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

451–460 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#451

Post by cyanwave »

mesh wrote: post #124
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing a fundamental reason: adding AI functionality into products is simply easier. That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. The examples you gave of of cloud and iPhone have both huge capital barriers to entry, and in iPhones case other phone companies just didn't have the unique design talent combination of Jobs an…

>That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. fyi, for Adobe Firefly, we are training or models. From the FAQ: "What was the training data for Firefly? Firefly was trained on Adobe Stock images, openly licensed content and public domain content, where copyright has expired." https://firefly.adobe.com/faq (I work for Adobe)

This is why I love this website. Mostly civil communication between smart people.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#452

Post by muskmusk »

chillfox wrote: post #394
airstrike wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely with all our contemporary AI prowess we can train a model that identifies "reasonable facsimiles of copyrighted/trademark characters" after generating them and alert the user that it could be argued as such. Still, let the user decide. We do not need creative technology to regulate observance of copyright law. (By the way I think the chagrined other commenter was yours truly ;-))

With that approach you risk ending up in a very frustrating loop of copyrighted works... A bit like picking a name in an MMORPG that's been out for a few months ends up being a hell of constantly getting your name requests rejected over and over again.

Not really. You just have checkbox somewhere that says "don't copy" and then it won't.

Leave the decision to the user instead of baking it into the technology.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#453

Post by matsemann »

addandsubtract wrote: post #447
mikeiz404 wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey open-paren, do you know if the videos on this page are high fidelity mock ups or a demo of the current working beta? From the wording on the page it sounds like these may be mockups: > With the beta version of the first Firefly model, you can use everyday language to generate extraordinary new content. Looking forward, Firefly has the potential to do much, much more. Explore the possibilities below. > Imagine gen…

The upscaling example is 100% just a downsampled image. Really makes you question the rest of the demos.

Please provide some insight into why you believe that to be the case. Avoid spreading FUD without any substantive backing of your claims.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#454

Post by thih9 »

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…

> unlike with previous big innovations (cloud, iphone, etc), incumbents will not sit on their laurels with the AI wave

Wasn’t “cloud” also added to major products? Even Adobe relies on that heavily. Similarly, most big companies (including Adobe) offer an App Store app.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#456

Post by cto_of_antifa »

roughly wrote: post #239
krisoft wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't work for Adobe. :) The contributor agreement linked from here[1] is this: [2] "You grant us a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, fully-paid, and royalty-free license to use, reproduce, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute, index, translate, and modify the Work for the purposes of operating the Website; presenting, distributing, marketing, promoting, and licensing the Work to u…

> They can use your work to develop new features and services, and they do not have to pay you for that at all, since it is not a sale of a license. And in this case, to develop new features and services that specifically undercuts your existing business, viz. selling stock photos for money. Sucks to the artists, indeed.

[dead]

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#457

Post by krisoft »

gnopgnip wrote: post #366
yoden wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Both with rights managed and royalty free they aren't assigning rights to anyone else.

Have you read the contributor agreement? That seems to contradict what you are saying.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#458

Post by janekm »

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…

That's not what happens when you sign a contributor license with Adobe, Getty, Shutterstock or other stock image libraries... These companies pay you 0 until the time a customer of theirs acquires a license to reproduce the image you contributed. Only at that point do you get paid a percentage of the license fee. Currently nobody has been paid anything by Adobe for their stock images used in the training (at least as far as I know).

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#459

Post by VincentEvans »

Will I be able to generate an image of Xi as Pooh bear?

Simple question. Just make it and post here the link to the result.

Or will I receive a message that this prompt is not permitted and any attempt to get around the block will result in my account being suspended - like in Midjourney?

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#460

Post by andrewstuart »

Adobe tends to be really old school and doesn’t have APIs.

Or if they have an API it’s too expensive or crippled to be useful.

That’s Adobes 1980s DNA…. everything is a client application.

It’s a pity cause it looks like it would be fun to build with.

Post reply on HN