Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Krita AI Diffusion

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 279 posts

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#71

Post by Sol- »

Lacerda69 wrote: post #27
wokwokwok wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's very frustrating/alienating Mm. I’ve spoken to a number of artists who have expressed similar feelings of despair, frustration and anger. There are many upset people over this technology, and calling it a meme diminishes them to meaningless copycat haters. I don’t think that’s true; and doing it, really reallllly makes them angry. Consider: this attitude it part of the reason why that attitude exists. :| If th…

IMO all of this will blow over in a few years and most artists will accept that "AI" is just another tool that one can use to create art. It took some time for photography as well... edit: typo

Most professional artists will be unemployed and hobbyist artists using AI seems to be kind of against the point of creating art for the art of creation.

But for one-click self-expression, AI tools will certainly come in handy.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#72

Post by ben_w »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #56
Lacerda69 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO all of this will blow over in a few years and most artists will accept that "AI" is just another tool that one can use to create art. It took some time for photography as well... edit: typo

This is absolutely ridiculous and short-sighted. AI is a tool that is and always will make the creation of art less a matter of the expression of the human soul. What techies NEVER understand about art is this: that art is not just the end product for the artist but something they use to express THEMSELVES. UNLIKE other tools, AI makes creative decisions. No other tool has done this, and moreover, its primary purpose…

> AI is a tool that is and always will make the creation of art less a matter of the expression of the human soul

I firmly disagree. I have a very strong imagination, but I never had time (and still don't have the time between full-time work and needing to learn German) to develop the skills to turn what I can imagine into artefacts that others can enjoy by my own hand. AI gives me the means to turn some of what I imagine into things I can share — not everything! (SD is so terrible at dragons, even the basic body plan is all over the place) — but it can help with many things.

> its primary purpose is to take away the reliance on artists. The ultimate aim of BIG TECH is to take away this reliance so that they can be the ultimate source of cheap art, just like cheap slave labour is the ultimate source of cheap and unsustainable clothing for most people.

IMO the purpose is fully automated luxury communism.

Stable Diffusion is free, so "Big Tech" (which would here have to include a small German academic spin-off) can't reap huge rewards from this, just like there's no huge business case for yet more video call services or social networks — too much competition for the money.

Finally, just yesterday I was watching a year-old video from a german robot supplier that's undercutting "cheap slave labour" for clothing.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#73

Post by dale_glass »

ben_w wrote: post #64
thot_experiment wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AI hate is suuuch a meme in the art community, it's very frustrating/alienating. (Though understandably, neoliberal capitalism is also extremely frustrating, so I see why artists mad, I just wish they'd be mad at the root cause.) ((the root cause is that an economic system fundamentally based on scarcity == value doesn't make sense when applied to things that are essentially infinite, and kludgeing in artificial…

Mm. Possibly, but not necessarily. I have a suspicion that art is to humans as fancy tails are to peacocks: the difficulty is the point. I believe this is why we have art galleries proudly displaying oil paintings of fruit bowls, but don't do this for random food snapshots. It's also why photographs as a category were initially dismissed (in an era that had come to praise extreme realism in paintings), but when photo…

> I believe this is why we have art galleries proudly displaying oil paintings of fruit bowls, but don't do this for random food snapshots.

We also have them for social/historical reasons. A museum usually isn't built around "best stuff humanity has to offer", but has some sort of more complicated angle.

Eg, a reason why you may have a fruit bowl hanging on the wall is that this particular artist has been influential, and they just happened to paint a fruit bowl. Maybe thousands of artists of the era painted fruit bowls, and maybe a dozen of those are technically more impressive, but this is the guy that got talked about a lot, or started a movement, or such, so it's this guy's bowl we're going to go with.

Museums can have many themes. They may showcase a particular artist, a particular movement, a particular theme, a particular period in time. You can build a museum of nothing but paintings of cats if you wanted to.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#74

Post by dthul »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #62
dthul wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a very Luddite view. Why wouldn't artists be able to use AI selectively to automate "boring" tasks (such as filling the sky of an image with clouds) while still retaining overall artistic control?

I am a luddite and I agree with most luddite sentiments. Most of this generative AI is NOT about using AI for boring tasks, and have you ever even tried to draw clouds? Not easy. Everyone draws clouds differently, which you would know if you ever tried to draw anything. Moreover, AI as a societal phenomenon goes way beyond AI drawing clouds.

> which you would know if you ever tried to draw anything

I know exactly how hard it is to draw anything because I tried a bunch of times, and failed. I for one am happy that I can now express my creative ideas, which I couldn't do before due to missing talent / practice.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#75

Post by vonjuice »

shultays wrote: post #22
hafriedlander wrote: post #8

Somewhat tangential, but the Krita community and core team have been pretty explicitly anti-AI. https://krita-artists.org/t/change-in-policy-for-topics-rela... (I am part of a group that builds UI on top of open models, but we stopped working on our Krita version for that reason.)

