[HN Gopher] Krita AI Diffusion
___________________________________________________________________
Krita AI Diffusion
Author : unstuck3958
Score : 492 points
Date : 2023-11-20 05:22 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| 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.
| mikeiz404 wrote:
| Another video from the page showing pose editing:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QDPEcVmdLI
| seanthemon wrote:
| this is insane, I don't even know if adobe could replicate
| this easily with photoshop, too many missing features.
| Excited to see this going forward.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| That is absolutely amazing, but it is a shame it has to
| update the entire image on pose change, and you get a new
| background everytime.
| IanCal wrote:
| Elsewhere in the video they limit changes to a specific
| region - I wonder if that works currently with the pose
| changes.
| anhner wrote:
| i think one could generate the background first and then
| the characters separately on a different layer, so any
| editing only affects them and not the background
|
| Edit: just tried it and it mostly works. Generate
| background, then add pose, add new layer paint on top of
| pose, select area around character and click generate. The
| caveat is that it also generates a bit of background around
| the character, but it does not change it so dramatically
| unstuck3958 wrote:
| What Krita and the KDE project in general have achieved is
| nothing short of phenomenal, and I don't believe the power of
| libre software is recognized enough even in dev communities
| like Hacker News.
| dr_kiszonka wrote:
| The beginning is impressive, but the owls made me actually want
| to try this. Super cool.
| qwertox wrote:
| While watching the video I was also thinking "just like Adobe's
| stuff". Many of the Photoshop users will ask themselves why
| they should continue to pay them, if the evolution continues
| this way. Nice to see.
|
| Sure, Krita is not Photoshop, but for the tasks certain
| creators will be doing in the next decade, they won't have a
| need for Photoshop anymore.
|
| Interesting to see that the video is 2 months old.
| unstuck3958 wrote:
| > they won't have a need for Photoshop anymore.
|
| That is already true for not just Photoshop, but for almost
| any kind of proprietary software. If you are willing to
| embrace the caveats and DIY nature of FOSS, for almost every
| task FOSS Software is good enough (and sometimes better than
| proprietary).
|
| I think one of the major reasons of popularity of proprietary
| software vs FOSS is marketing.
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| Thanks for linking the video. The GitHub screenshots are
| completely useless, because there are no before/after
| comparisons.
| vonjuice wrote:
| 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.
| shultays wrote:
| It is not very obvious but the first image was a link to
| youtube video. The developer should put a play button on it,
| using his tool perhaps!
| simbolit wrote:
| If you look at the very right of the screenshots, there is a
| "history" of generations with unused alternatives. Me and my
| visual cortex managed to synthesize "before" images from this
| information.
|
| Very inconvenient? Yes. Completely useless? No.
| instagraham wrote:
| Krita support for generative inpainting has been around since
| the beginning of the Stable Diffusion craze. It was one of the
| first AI projects I saved. It definitely predates Photoshop
| adding it.
|
| Off the top of my head, this plugin is from Nov 6, 2022, and I
| know there were others before this (or maybe it was just this
| shared in earlier form). https://github.com/sddebz/stable-
| diffusion-krita-plugin
|
| Stable Diffusion heralded an explosion in generative AI that
| predated ChatGPT. Weird how OpenAI got all the credit when it
| was Stable Diffusion that first opened the gates.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > or maybe it was just this shared in earlier form).
| https://github.com/sddebz/stable-diffusion-krita-plugin
|
| Nah that is an early version of a plugin that uses A1111 as
| the backend instead of ComfyUI (it does have a newer and
| maintained replacement, but its not the one in OP, which uses
| a ComfyUI backend.)
| jasonjayr wrote:
| From that video you posted:
|
| https://youtu.be/Ly6USRwTHe0?t=127 <-- "now draw the rest of
| the owl"
| irusensei wrote:
| > AMD GPU: supported via DirectML, Windows only
|
| Uh... I'm not happy with this trend. Thankfully there is an
| option for using a ComfyUI, a torch based project as a backend.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| Is it a trend, already? I mean I can get behind ambition, but
| jesus, everything is new, people are cooking. Let's give it a
| few month.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| It's always been a trend and always will be until AMD gets
| their shit together. NV spends a lot to make sure CUDA has
| the market share it does (marketing, establishing a foothold
| in academia, partnerships etc), AMD is working on it but
| progress is slow.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| It's not that NV spends a lot to get market share. It's
| that for over a decade NV provided the actual tools to
| build all this and AMD didn't and then when they finally
| did they fumbled it, then when it finally paid off big for
| Nvidia they had to start from scratch again.
|
| People might not like it but Nvidia's dominance is
| completely deserved from the actions, or should I say
| inactions of the now disbanded OpenCL crowd
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Thankfully there is an option for using a ComfyUI
|
| Its not an option for using ComfyUI; its an option to use an
| _external_ ComfyUI instance instead of one embedded in the
| plugin, this uses ComfyUI one way or the other.
| Zetobal wrote:
| That's not a trend that's basically the norm for generative ai
| and AMD is to blame for it not the devs.
| dbrgn wrote:
| Why is that the case? Tools like OpenCL do exist, but I
| assume CUDA is simply better suited for these tasks, is that
| true?
|
| (With the dominance of CUDA, choice of a GPU on Linux gets
| even harder. It used to be a clear "fuck you Nvidia" if you
| wanted to use Wayland, but Nvidia definitely has the lead
| when it's about video editing and machine learning.)
| irusensei wrote:
| It should not be. Torch and AMD has been a thing forever on
| Linux even before Windows. The underlying comfyUI supports
| it. In fact someone replied here it might have been a
| mistake.
