Live data from Hacker News

Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

adobe.com

361–370 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#361

Can anyone speak to company culture/QoL of working at Adobe?

I worked for 5 years at Adobe on an infrastructure team. My team and management was amazing and it was a genuinely good workplace. But it is a very large company and many of the usual tradeoffs if large companies still apply (eg small cog, big inscrutable machine). People's experiences varied across teams and I seemed to be on one of the better ones at the company.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

As far as I know there are no religions or legal systems that posit that there are any rights inherently given to machines.

The rights are exercised by the humans building and operating the machines. You're saying the hammer doesn't have rights. Well, yeah, duh. It's the person holding it.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#363
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…

Let’s just take this moment to declare that AI did not turn out to be the next 3D hype.

That’s something I almost forgot about. This was not a forgone conclusion - there was a pretty big divide between people who thought AI would have real value and staying power and those that didnt.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#364
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.

Isn’t almost everything on this page concept stuff though? Seems like the only thing they’re shipping is text to image and the results they show look pretty underwhelming. Seems like all these big companies are pushing amazing looking concept videos more than anything.

Yeah, I thought it was funny that most of the page is "in the future...". Guess they're trying to get attention for the product before it's ready and gauge interest/response.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#365

Can anyone speak to company culture/QoL of working at Adobe?

I worked for 5 years at Adobe on an infrastructure team. My team and management was amazing and it was a genuinely good workplace. But it is a very large company and many of the usual tradeoffs if large companies still apply (eg small cog, big inscrutable machine). People's experiences varied across teams and I seemed to be on one of the better ones at the company.

Much appreciated.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#366
post #241

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?

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.

No that isn't how it works with Adobe or any of the other big stock photo companies. The photographers or creators of the images still own the copyright. Both with rights managed and royalty free they aren't assigning rights to anyone else.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that GPT-3.5 is so cheap, and the results that you get out of it are still quite a bit better than LLaMA/Alpaca. There just doesn't seem to be any solid economic reason to run it locally except to keep inputs and/or outputs private.

That is not sustainable though. OpenAI is in the "burning money to gain market share" phase.

Is there any concrete evidence for that? Like, did anyone try to calculate how much power it actually costs to run the ChatGPT API at its present scale? My understanding is that the upfront costs on hardware are really expensive, but powering it + amortized wear and tear to replace it eventually is orders of magnitude smaller. So, what is the actual estimated cost of one ChatGPT token, and how much money is getting burned?

But also, even if they double the price at some point, it'd still be cheap enough for this to apply.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#368

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…

[dead]

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#369

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).

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…

As a fellow artist, I can kind of see where you are coming from. I've had my art copied in several places, nobody ever asked for permission and probably nobody knows I did it. Nor will. I've seen my work in memes, Doom mods, promotional posters and even ads. It's harsh, but it's naive to expect a reward, the world doesn't work like that in practice. And that's human fault and has happened way before AI imaging was even considered a possibility. Look at how many "classic" artists only became known by chance (and posthumously), despite the quality of their output.

Also, if anything, being included in a training set means you are already notorious. The big ones are usually trained on stock art or famous professionals/classics, and the ones trained by random people are going to use quality filters to get the best images of a specific subject. If you aren't already notorious, you simply will not make it into a set. The other possible motivation is spite, but that'll only happen if you participate in internet slapfights.

And...Patreon? Fans? Influence? "younger PRO" (so a non-pro doesn't count even if they are trying their best?) I sincerely recommend you choose sentences more carefully. Makes you sound phony and using art as a social strategy. When there's so much talk about art and its "soul" you really don't want to make yourself sound like art is a mere means to an end or you risk making the cold, calculating machine seem "purer".

Personally, art should be its own goal. I had plenty of time to stomach one isn't entitled to anything just because effort, so I just want to make my art better. And saves me from the trouble of chasing trends to stay relevant.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#370
post #258

While this is very exciting it's worth pointing out most of the page falls under "WHAT WE’RE EXPLORING." That is to say, these are from the marketing department and it's impossible to know whether they are strictly aspirational or just around the corner. From the page: > Looking forward, Firefly has the potential to do much, much more. Explore the possibilities below ... We plan to build ... We’re exploring the poten…

Yeah, we are being a little more open, a little earlier, in part because this space is so new, and we really want feedback / direction from the community. Currently in the beta, there is text to image, and text effects, and will have vector recoloring in the next couple of weeks.

I was incredibly happy to find a second career in 3d. To get there, I focused on building skills that I could find clients to pay for, and I love the process: modeling, texturing, lighting. Getting the details of products just right. I worked a lot of hours after a my day job an unrelated field to build a client list, learn more, provide more value, and keep doing the thing I love. Eventually, I was able to go freelance. I knew I would be competing with a globalized world, but I figured I could maintain my career through proven value and relationships.

And so far, that's been true! Despite the ubiquity of 3d services in low-wage areas of the world -- and good ones! I've been able to build a career that I'm proud of.

I'm the millionth person to say it, but this is like watching a predator you know you can't avoid, slowly gaining on you.

I'll find another job, I'm sure. But it won't be the one I love and that I worked hard for.

Post reply on HN