>Also Adobe: HOLD MY BEER!
Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
381–390 of 496 posts
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#382Earlier 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.…
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
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Any country that tries to forbid this will be torpedoing their economic competitiveness against countries that allow it.
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#384Earlier 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.…
Why do you have to, though? What do you hope to trace back to exactly?
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#385Earlier 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…
companies stealing your work isn't a thing that just happened to become possible because AI can make it easier to imitate. The real world scenario is much rather: _they just steal your existing work_
ever since I've been publishing my own illustrations I've always ran an image search on the stuff I've got on my homepage once or twice a year, and almost every time i did this I've found multiple individuals or companies who just used my illustrations for something without ever contacting me.
On the other hand, if my style was ever to become known and sought after enough for people prompting AIs with my name, I'm pretty confident that this would mean that:
A) I've grown big enough to have more inquiries than i could serve anyway and
B) The ones doing this are neither people or companies I'd liked to have as clients, nor would they have booked my services for the price I ask if it weren't for AI.
Big agencies with interesting clients couldn't allow themselves to risk their reputation with faking original work, and other large corporations that just don't give a fuck because they are ready to litigate if i challenge their usage are likely to have such reach that they'll end up still contributing to the desirability of my original artwork if they appropriate it. And the smaller ones, they fulfill premise B) on the one hand and would also feed the hype.
So I truly feel what actually bothers you, forever I've been drawing first and foremost because i want to inspire people to express themselves and make experience the same experiences I've had when loosing myself in a drawing. And i do think the bittersweetness of imaging AI remains that while some people will gain the confidence to DO try to express themselves creatively, others will at the same time never want to seek achieving this by their own physical skill and raw will.
But when it comes to myself and my art, I actually see only benefit and progression, regardless of what current dystopic scenarios might manifest :)
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
When something becomes much cheaper than it was before, people tend to find much more uses for it. In game development, for example, amount of money that could be spent on art almost always amount and quality of content; if art becomes 10 times cheaper, a typical indie game will have 2 times more different pieces of content with 5 times variants of each.
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#387What’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…
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a prompt is somehow a recipe and not a novel expression that merits copyright People keep bringing up photographs, I think the better analogy is commissions. And in fact, the copyright office points towards commissions in its explanation of its policy. Under current copyright law, if I work with an artist to produce a commission by giving that artist repeated prompts, pointing out areas in the image I'd like change…
“Commissions” involve a human.
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#389This 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”
Yes, but by "supercharging" artists, each artist will be able to do more, which means fewer artists will be needed.
Honestly, I'm an artist myself. I'm competent enough to be reposted and plagiarized (to my amusement) in places, and I have influenced people with my designs or style, even unwillingly. I mean, I can say anything on the internets, but I've been through all of the "artist's phases of grief" and nobody can take that from me.
Let's humor this thought for the sake of discussion: What if, maybe, just maybe, the artists that get replaced by an stable diffusion instance...deserve to be replaced?
People keeps talking business and not enough people is talking about ART. Something which is baffling to me as an artist. A lot of artists have a lot of technical skill obtained through grinding (and learning from others) but have zero passion to improve further or have any real distinctive traits to stand out. It's double baffling coming from places such as Hacker News, where a majority, being tech workers, know that you need to keep improving and recycling yourself to stay relevant to employers. We know that pressure very well. You think art is not a competitive field? Every day 10 people can just pop out of nowhere to compete in your niche and take your audience away, with a much lower barrier of entry. That other person just needs their art to look good, no need for qualifications. Some people are just gifted, too.
If your art stagnates and all you do is sexy ladies for overblown prices, then, yes, you failed to keep up and someone else will replace you. If it was not the AI, it would have been another human being, as always.
Besides, corporate entities usually use custom photographs with photogenic actors, carefully staged for maximum engagement, or generic, parametric, inclusive-yet-bland art in the lines of Alegria. The whole notion of megacorps purposely stealing from indie artists (when their models are usually curated, or going to have to be curated for maximum advertiser friendliness, and a lot of indies draw cheesecake because it's what people commissions...) paints a pretty tale of David vs Goliath, but it's completely absurd in practice. And the risk of some random dude "stealing" your style has existed always.
The AI can have pretty dark uses in the wrong hands, but a lot of the situations described say more about the lack of passion or excess of ego of the one crying foul, than actual reality. And, take it from an artist, we do have an issue with inflated egos. All of this sounds to me like a huge case of "Do not steal", when making it into any huge training set in any significant capacity should be a badge of honor to wear. If even The Algorithm© recognizes the value of your art then you are already pretty well established anyway. I really can't wrap my head around the strange perspective of other artists.
People should really put all those strong emotions onto the canvas instead of internet kerfuffles, is what I'm saying.
Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator
#390Adobe 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…