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

51–60 of 496 posts

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#51

Post by O__________O »

nstj wrote: post #33
O__________O wrote: post #22

Anyone able to comment on where in their opinion the measure is for current state of copyright law when generative AI is a subset of an image?

``` Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence A Rule by the Copyright Office, Library of Congress on 03/16/2023 ``` https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...

Aware of the ruling, reviewed it when it was released, though it does not appears to cover any aspect related to for example layout, color select, etc — and to me targets one-shot generative art; poorly so at that.

As is, landscape photographers for example, control camera angle, timing of photograph, camera type, lens type, etc — but they rarely create the landscape itself or for that matter the equipment and related technologies.

Even “found object” art is covered by copyright:

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_object

At this point, to me, it’s unclear author of that ruling even understands technology used to create the outputs that were the subject of that ruling.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#52

Post by zirgs »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #24

One thing that disturbs me is the push to censor the AI output. Photoshop is used to produce a ton of porn, but Adobe doesn’t try to stop that. In terms of “safety”, models Photoshopped to impossible standards have helped create impossible beauty standards causing depression and even life threatening eating disorders in teenage girls. Yet, Adobe and all the others will carefully censor the output of these generative…

Photoshop runs on the user's machine. This AI is running on Adobe's servers - that's the difference.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#53

Post by judge2020 »

lelandfe wrote: post #50

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…

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).

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#54

Post by GaggiX »

saiya-jin wrote: post #43
l33tman wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would consider both Stable Diffusion and MidJourney to be startups and both are better by far than the established companies like OpenAI, and there are dozens of LLMs soon catching up with GPT3/4. As you say, it will be a very interesting next 6-12 months..

I played around (till free account expired) with MidJourney and what one can produce out of blue is mind-boggling. Indie devs can with a bit of effort generate much of their art via this for peanuts (the only problem may be consistency from what I've seen, basically every image is like from another artist, even in same batch)

The biggest problem is that you can't do much if not conditioning the generation with your prompt and maybe image embeddings, if you are an indie dev you would probably find much more useful Stable Diffusion.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#55

Post by Vespasian »

linuxftw wrote: post #23

What I love about this AI generative art is it will finally put the right price on computer generated art: $0. It will be interesting to watch the entire Hollywood and associated creative industries lose control to AI. Entire movies will be created in small basements. Same with AAA video games.

I hope we will see much bigger universes with intricate and detailed lore where human steers parts of storylines and visuals to make them interesting and fit together but AI fills in the blanks.

Gamedev example: If NPCs lines can be generated quickly, maybe it's possible to develop open world games that change their character throughout the game.

Way to often addons and expansions are carefully cordoned off from the main game because no one wants to redo all that work.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#56

Post by ghaff »

m3kw9 wrote: post #21

This 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”

I actually find the artwork/design generative AI a lot more interesting than the text. (Don't really have an opinion on the code generation.) While it's obviously early days, something like Stable Diffusion can, with a bit of work, generate artwork that neither I (nor I assume the vast bulk of the population) could. On the other hand, the text it generates might pass muster for content farms or a starting point for a human editor familiar with the topic but certainly isn't producing anything I could use out of the box.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#57

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

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…

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 and Ive.

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#58

Post by Pxtl »

linuxftw wrote: post #23

What I love about this AI generative art is it will finally put the right price on computer generated art: $0. It will be interesting to watch the entire Hollywood and associated creative industries lose control to AI. Entire movies will be created in small basements. Same with AAA video games.

I personally find it infuriating that the jobs we're closest to automating right now are the ones that we dreamed of doing as youths.

Who dreamed of cleaning bathrooms or flipping burgers? Too bad, that's still done by manual humans.

But who dreamed of being an artist or a writer? Great, we've figured out how to replace you with a generative algorithm!

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#59

Post by postsantum »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #24

One thing that disturbs me is the push to censor the AI output. Photoshop is used to produce a ton of porn, but Adobe doesn’t try to stop that. In terms of “safety”, models Photoshopped to impossible standards have helped create impossible beauty standards causing depression and even life threatening eating disorders in teenage girls. Yet, Adobe and all the others will carefully censor the output of these generative…

That would be the job of AI ethicists to ensure models generated to be all across the BMI spectrum

Re: Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

#60

Post by bredren »

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…

I attribute it more to open source and free plugins into existing Adobe products like Photoshop.

People are already using these plugins to do inpainting etc with Stable Diffusion. Adobe is trying to provide official support simply to keep up.

To me, the most novel thing is the data source being free of licensing concerns.

But that, too, will be eroded as more models appear based on datasets with straightforward licensing for derived works.

Image stock collections (and prior deals around them) seem more valuable now than they did before all this.

Post reply on HN