| sorenjan wrote:
| I'm on mobile and haven't looked at this project, but usually
| DirectML support is added as a torch backend. Instead of device
| = "cuda" if torch.cuda.is_available() else "cpu" you add import
| torch_directml device = torch_directml.device()
|
| How else are you supposed to support AMD in Pytorch on Windows?
| irusensei wrote:
| My comment was about the "AMD - Windows only" part of readme.
| sorenjan wrote:
| My point was that it's not a matter or DirectML or torch,
| it's simply a choice of backend for torch. It's an easy way
| of adding AMD support to torch based projects in Windows,
| there's probably an equally easy way of adding ROCm support
| in Linux. It's just that using cpu or Cuda is built in and
| usually the two default options when writing torch code,
| and somebody have to care enough to explicitly add AMD
| support.
|
| It's not exactly as easy as just changing one line by the
| way, not all operations are implemented so there's some
| testing and maybe some rewrites needed. Hopefully the GPU
| backend mess gets solved in the general case soon.
| irusensei wrote:
| It was more like a case of the author not having AMD
| hardware to test their automated installer:
| https://github.com/Acly/krita-ai-diffusion/issues/76
| azeirah wrote:
| ComfyUI works perfectly fine with ROCm on Linux. Using it with
| this krita plugin also works flawlessly. The docs are simply
| incorrect in saying that it's Windows-only.
|
| I assume it's the case because the automatic ComfyUI installer
| that comes with this project doesn't know how to
| install/configure ROCm. Using your own ComfyUI installation
| works perfectly. I'll open a ticket with the author of the
| project to discuss this.
|
| Source: I installed this yesterday on my Ubuntu computer with a
| 7900xtx and ROCm in Comfy
| hafriedlander wrote:
| 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.)
| thot_experiment wrote:
| 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
| scarcity to make things work is not a good take))
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| It's more just ridiculous because the same community is
| completely fine with photobashing and "paint overs" (aka
| tracing) and "fan art" (aka profiting from IP you don't own).
| raincole wrote:
| Photobashing was hated to death when it was new. Now it's
| the norm (for environmental concept art at least). AI will
| go through the same process.
| neoromantique wrote:
| AI is the norm for concept art already, it's too useful
| for it not to be.
| flxy wrote:
| I don't know what sort of artists you know, but of all the
| artists I know, nobody is "completely fine" with tracing.
| It is okay but still frowned upon when people do it for
| "practice" without publishing the result, but anything that
| even looks remotely like it is traced gets called out and
| further investigated incredibly quickly.
|
| And as for fan art, a lot of companies explicitly allow art
| based on their IP, as long as it's used/published by the
| artists themselves and the commercial rights to the work
| aren't sold to some other company. In Japan, there is a
| whole industry based around derivative works, Doujin -
| self-published works, that works off of what is essentially
| a code of honor. Companies don't go against the artists, as
| long as said artists adhere to certain guidelines on what
| they're allowed to depict (eg. no NSFW content.) Many
| franchises have become a lot more popular due to fan
| art/derivative works alone (ie. Touhou Project, Fate
| Series.)
| jwells89 wrote:
| Tracing is particularly unacceptable in professional
| settings. There's been several cases, some even somewhat
| high profile, where manga and comic artists have found
| themselves in hot water as a result of engaging in the
| practice.
| charcircuit wrote:
| >Tracing is particularly unacceptable in professional
| settings.
|
| Tracing is a fundamental skill in a professional settings
| for consistency, speed, and quality reasons. In torepaku
| it is the paku (pakuri) part that is not acceptable.
| wokwokwok wrote:
| > 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 the stable diffusion folk hadn't gone crazy cloning every
| art style they could and laughing about it, we could all have
| had a very different AI art future.
|
| ...but apparently we can't have nice things because (some)
| people suck.
| Lacerda69 wrote:
| 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
| dbrgn wrote:
| That's an interesting point. Retouching a photo after
| taking it used to be "manipulating reality", frowned upon
| by "real" photographers. Nowadays, postprocessing digital
| negatives and adding your own style to it is part of a
| normal photographer's workflow.
|
| (However, I think the negative feelings don't come from a
| discussion of "real vs fake" or "classical vs new", but
| mostly from the point of view that using artwork as
| training data is stealing. I don't agree with that view,
| but I think it's at the core of the argument.)
| jdiff wrote:
| People have been doing post processing of photographs as
| long as photographs have existed.
| dbrgn wrote:
| Yes, but - at least in landscape photography - there was
| a divide between people using retouching to "fix" things
| (i.e. removing spots, making the colors more realistic,
| etc) and the people altering the style of the photo (e.g.
| by boosting or even shifting certain colors to achieve a
| certain look). The latter was viewed as fake by some
| people I knew. Today this is just part of your
| photography style.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| That doesn't mean there were purists arguing about it.
| Someone has to be doing it for the fight to exist.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| 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 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.
|
| Therefore, AI will NEVER be a tool to create art like
| other tools. It is is a tool that will outcompete humans
| on a massive scale so that even if "normal human art"
| exists, it will never gain much traction or commercial
| viability.
|
| To be honest, AI is absolutely sickening and companies
| like Microsoft and OpenAI make me sick.
| dthul wrote:
| 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?
