes would stop using Discord. It's just a cheap grab at building a community where one might not gather naturally, and the generative grunt that goes into public Discord prompts would be just the same in a logged-in API such as ChatGPT.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#329

Post by zwaps »

joe_the_user wrote: post #321
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing a fundamental reason: adding AI functionality into products is simply easier. That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. The examples you gave of of cloud and iPhone have both huge capital barriers to entry, and in iPhones case other phone companies just didn't have the unique design talent combination of Jobs an…

That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. No, there is no real "hard part" to AI current. Training is simply "the expensive part". It seems "the bitter lesson" has gone from reflection to paradigm[1] and with that as paradigm, the primary barrier to entering AI is cash for cpu cycles, other things matter but recipes is relatively simp…

I get your point, but please do read the training logs for Meta's OPT, it's some Greek drama I tell ya

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#330

Post by musicale »

wwweston wrote: post #318
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…

I'm starting to think that use of works in a training set is a category not covered well by existing copyright law, and it may be important to require separate explicit opt-in agreement by law (and receipt of some consideration in return) in order to be considered legitimate use. The vast majority of copyrighted works were conceived and negotiated under conditions where ML reproduction capabilities didn't exist and n…

Derivative works or remixes usually require a license. Artists could very reasonably argue that AI-generated images are derivative works from their own images - especially if there is notable similarity or portions appear to be copied. They could also point out that their images were used for commercial purposes without permission and without compensation to generate works that compete with their own.

For example, even a short sample used in a song usually has to be licensed. Cover versions of songs may qualify for a compulsory license with a set royalty payment scale.

However some reuse (such as transformative use, parodies, or use of snippets for various purposes, especially non-commercial purposes) may be considered fair use. AI companies could very reasonably argue that use of images for training AI models is transformative and qualifies as fair use, that no components of the original images are reused in AI-generated images, and that AI-generated images are no more infringing than human-generated images which show influences from other artists.

Absent additional law, I expect the legal system will have to sort out whether AI-generated images infringe the copyright of their training images, and if so what sort of licensing would be appropriate for AI-generated (or other software/machine-generated) images based on training data from images that are under copyright.

Post reply on HN