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

401–410 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#401

Post by coldtea »

egypturnash wrote: post #160
judge2020 wrote: post #53

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…

It's not like 90% of the work available to human commercial artists would even be there in the future with these developments...

Most customers currently paying an artist will just slap some quick AI stuff and call it a day.

Big customers might still make it a matter of prestige or pride or "quality" differentiator to use "real human art" from some famous graphic designers, but that is like 1/1000 of the commercial gigs going on today.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#402

Post by coldtea »

krsdcbl wrote: post #385
egypturnash wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Honestly having worked as an artist and illustrator for a long time I'm kinda relaxed when it comes to this. 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 m…

The problem is to be impacted negatively doesn't necessary mean "I've grown big enough to have more inquiries than i could serve anyway".

It could just mean AI can imitate above a certain "good enough" level the kind of style you and others working in a similar vain do (say "whimsical children illustrations") and all other styles besides, so once-would-have-been-customers now just use some AI stuff with a generic prompt.

In other words, AI aet doesn't have to request your specific name to affect you. It's enough that it provides art for many/most gigs that would now go to a human illustrator.

It would be hard to see just "good developments" when paying gigs dry out.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#403

Post by anigbrowl »

ghaff wrote: post #204
anigbrowl wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure that's a no. When you license a stock image you license it for any use whatsoever. You don't get to complain if it becomes the background to a porn movie or an advert for a product or person you despise. Songs can licensed on a case-by-case basis but images are so plentiful as to be a commodity.

Not quite. For example, this is one thing Adobe says in their FAQ: Images showing models can't be used in a manner that the models could perceive as offensive. (For example, avoid using images with models on the cover of a steamy romance novel or a book about politics or religion, etc.) There are also a few other more Adobe-specific restrictions.

Well, Adobe are publishers of the stock images so they can enforce such terms. What I mean is that the person selling a stock image to Adobe, Getty, Shutterstock or whoever has no say on what happens to it afterward. The publisher is going to assert universal rights in exchange for cash. If they narrow their own terms as in your example above, they don't necessarily create any sort of duty to the seller whose photo rights they purchased.

I should have been clearer and specified sale of rights rather than licensing of a stock image in my original reply, which I now realize is confusing.

Companies certainly can offer more narrow terms/commitments about what the stock images can or cannot be used for if they want to, but economically they're incentivized to maximize their own freedom, and not to negotiate a complex bundle of rights for individual images. Of course for journalistic and artistic images that are unique in some way, the original creator can negotiate.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#404

Post by TheHumanist »

doitLP wrote: post #398

This is cute and all for creating one-off, in distinct, stylized images. But what if I want to illustrate say a children’s book with generated images? dall-e for example never gets faces right and good luck trying to have the same character look the same between generated images. Feeding it a seed image sometimes got something similar but always with major uncanny valley vibes. Anyone know how to get around this?

Have you checked out Midjourney? It is very realistic sometimes... It's crazy.

https://www.midjourney.com/

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#405

Post by FooBarWidget »

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…

Startups? Cloud and mobile were not spearheaded by startups but by megacorporations.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#406

Post by teaearlgraycold »

judge2020 wrote: post #208
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?

If, as I alluded to, you and the SCOTUS (and other courts) interpret AI art as similar enough to humans where the 'training' process is analogous to a human looking at art and learning how to create good art (or even copy another artist's style), then the license you apply to art does not matter, because it'd just be "learning" about how art works, and not any actual usage of the original work. In this case the AI wo…

I think you’d consider those responsible for the model to be humans, the model to be a machine, and all outputs to be derivative works of the training set with the humans holding culpability.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#407

Post by ghaff »

anigbrowl wrote: post #403
ghaff wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. For example, this is one thing Adobe says in their FAQ: Images showing models can't be used in a manner that the models could perceive as offensive. (For example, avoid using images with models on the cover of a steamy romance novel or a book about politics or religion, etc.) There are also a few other more Adobe-specific restrictions.

Well, Adobe are publishers of the stock images so they can enforce such terms. What I mean is that the person selling a stock image to Adobe, Getty, Shutterstock or whoever has no say on what happens to it afterward. The publisher is going to assert universal rights in exchange for cash. If they narrow their own terms as in your example above, they don't necessarily create any sort of duty to the seller whose photo r…

It's probably not very common but people can and will absolutely bring lawsuits if you misrepresent them based on stock photography including but not limited to manipulating the photographs. (Of course, people can sue for whatever reason but using random stock photos for "bad people" can get you in trouble.)

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#408

Post by exodust »

spoiler wrote: post #202
judge2020 wrote: post #53

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).

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…

> thousands of different art styles

Are you saying all those art styles are original? They are not. Artists influence artists. Sometimes the influence is strong, other times just a glimmer.

Perhaps the burden of responsibility shouldn't be on Ai machine learning, but the human prompt author who chooses the instruction: "...in the style of Jo Blow". Who owns the ethical dilemma in that case? Who is being unfair to Jo Blow in that case? I'm quite certain whoever wrote the prompt is 100% responsible.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#409

Post by xbar »

flangola7 wrote: post #383
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Since someone screwed me, they should screw you"? Crab bucket mentality?

No one is screwing anyone. I also learned from reading GitHub code and continue to do so. I haven't "screwed" the original code authors by forming an abstract memory of their code. Any country that tries to forbid this will be torpedoing their economic competitiveness against countries that allow it.

This is a common fallacious argument.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#410

Post by wraptile »

user3939382 wrote: post #246

Adobe has lost any good sentiment I had for them with their forced subscriptions and dark patterns. I use their products begrudgingly, it’s a sunk cost fallacy from decades of muscle memory. My reaction to seeing any announcement from them is, yeah whatever Adobe.

I'm surprised so much good sentiment in this thread as I honestly don't think I ever met anyone who hasn't had a great distate for this company. The first thing that came to my head when I read the headline - oh no, can we not have Adobe stink up this party?
Post reply on HN