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| 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.
| dthul wrote:
| > 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.
| Riverheart wrote:
| "I for one am happy that I can now express my creative
| ideas, which I couldn't do before due to missing talent /
| practice."
|
| The problem here is we need to look beyond our own self
| interest to how this will impact other people.
|
| We don't make a career out of art. This technology is
| just a novelty to us and but many others rely on it for
| themselves and their family and had no way of foreseeing
| the technology coming. They need it more than we do.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| You're free to personally be happy that you can express
| your creative ideas, but it is a bit absurd to expect
| people who did put in the effort in practicing to not see
| you in a negative light as someone who wants the
| 'benefits' without putting in the hard work of self-
| improvement.
|
| This is a uniquely AI related issue, as artists of all
| mediums can relate with each other about their struggles
| learning and improving their skills and ability to
| express themselves.
| ben_w wrote:
| > 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.
| jdiff wrote:
| > Perlin noise on a plane, can be either in line with the
| camera or off at an angle.
|
| This looks like trash and doesn't look like clouds. Even
| if you're doing procedural clouds, everyone does them
| differently. And a lot better than just slapping Perlin
| noise on a plane. Photoshop filters cannot change the
| bones of a cloud, and when people are illustrating clouds
| they're taking entirely different approaches. They're not
| just "this cloud, but flat" or "this cloud, but with a
| fuzzy diffused look." All you're doing is showcasing your
| own lack of knowledge on the subject while filling the
| arrogant techbro stereotype perfectly.
| gyy52380 wrote:
| Because that is not what's happening. My friends that
| work as illustrators for PC and mobile games say it's the
| exact opposite. AI is used for the bulk of the creative
| work - composition, posing, even the general artstyle.
| Illustrators are then tasked with "fixing" visual
| artefacts, stitching together generated images and giving
| the final polish. They describe it as being reduced from
| a creative writer to a grammar checker.
|
| It's tempting to just say that creative work that can be
| automated this quickly should be automated so that
| artists can focus on more creative challenges, but this
| is not how it plays out in practice. Rather, this only
| allows companies to cut down costs. It is already
| extremely difficult to find work which will pay a livable
| wage as a creative. AI has already caused layoffs and
| negative wage pressure on remaining employees. The only
| thing that AI has done (at least among my circle of
| friends) is reduce corporate costs and increase
| antidepressant prescriptions.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| The problem with many technophiles is that they have a
| very distorted view of what they create. They often think
| it's going to do good because it's so cool but once that
| tech is out in the real world, it just mostly causes
| damage.
|
| If you're interested, feel free to reach out to me
| because I am starting an anti-AI coalition.
| greatpatton wrote:
| Out of curiosity can you just give me pratical example
| of: "it's so cool but once that tech is out in the real
| world, it just mostly causes damage."
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| Well:
|
| (1) AI has already been used for IDENTIY THEFT in many
| places. Check this out:
| https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-scam-voice-clone-fake-
| kid...
|
| AI here to clone a voice was used to make a mother think
| her daughter had been kidnapped
|
| (2) People getting fired from their jobs such as
| illustrators because AI can now do things. Also, people
| NOT getting hired when they could.
|
| (3) I am a professional writer, and I know of some
| websites who are using generative AI for articles and
| hiring less (or even firing writers)
|
| (4) AI removes what remaining reliance we have on each
| other and makes it less likely for people to talk to each
| other when needing some basic information. The societal
| effects of destroying communities where people need each
| other are pretty clear.
| greatpatton wrote:
| Ok but that can be said of any technology. Chemistry is
| bad because someone used it to poison their friend.
| Phones are bad because it can be used for bomb threats,
| cars are bad because they put out of work the whole horse
| industry and you can go on and on forever. Every single
| technology can be abused but it doesn't mean that they
| mainly cause damage.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| (1) You are right, and that is why we should be much more
| cautious with technology.
|
| (2) AI is unique in the sense that it has a much wider
| range and acts much faster. Therefore, it is much more
| dangerous, similar to how both salt and sodium cyanide
| are dangerous but the latter is much worse. You need to
| think in terms of the magnitude of the effect, not just
| its qualitative nature.
| RunSet wrote:
| In a certain light smartphones resemble the moral
| equivalent of violating the Prime Directive.
|
| "Here, rural areas and undeveloped nations. Take this
| crippled, distorted window into the greater internet. It
| happens to be much better at viewing content than
| creating it and will surveil you more closely than ever
| you watch it. The preinstalled software is forbidden to
| remove. Don't view it more than ten minutes a day or the
| content recommended by social media algorithms may cause
| malaise. Like and subscribe for more content."
| Gormo wrote:
| I think you'd be better served making moral arguments
| rooted in ethical principles that people adhere to in
| real life, not science fiction.
|
| This is especially important when you consider how
| _unethical_ the Prime Directive itself is as a principle,
| and how often Star Trek portrays violating it as the
| morally superior choice.
|
| The position you're advancing here seems to infantilize
| people in rural areas and undeveloped nations, and aims
| to deny them the agency to make their own choices about
| how to fit modern technology into their lives and
| communities. It sounds like a modern variation on "noble
| savage" and "white man's burden" notions -- not exactly a
| good look.
| RunSet wrote:
| > The position you're advancing here seems to infantilize
| people in rural areas and undeveloped nations
|
| I believe it seems that way to you.
|
| Many people (in particular unemancipated minors) might
| likewise consider it infantilizing to place a minimum age
| requirement on drivers' licenses, firearms, alcohol, etc.
| yet the consensus is that doing so is for the greater
| good.
| barrkel wrote:
| It's commoditization again:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25765864
| Almondsetat wrote:
| >My friends that work as illustrators for PC and mobile
| games
|
| You mean your friends that work to produce generically
| pleasant looking props in order to maximize player
| retention and profits?
|
| It seems like artists complaining about AI don't actually
| work like artists but more like office drones
| dartos wrote:
| Office drones with salaries, dependents, livelihoods, and
| skills to hone.
|
| I think AI use in art tools is inevitable, but replacing
| artists at any level is not a good thing.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I think AI use in art tools is inevitable, but
| replacing artists at any level is not a good thing.
