431–440 of 496 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That artists will be able to do more not necessarily mean that fewer of them will ne needed. I bet the opposite actually. Companies will want to produce more (with more resources) not the same (with less resources).
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are aggressively integrating it into their products And no reason to suspect that it won't spectacularly backfire. Not that they're integrating (or more correctly slapping it on with some hot glue) transformative technology they barely understand into legacy products which are themselves likely to go defunct. Why even use a spreadsheet when you can get GPT-4 to write a whole data analysis pipeline and summariz…
From a practical perspective, because of inertia and all managers seemingly being "burned once, twice shy" on re-designs. If my company already uses spreadsheets and teams of people skilled at manipulating them, it might not be very hard to convince my manager that good AI use cases (quick formatting, intelligent auto-completes, intention detection from sheet structure) could probably speed us up by 20% - but convinc…
That would imply these AI systems have been integrated well, which in most cases are not and I suspect the amount of work it would take to do it properly would not pay off considering the limited window available before people transition to a fully chat based system.
> but convincing management of the value of a full system re-design by comparison would likely be a very tough sell
In this case it would be convincing the management to transition to a system where you can just order around and someone/something would get the job done, which is well in their comfort zone (I'm only half joking).
From that page's FAQs: > trained on a dataset of Adobe Stock, along with openly licensed work and public domain content where copyright has expired > We do not train on any Creative Cloud subscribers’ personal content. For Adobe Stock contributors, the content is part of the Firefly training dataset, in accordance with Stock Contributor license agreements. The first model did not train on Behance. Not sure what "firs…
From Adobe's reddit post[1]: > We are developing a compensation model for Stock contributors. More info on that when we release If they can properly compensate the stock contributors based on usage then I think this is a very fair approach. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/photoshop/comments/11xgft4/discussi...
I dont have any confidence they can create a fair compensation method.
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…
My own startup is https://inventai.xyz. Subscriptions aren't ready, so you can't actually generate anything yet, just trying to move quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
This runs into the core problem with technology--we answer "What can we do" before "Should we do it" and "What are the impacts" Let's say you take your hello kitty dot art, and make a poster promoting a commercial event. You then take it to FedEx Kinkos and use a self-service copy machine to make 1000 copies. You could reasonable argue that you are violation of copyright infringement, and the photocopier / FedEx kink…
The counter is always, “Well, we can see our way forward to doing it, which means someone else can also do it. So… we better beat them to the punch.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, ev…
Yep. They could. And people do.
But this particular use is entirely new, though. Old conceptions of fair use can't and shouldn't cover it. "Transformative"? Sure, but there's a difference between transforming a work once and laying hold of it in automation to be transformed on request millions or billions of times in degrees ranging from simple to convoluted. It's hard to argue that the right to this exists in fair use when awareness of the possibility didn't exist when fair use conceptions were constructed.
The output isn't the issue so much as the consent & consideration for use of the input. We'll need case law or statutory law that understands this. It should be possible, but it should be possible on an opt-in basis. When you're training a model, you should know.
> AI-generated images are no more infringing than human-generated images which show influences from other artists.
If we end up with a policy differentiating the two and privileging humans and works created by them, I'm fine with that.
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…
What's the worst that can happen? AI art becomes too boring? That will just benefit human artists who can do something new and interesting.
Online art getting "muddied up" with AI art is only a problem for companies seeking to train a new model. But I trust they'll figure it out just fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GP works for Adobe, and Adobe's bread and butter are the professional creators who would love a world where there is hardware DRM on your eyes and you can't even see their creations or a likeness of them without paying a royalty (and one to "rent" the memories of the visualization, not to "own" the memories like we do now). While I largely agree with you, the GP post is exactly what I would expect from an Adobe perso…
I forgot for a second that this Adobe, the top stories on HN about Adobe are almost all negative
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't fundamentally disagree, but if spam filters are "AI" then my bloody toaster is also artificially intelligent.
You must have a smarter toaster than I do. My toaster is a completely deterministic mechanism that knows nothing about my past toasting experience, nor makes any inference about future toast. A spam filter: - Is provided historic information about the problem - Learns from this information to construct a basic model of language - Is then provided unseen information - Then makes a probabilistic decision based on a deg…
No, I don't. I would generously call it an "algorithm", but at the end of the day it's just a script with lots of if statements getting processed by an interpreter.
>I don't think you would consider GPT to be AI either.
I don't. "AI" in this context stands for Automated Interpolation. Nothing about this is intelligent.