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

411–420 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#411

Post by wraptile »

rwmj wrote: post #387
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…

Humans are still picking the AI-generated images they like, so there is still human input.

Also most AI art that is published is retouched and edited. Until it's not of course.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#412

Post by wraptile »

airstrike wrote: post #172
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…

> 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…

Reminds me of the recent chatgpt GPT4 virtue signaling in the update notes: "Now AI will refuse more prompts, so it safer" - Yeah this was requested by exactly 0 real human beings (lawyers and politicians excluded of course)

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#413

Post by O__________O »

Riverheart wrote: post #388
O__________O wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Commissions” involve a human.

Right it’s more like making a free art request. Except now instead of just humans, you can also ask an AI.

Point is the critical issue to copyright is lack of a human in creating the work. A commissioned work is done by a human, as such it’s irrelevant as a comparison.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#414

Post by exodust »

airstrike wrote: post #172
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…

> 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…

> "the law exists to regulate the use of my art, not the act of creating the art"

Thanks airstrike, for dropping this truth bomb.

And just like that, Adobe expands its ministry of creativity powers. In the beginning, it was dollar bills on the no-can-do list. Now it's pictures of Darth Vader and hello kitty.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#415

Post by danShumway »

O__________O wrote: post #375
danShumway wrote: post #343

Earlier 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.

Isn't this just agreeing with what the copyright office said?

When prompting a human being, that human makes the image, so that human gets the copyright. When prompting an AI, no human makes the image, so no human gets the copyright. But in both cases, the prompter doesn't.

We've never treated writing a description of what to draw or providing iterative feedback on an image as an act that grants someone copyright over that image.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#416

Post by danShumway »

O__________O wrote: post #413
Riverheart wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right it’s more like making a free art request. Except now instead of just humans, you can also ask an AI.

Point is the critical issue to copyright is lack of a human in creating the work. A commissioned work is done by a human, as such it’s irrelevant as a comparison.

It's completely relevant. In both cases, you are describing what image you want created.

The fact that you are describing it to a human isn't materially different from the fact that you're describing it to an AI. I mean, heck, this has been the exact argument people have used about why it's OK to train an AI on copyrighted material -- that it's just like a human "learning" from the image. And now comparisons with a human aren't allowed? You can't have it both ways, you can't argue that a generative AI isn't any materially different from a human when it's imitating or learning from a work, but that using that AI suddenly puts the prompter in a completely brand new category of copyright. :)

And we're really talking about the prompter here, not the AI. Focusing specifically on the prompter, what precedent do we have in copyright law that describing the image you want created is a creative act? None, as far as I can see. And we have a ton of precedent that it's not a creative act, ie the entire history of copyright policy around prompting/directing. Nobody argues that directing a creative process means you inherently get copyright over the result.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#417

Post by jmknoll »

motoxpro wrote: post #154
tensor wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft is just licensing their technology from OpenAI, which is still a small company, if not still a startup.

ChatGPT is not nearly as good of a product as what was demoed by Microsoft if you want to make that comparison. Not talking about LLMs/underlying model. I don’t think adobe makes their own either. Talking about the interface to it.

What MS demo are you referring to? I like chatgpt way more than new Bing’s GPT interface.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#419

Post by ar9av »

midjourney data set is curated with only consented images, and they have an artist opt out option for artist who want to be removed from their data set.

Either way, competition is always good for the market as a whole.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#420

Post by random_cynic »

motoxpro wrote: post #154
tensor wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft is just licensing their technology from OpenAI, which is still a small company, if not still a startup.

ChatGPT is not nearly as good of a product as what was demoed by Microsoft if you want to make that comparison. Not talking about LLMs/underlying model. I don’t think adobe makes their own either. Talking about the interface to it.

Without the underlying model what's the point of the facade?
Post reply on HN