|
| Everything in the computing space has been shifting labor
| from one skillset to another skillset and maximizing the
| output per hour worked so that fewer workers are needed
| for the same output (but also more tasks are worth doing,
| because the costs are lower for any given benefit.) Why
| is displacing people manually building the visual
| component of video games any worse than, say, displacing
| typists, secretaries, people delivering interoffice mail
| -- all of whom also had salaries, dependents, and
| livelihoods -- while increasing the value of work in the
| field automating all those things?
| dbrgn wrote:
| When I watch a video like the demo-video for the Krita
| plugin we're discussing
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QDPEcVmdLI), I do see a
| lot of creativity happening. The person is using stable
| diffusion as a tool to achieve the look, style and
| composition they want. The skill to be able to use such a
| model for creating art is definitely an acquired skill,
| and I would definitely consider it a form of art.
|
| Of course there will be people just clicking "generate"
| on a website. But isn't that the difference between
| consumer and artist? Everyone can press the shutter
| button on a digital camera to take a snapshot. But the
| artist knows how to use light, angle and technology to
| create a photograph with the looks and composition that
| they intend. (If you compare snapshots from amateur
| photographers and from professionals, the differences are
| astounding. And it's not just about the cost of the
| equipment.)
|
| Certainly, there will be jobs - especially the rather
| repetitive jobs - that will be replaced by the use of AI,
| just like stock photos replaced jobs of certain
| photographers, or just like industrialization and
| automation replaced the jobs of a lot of craftsmen and
| artisans. But craftsmen and artisans are still around,
| and they are paid a lot more than they used to be paid,
| as long as they provide added value on top of the generic
| products available on the market!
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| I would never argue that you CAN'T do something creative
| with it. The problem is not even this single tool itself,
| but the greater amalgamation of all AI tools that arise
| from the general soceital phenomenon of using AI.
| __loam wrote:
| Stop using a group of people who was slandered and
| murdered by ultra wealthy factory owners as a derogatory
| term.
| bsenftner wrote:
| You're almost there. Few recognize that Art is human
| communication. Most just want a pretty or awe inspiring
| image, or an illustration to supply the consumer's lack
| of imagination.
|
| Perhaps with commercial art, pragmatic bread and butter
| art being automated and pooped out by noncomprehending,
| non-communicating consumers the job of real Art that
| communicates the frontiers of human experience using rich
| metaphor and on the edge of language and reason can work
| without having to also deliver hallmark nonsense.
|
| Yeah, the economics to allow this are all fucked. But if
| you're an artist communicating your human experience,
| that does not matter, it's a part of your work.
| ben_w wrote:
| > 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.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| 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.
| ben_w wrote:
| > 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?
|
| Not so. Sense of purpose is important.
|
| Your sense of purpose conflicts with the opportunity of
| everyone else to express themselves as _they_ wish.
|
| How familiar are you with utilitarian ethics, and the
| "mere addition paradox" criticism of it?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox
|
| > Good thing you have a full-time job....
|
| For now. The LLMs will come/are coming for mine, just as
| diffusion models and GANs eat at the jobs of graphical
| artists.
|
| > 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.
|
| It's (currently) pure Utopianism, taking on whatever
| hopes the proponents want it to have no matter how
| unrealistic. I therefore think you're arguing on the
| basis of which team it's associated with, without
| understanding the details of what it is you hate.
|
| > Finally, even if you are doing something relatively
| harmless with Stable Diffisuion, many other people will
| use AI for malicious purposes.
|
| Oh absolutely. Whole can of worms there.
|
| Can say the same about basically every tech way back to
| the wheel, fire, and pointy stick, though unlike most
| using this analogy I am well aware of the problem of
| induction (in particular the turkey and the farmer), and
| don't claim that it _will_ all work out just because it
| _has_ so far.
|
| AI in general could make us immortal, with lives of
| leisure and free from all suffering... or it could turn
| us all into paperclips to maximise shareholder value.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| > Your sense of purpose conflicts with the opportunity of
| everyone else to express themselves as they wish.
|
| I do not believe people should be able to express
| themselves as they wish unconditionally. They should not
| be able to express themselves to the point of destroying
| the environment, they should not be able to express
| themselves by creating nuclear weapons or something
| EXTREMELY dangerous (AI), they should not be able to
| express themselves by disrupting society.
|
| AI is just as disrupting as creating biological or
| chemical weapons, and perhaps even worse.
|
| And it would horrible if AI could make us immortal. We
| should die...
| ben_w wrote:
| > AI is just as disrupting as creating biological or
| chemical weapons, and perhaps even worse.
|
| _Perhaps_? You had death by paperclip optimiser right
| there in my comment :P
|
| > And it would horrible if AI could make us immortal. We
| should die...
|
| Samuel Johnson tires of London, visits an undisclosed
| location somewhere near Zurich.
| RunSet wrote:
| > I do not believe people should be able to express
| themselves as they wish unconditionally. They should not
| be able to express themselves to the point of destroying
| the environment, they should not be able to express
| themselves by creating nuclear weapons or something
| EXTREMELY dangerous (AI), _they should not be able to
| express themselves by disrupting society._
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
| GeoAtreides wrote:
| > fully automated luxury communism
|
| It's actually "fully automated luxury gay space
| communism", all words are important there. Also, in the
| Culture series, arguably the seminal series about the
| "fully automated etc.", there's a whole scene about AI
| producing art (i.e. nobody cares or think it's
| interesting)
| eMPee584 wrote:
| Wait till "THEY" learn engineering and architecture ; )
| Gormo wrote:
| > 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.
|
| And yet artists have always used tools and adapted
| themselves to the qualities of those tools. Paints,
| paintbrushes, canvases, chemicals, instruments of all
| kinds inform the end result just as much as the artist's
| initial intention.
|
| Jackson Pollock's most famous works were produced by
| splattering paints on a canvas. Sure, he selected the
| paints, the canvas, and the trajectory and velocity of
| the splatters, but his works are as much the expression
| of stochastic fluid dynamics as they are of his vision.