Huh, I wasn't aware Krita was a thing. As a software engineer that rarely needs image editing Gimp was my go to software. Why there is a second open source image editing software now?

Krita is much better than GIMP, I hope you can make the switch.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#76

Post by vonjuice »

lmm wrote: post #47
shultays wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, I wasn't aware Krita was a thing. As a software engineer that rarely needs image editing Gimp was my go to software. Why there is a second open source image editing software now?

Gimp has a notoriously unusable UI. I think that's honestly probably the main reason. I'm actually more confused by the converse: why do people keep using and recommending Gimp when Krita has existed for decades and is so much easier to use?

It took me a while to switch to Krita, because I used to think it was mainly for painting/illustrating. It took me being unbearably frustrated with Gimp's UI to give Krita a go for basic editing. Never looked back.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#77

Post by dale_glass »

amelius wrote: post #68
ben_w wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mm. Possibly, but not necessarily. I have a suspicion that art is to humans as fancy tails are to peacocks: the difficulty is the point. I believe this is why we have art galleries proudly displaying oil paintings of fruit bowls, but don't do this for random food snapshots. It's also why photographs as a category were initially dismissed (in an era that had come to praise extreme realism in paintings), but when photo…

> the difficulty is the point Ok, so what does the next level of "difficult" look like?

It's an interesting question, because AI breaks the intuitiveness of this dramatically.

You can look at say, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wedding_at_Cana and quickly get that yup, this took a whole lot of time and effort.

But AI has nothing like that. Some things that look like an awful lot of work it spits out with ease, some things that sound simple can take a whole lot of fiddling.

Like the other day I was playing with DALLE3, and for whatever reason it didn't want to place things on a table.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#78

Post by ben_w »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #62
dthul wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a very Luddite view. Why wouldn't artists be able to use AI selectively to automate "boring" tasks (such as filling the sky of an image with clouds) while still retaining overall artistic control?

I am a luddite and I agree with most luddite sentiments. Most of this generative AI is NOT about using AI for boring tasks, and have you ever even tried to draw clouds? Not easy. Everyone draws clouds differently, which you would know if you ever tried to draw anything. Moreover, AI as a societal phenomenon goes way beyond AI drawing clouds.

> Most of this generative AI is NOT about using AI for boring tasks, and have you ever even tried to draw clouds? Not easy. Everyone draws clouds differently, which you would know if you ever tried to draw anything.

Perlin noise on a plane, can be either in line with the camera or off at an angle. Nice effect. Very easy. I don't even count myself as a proper artist.

Clouds can obviously be hard when you have a specific cloud formation in mind — but "just" a random cloud, to the standards of most who will observe it, is much easier.

And of course, there are plenty of free photographs of clouds, and Photoshop has had plenty of filters — even from the days before people had broadband, let alone what people now call AI — to turn those photographs into different styles.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#79

Post by vonjuice »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #43
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly6USRwTHe0 the video is mindblowing because on one hand, adobe photoshop announced this as "their own next big thing" and here we have an open source software replicating this same thing, so cool. edit: this also means photoshop doesnt have the "moat" they seem to have built around the generative ai thing and their software.

Thanks for linking the video. The GitHub screenshots are completely useless, because there are no before/after comparisons.

At this point selecting good screenshots for git readme's should be a profession of its own, it's baffling how many projects' appeal could be really enhanced by simple informative screenshots.

Re: Krita AI Diffusion

#80

Post by vouaobrasil »

ben_w wrote: post #72
vouaobrasil wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely ridiculous and short-sighted. AI is a tool that is and always will make the creation of art less a matter of the expression of the human soul. What techies NEVER understand about art is this: that art is not just the end product for the artist but something they use to express THEMSELVES. UNLIKE other tools, AI makes creative decisions. No other tool has done this, and moreover, its primary purpose…

> AI is a tool that is and always will make the creation of art less a matter of the expression of the human soul I firmly disagree. I have a very strong imagination, but I never had time (and still don't have the time between full-time work and needing to learn German) to develop the skills to turn what I can imagine into artefacts that others can enjoy by my own hand . AI gives me the means to turn some of what I i…

So I suppose your need to create AI diversions is more important than the need of others to feel a sense of purpose through their work through their actual talent that you don't have? Good thing you have a full-time job....

Big Tech will benefit immensely from AI. Even if Stable Diffusion is free, it will spurn the development of new computers and new technology to run models like Stable Diffusion, so even not immediate things benefit big tech.

Fully automated luxury communism is a rather bleak future, and it will take us away from being stewards of the environment, and instead consume as many resources as possible.

Finally, even if you are doing something relatively harmless with Stable Diffisuion, many other people will use AI for malicious purposes.

Post reply on HN