|
| Nothing is stopping people who see handcrafting every
| intricate detail of their work as an expression of their
| innermost sense of self from continuing to do so just as
| they always have.
|
| If that's what they're getting out it, why should it
| bother them that people who _do_ just want to obtain the
| end product for their own purposes are getting it from
| someplace else?
| skeaker wrote:
| The reduction of "techies" to emotionless robots is an
| unfair generalization. The inappropriate and wildly
| inaccurate comparison to slave labor is out of line.
|
| Even taking your arguments at face value, it doesn't
| really make sense: Let's agree and say that AI can never
| make "real art." How does AI art existing prevent human-
| made art with the intent of self expression from
| existing? You say it will make human art less
| commercially viable, but that's hardly related to the
| expression behind the art. Human art has just as much
| expression whether or not it is a commercial success. Is
| your argument about financial viability or expression?
| Would you agree that having deep human expression
| enhances the value of a piece of art? Are you aware that
| artists who focus wholly on expression were already
| stereotypically "starving," even before AI art was a
| thing?
| Sol- wrote:
| 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.
| Filligree wrote:
| It kind of depends on the type of artist. I use it to
| illustrate my stories, for example, and I'd be upset if
| someone claimed my writing doesn't count as art-
|
| But I've spent well over a decade learning to write. I
| don't have any skill in drawing, and I don't earn any
| money from my writing. (...and last time I tried to hire
| an artist, they bit my head off when I offered an example
| of what I was after.)
|
| So I'll use AI art, because it's that or no art.
| Gormo wrote:
| > hobbyist artists using AI seems to be kind of against
| the point of creating art for the art of creation
|
| How do you figure that?
| lancesells wrote:
| I'm an artist and look at generative AI as a tool that's
| almost always going to produce content but not art.
|
| I refuse to use it from a moral standpoint but I also
| don't use any digital tools at all in the creation of my
| work. Even if I worked digitally I don't create art to
| produce pretty pictures as fast as possible. Typing in a
| prompt and fiddling with some things back and forth is
| just that.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| This comment hurts me to my very core, I actually
| screamed when I read it. I'm in one of the most
| artistically productive periods of my life right now.
| I've been doing multiple notebook pages of gouache and
| india ink a day. I also have a homebuilt plotter that
| I've written an entire suite of software for. I've been
| doing 3D graphics and photomanipulation, I've been
| dabbling in video editing.
|
| AND I've been pushing what can be done with Stable
| Diffusion, and it's absolutely a tool to create art. The
| idea that "Typing in a prompt and fiddling with some
| things back and forth" is all there is to AI art is so
| fucking absurd. This is the "meme" I'm talking about.
| There SO much more to AI art from an artistic control
| perspective than the prompt, and not only that, there's
| so much we haven't even fucking invented yet which is
| clear from the rate of progress in the field. These
| reductive "it's not real art" are even worse than the
| "theft" moralizing. It's akin to saying photography isn't
| art because you just click a button.
|
| > I don't create art to produce pretty pictures as fast
| as possible.
|
| I create art because I like to make art, sometimes that
| means laboring over the placement of every line.
| Sometimes I need three hundred frames and there's only me
| and my GPU against the world. AI opens up possibilities
| that were completely unreachable before, just like
| everything else I'm able to do artistically with my
| computer.
| lancesells wrote:
| I'm happy you get something out of it and wish you the
| best. I do think it's built on theft and I do think it's
| a cold, lifeless medium. I think art is truth and the
| farther you get away from a human making something the
| farther you are away from the artist and feeling. A
| digital print will never feel as nice to me as a painting
| or a drawing. A handmade sculpture will always feel
| better to me than something produced with a mold or a 3D
| printer.
|
| We're all different and again, it's great if you like
| making art with AI. The world needs differences,
| otherwise it would be quite boring.
| pxoe wrote:
| typing some text and pressing 'generate', iterating, or
| doing layering and photobashing, just isn't gonna be
| 'painting', or 'drawing', like, ever. on a fundamental
| level. you'll need to get over yourself asap if you're
| "screaming" over this
| thot_experiment wrote:
| Man I know it's pointless for me to argue but it's just
| like... it's wild to me that people make these comments.
| Do my comments give the impression that I am unaware of
| what drawing and painting are? I have spent thousands of
| hours painting and drawing.
|
| Photography isn't gonna be painting or drawing either,
| it's still art that affords the artist an enormous amount
| of control. This is the "meme" I'm talking about. The way
| you talk about AI art is what's making me go
| AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
|
| > typing some text and pressing 'generate', iterating, or
| doing layering and photobashing
|
| It's such a self report, you have no idea what is going
| on, you are quick to discount it without any
| understanding. We are still in the infancy of the space
| and people are fixated with these idiotic reductive
| arguments. Prompt -> image is the tiniest fraction of
| what's possible with this technology. I wish I was better
| at communicating how fucking epic the set of
| possibilities that this opens up is, I'm sure we will see
| it eventually. It frustrates me to no end that people are
| so blind to it.
| ganzuul wrote:
| Focusing that will into something actionable seems like an
| important task. When artists talk about their rights it
| would be prudent if we also talked about our duties.
|
| The meaning of art, the art of intelligence, is being
| recreated after it was gruesomely vivisected by
| postmodernism... We better not let the narrative come with
| a price tag.
| mock-possum wrote:
| More of a moral panic than a meme
| RobotToaster wrote:
| A moral panic is, in the original definition of the term,
| a meme.
| scotty79 wrote:
| > reallllly makes them angry.
|
| Reality makes them angry.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| It really just highlights the massive gap between artist's
| impressions and the 'techbros' talking about how it's just
| another tool. It's clear that many techbros really just
| don't understand art. A few weeks ago there was a post here
| about how the majority of art involved in a game is never
| seen by the public, where someone had asked what could be
| done to make this process more efficient so less 'waste'
| art needed to be produced. I think this thinking that this
| approach to AI generated 'art' has a similar disconnect
| between artist and techie.
|
| Techbros see the tool and talk on and on about how it'll
| optimize workflows and how it's just another tool, cloning
| artstyles and patting each other on the back for automating
| another task, while completely ignoring the concern from
| artists about having basic ethical concerns trampled over
| in the name of disruption and progress.
| skeaker wrote:
| > I don't think that's true; and doing it, really reallllly
| makes them angry.
|
| It is in some cases. Obviously not all of them, but there
| is definitely bandwagoning going on. Go on any social
| platform where this is up for debate and ask why they have
| this position, and you will be mocked or ignored while they
| fail to formulate any actual reasoning for their belief.
| kranke155 wrote:
| Yet this terrible economic system you describe determines
| whether these people can afford food, rent and their
| children's education.
|
| Yeah it must be a meme.
| dahhowl wrote:
| Surely, there exists no other economic system where a
| percentage of the world's population is allowed access to
| food, rent and education for their children.
|
| And there certainly doesn't exist any where the entirety of
| the world population can be given access to these things.
| kranke155 wrote:
| You're talking about hypotheticals, I'm talking about
| reality.
|
| Saying "these silly people are obsessed with their
| economic system, which is pointless!" makes no sense if
| those same people live or die by that system.
| misnome wrote:
| They aren't CS graduates so they can't really be human or
| have thought processes. Literally stealing their work to
| pad a VC linesheet must honestly be the most altruistic of
| options.
| ben_w wrote:
| Your snark would be slightly harder hitting if not for
| the fact that freshly minted CS grads demonstrate
| approximately the same skill as LLMs when it comes to
| turning feature requests into code.
|
| The "G" in "AGI" is "general", as in "can do all things"
| -- Ask not for whose job Bell Labs tolls, it tolls for
| them all.
|
| (And now I'm reminded of someone, ages ago now, who was
| boasting about how good he was at matching all the `new`s
| and `delete`s in his C++ code, or possibly even `malloc`s
| and `free`s, being completely oblivious to the existence
| of STL smart pointers...)
| hafriedlander wrote:
| I have tried to explain "you're not mad at generative AI,
| you're mad at late stage capitalism" before.
|
| Most people aren't really willing to smash the state though
| (I understand, that's where all my stuff is) so look for less
| drastic ways to protect themselves.
| bsenftner wrote:
| I've had the situation where long term friends contact me
| with a child/teen either entering or graduating
| art/animation/film school and want me to give advice to their
| kid. My background is 3D graphics, animation, film VFX, video
| games, and AI - from the software developer and digital
| artist sides.
|
| Every one of those conversations has been their kid telling
| me they will never touch AI, AI is evil, AI is the death of
| art and artists, and they refuse to see it any other way. One
| is graduating this year, wants to be a concept designer for
| high concept film and games: a role that is leaning heavy
| into generative art simply for the variations it generates.
| They refuse to discuss how their intended industry already
| uses and is adopting AI generative art en mass.
|
| Times when I wish I had the eloquent voice of another.
| ben_w wrote:
| 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 photographers went on long trips to
| visit unusual places, people, and events, _those_ photographs
| suddenly did count as art.
|
| Bit of overlap between arts and knowledge shown by the
| wiktionary entry for the Latin "ars", so this can be extended
| to the way Socrates didn't like writing, and the desire for
| hand-made foods and durable goods over mass produced foods
| and products.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
| amelius wrote:
| > the difficulty is the point
|
| Ok, so what does the next level of "difficult" look like?
| dale_glass wrote:
| 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.
| Dioxide2119 wrote:
| In the same way that using a limited medium like some oil
| paints, paintbrushes, and canvas to create images = the
| art of painting, there will become the art of hacking /
| abusing / advanced prompt engineering / pushing AI to do
| things that are close to or at its limits of
| capabilities.
|
| A: Oh so your LLM generated an image of a spaceship
| cockpit, so what?
|
| B: So what? This LLM was trained on nothing but tax
| records from 1929!
|
| A: :o amazing!
|
| So AI artists do not necessarily equal 'creatives who
| render images using AI tooling', they may instead be
| 'creatives who tease out novel outputs from AIs' or
| something like that.
|
| Then again, this is suspiciously close to a 'what is art'
| conversation, so i'll stop here.
| ben_w wrote:
| > B: So what? This LLM was trained on nothing but tax
| records from 1929!
|
| I recon a sufficiently advanced AI could learn enough to
| do that from only that training data and some appropriate
| prompting.
| ben_w wrote:
| Right now, I'd guess engineering and growing custom life
| forms, like The Thought Emporium is doing. Not sure how
| long that will last for.
| vonjuice wrote:
| We have art galleries displaying things like empty canvases
| or toilet bowls that make a statement, it's definitely not
| about difficulty. The fact is that the debate about what
| art is is part of what makes art art, it escapes definition
| because part of the spirit of art is rebelling against
| definition.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| > We have art galleries displaying things like empty
| canvases or toilet bowls that make a statement, it's
| definitely not about difficulty
|
| You're under selling the difficulty of using a toilet
| bowl to make a convincing statement.
| thatcat wrote:
| It's a water fountain
| ben_w wrote:
| Mm.
|
| I'm 50-50 split on thinking I regard that kind of art as
| a vehicle for tax evasion, vs. thinking the "difficulty"
| is the money wasted on it (which is still Veblen "look at
| me I'm rich I can waste money on something pointless").
| lancesells wrote:
| > art galleries displaying things like empty canvases or
| toilet bowls
|
| This is so far from the norm and feels like a television
| lens version of artists and art galleries. Yes, Duchamp
| used a toilet bowl in 1917 as art which was over 100 year
| ago. This is known because no one had done it before and
| presented an everyday object as art. This is 106 years
| old but still referred to so you can guess it was a big
| deal.
|
| My suggestion is to visit a modern art museum in a larger
| city and you'll see this kind of "easy bullshit art as a
| statement" doesn't really exist.
|
| https://www.tate.org.uk https://www.hauserwirth.com
| https://www.moma.org https://www.davidzwirner.com
| https://gagosian.com
| kzrdude wrote:
| We can't judge all of the art sphere just from the worst
| examples. Think of people who judge software by our worst
| examples (crypto scams, I don't know)?
| danielbln wrote:
| Why is a simple modern art piece necessarily one of the
| worst and examples?
| pawelmurias wrote:
| Those are the old school NFTs, the AI tools are for the
| skillfull kind of art.
| dale_glass wrote:
| > 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.
| OCASMv2 wrote:
| That view of art ended over a century ago with the
| modernist (mediocrist) movements.
|
| Nowadays art is whatever one wants it to be (or not to be).
| It's just a word people use to enhance the social
| perception of whatever manmade creation they like.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Is it though? Veryone I know in the art community is quite
| pissed at copyright violations.
| bayindirh wrote:
| I don't agree. I take photographs as a hobby, and share them,
| just for showing them off.
|
| They're generally licensed with CC-NC-BY plus no derivatives
| (akin to GPL), but I don't want my images to be taken to a
| training set to feed a generative model _without my consent_
| , because you're violating the license terms I put on it.
|
| Same is valid for my code. I stopped using GitHub, because it
| devours any and all open repositories regardless of its
| license and without asking for consent.
|
| This is not about scarcity, but respect and ethics mostly. At
| least, from my perspective.
| cwillu wrote:
| For what it's worth, CC-NC is not akin to the GPL, at all.
|
| The GPL says "you can sell this if you want, but whoever
| you sell it to can still do whatever they want with it,
| subject to the same terms."
|
| CC-NC says "you can't do whatever you want with this"
|
| Which isn't to say that you're wrong to use whatever
| license you like, just that it's very much not similar in
| spirit to the GPL. Protecting the right of others to make
| derivatives of the thing being licensed is, in fact, the
| entire point of the license.
| bayindirh wrote:
| By akin, I didn't mean it's functionally equivalent.
|
| GPLv3 is one of the strongest copyleft licenses for
| software out there, forcing re-sharing of changes while
| preventing any source closing. CC-BY-NC is the strictest
| CC license which allows sharing, with credit, with no
| commercial use and no derivatives.
|
| Hence I tried to aim for "I'm selecting the one of the
| most strict license for sharing my photos, as I do the
| same for my software, yet AI systems disregard my license
| every occasion and just rip what I put out without my
| consent or consideration of the license I use for these,
| hence I refuse to use, or support AI models which are fed
| like this".
|
| Hope this helps.
| cwillu wrote:
| You can apply CC-BY-NC to software, people have done it.
| And it's recognized as _not_ being an open license, it's
| at best an "open-access" or "source-visible" license,
| because of the usage restrictions.
|
| The entire point of an open-source license is that you're
| _preventing_ people from restricting modification and
| derivative use. The whole point of the AGPL was to
| prevent a hack that companies found to abuse the
| software's license and prevent derivative use of their
| changes.
|
| I'm not saying you're morally in the wrong for choosing a
| license that doesn't permit commercial use, but I _am_
| saying that it's contrary to the spirit of the license
| you're claiming it's akin to.
|
| Hope this helps.
| livrem wrote:
| CC-BY-SA is much closer to GPL.
| loki-ai wrote:
| It is not just in the art community: check the currently top
| post and see how many devs are saying they would never use AI
| on their work. They hate and are alienated as much as any
| artist.
| boppo1 wrote:
| Artist here. It's totally reasonable for artists to be mad
| about models being trained on their work without informed
| prior consent.
|
| Anger about using AI is less justifiied.
| ajuc wrote:
| Would you object to somebody looking at your images and
| imitating the style? How is AI different?
| boppo1 wrote:
| >Would you object to somebody looking at your images and
| imitating the style?
|
| Yes. It's quite difficult to do so, however. The people
| capable usually have better things to do with their
| skills.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Have you ever actually looked into people who do that?
| They put in a lot of effort into understanding the
| original creator, their intent, process, materials etc.
| The copies are still very much art as they are
| expressions of the imitator's feelings towards the work.
| Performing studies of popular art by trying to replicate
| it is a powerful tool for learning precisely because it
| allows you, as an artist, to understand how the original
| artist thought, helping you learn to think like an artist
| and leading you to develop your own ideas and means of
| expression.
|
| AI is none of that.
| thot_experiment wrote:
| I'm more of an artist than a hacker, and
|
| > mad about models being trained on their work without
| informed prior consent
|
| This is the "your mind has been poisoned by a corporate
| view of intellectual property" take. The idea that
| copyright should extend this far is horrifying, it is
| another step toward stifling and controlling creative
| expression. The problem is capital being rewarded way more
| by IP law than labor, something that isn't going to be
| fixed by giving people more and broader ways to own
| things.|
|
| You'll be surprised how recent the idea of owning ideas is.
| boppo1 wrote:
| Well I should be more clear. I don't mean by informed
| consent "they put it in the TOS and it's software I have
| to use so I'm boned". I mean more like "I use Blender,
| Krita, and Procreate and none of them do that bullshit.
| As long as there's a notification on software that scans
| my work so I can avoid it, I'm happy. If I want to opt-in
| to contributing to a model at some point, that might be
| cool."
|
| I guess I should worry a bit that important software
| without worthwhile alternatives might start to do this,
| but I don't think the blender foundation will as long as
| Ton is alive, and I bet the same for Krita. Procreate I'm
| a little less confident about, but only a little, as they
| know who their main userbase* is and they know how those
| people feel about AI.
|
| *Arguably there are more people with Procreate that
| barely know how to draw than people who do. BUT part of
| Procreate's appeal is that it's software that 'the pros'
| prefer to use. If the talented artists start publicly
| dumping on Procreate, the people who can't draw will
| slowly but surely follow those artists to whatever their
| preferred software becomes.
| __loam wrote:
| It's super rich to call artists being mad at a labor
| alienation machine, alienating for being mad at it.
| Gormo wrote:
| Agreed that trying to create artificial scarcity is not good
| (and isn't really compatible with any ethical system, least
| of all "neoliberal capitalism"), but it should be pointed out
| that natural scarcity is an a priori fact of nature that
| economics itself is our method of dealing with, and is not a
| normative contrivance of any "economic system".
|
| I'm not entirely sure how any of this relates to artists
| agitating against AI, unless they are themselves seeking to
| create artificial scarcity to prop up the market value of
| their services, now that the supply of art ability is no
| longer as constrained as it previously was.
| pxoe wrote:
| you're a meme. do you "see" why artists are mad?
|
| it's quite simple. artists offer to make their art for a
| price, as a 'service'. then, something comes in, that pirated
| their previous works, and offers to make imagery in that art
| style for free (or at a low low price), undercutting and
| displacing that artist.
|
| really it's a 'yet another spin on piracy'. cause that's just
| the 'services' part, besides the 'selling works/artwork'
| which has long been rife with piracy, but the 'pirating
| what's been offered as a service' thing is new. piracy
| expanding into 'services' field as well. services
| (particularly those that rely on someone specifically taking
| their time to do something, and not just 'press button,
| service gets performed unattended') are scarce. there's only
| so many hours and so much time in one's life.
| opyate wrote:
| I don't get AI hate. It's nothing other than "technology
| hate".
|
| As a web developer who started out in 2001/2002, I watched as
| custom web design jobs dried up, and more and more people
| (and _ahem_ artists) started using online tools to create a
| templatised website on the cheap.
|
| Did I throw a tantrum? Nope! I learned to do backend dev so I
| could make my own automation tools.
|
| Seriously, just embrace these new superpowers already.
| raincole wrote:
| I think at one point Krita will fork to two apps because of
| this exact reason. AI-based tools are clearly the next step of
| painting apps (to me at least, but I can't be the only one who
| believes in this).
|
| I think in 3~5 years an painting app without AI generation
| feature is just like a painting app without pen pressure today.
| It's still usable, you can make great art with it if you have
| the skill, but it will be _so_ out of fashion to a point it
| starts becoming cool again.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Is it that different from how we view Github copilot ?
|
| As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who don't
| intend to ever rely on copilot, and I would expect the a
| similar trend in the drawing community with amateurs and pros
| not specially anti-AI, but not wanting to have a random
| generator meddle with their art.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who
| don't intend to ever rely on copilot"
|
| Is that really a thing?
|
| I mean, I also don't want to rely on Microsoft and
| therefore also not on Copilot, but not using AI tools in
| general out of principle is probably a very rare minority.
| I simply would prefer my own local LLM.
|
| But in the thread linked above I read "AI never had and
| never will have it's place in art." And this stance would
| be very weird for me for devs.
| dartos wrote:
| Well think of how AI was trained. GitHub trained copilot
| on _mostly_ open source data with permissive licenses.
|
| Giving away code and their rights for free is
| commonplace. Also it's not like you can use "by Ryan
| Dhal" to make the output from copilot better.
|
| But these art AI were trained on. CC, CC-BY, and closed
| license pieces of art. And you can use "by Greg Rotowski"
| to get art in that artist's specific style.
|
| I don't think comparing the use of AI or the general
| attitude towards AI between artists and devs makes sense.
| Very apples and oranges.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| I see the licence issue, so hypothetically, if a LLM was
| only trained on code that explicitely allowed LLM
| training, would you use that?
| bee_rider wrote:
| Hmm, is it possible to include a bit of prompt in
| copilot, something like "follow the formatting guidelines
| of the Linux kernel," or something like that?
|
| I dunno if it would help, but people do seem(?) to be
| improving their ChatGPT responses by telling it to answer
| as if it is an expert on a topic.
| southerntofu wrote:
| > "As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who
| don't intend to ever rely on copilot"
|
| I'm one of those. I've been programming for a while now
| and there's no way i'm gonna trust a neural network with
| my code. Debugging is painful enough without having to
| deal with subtle bugs hallucinated by ML.
|
| Some machines are really useful to reduce human suffering
| and augment our collective capabilities. Some machines
| are just useless, polluting gadgets. I think ML sits in
| the middleground: if your job is pissing meaningless code
| all day that's very repetitive it can probably do it for
| you... but if you have to actually do R&D to develop new
| tools i don't think ML will be any use.
|
| So yes AI can reduce work, but arguably work that was
| never required nor beneficial to humanity to begin with.
| I would be way more interested in society reflecting on
| "bullshit jobs" and how to actually share the workload so
| that we can have 1-day work-weeks planet-wide, just as
| the scientists from the 19th/20th century envisioned.
| Instead of continuing to destroy the planet so we can run
| bullshitting neural nets in the cloud that produce
| arguably little value.
|
| But sure, ML is fun. Let's just pretend we don't see the
| whole world burning outside the window.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "So yes AI can reduce work, but arguably work that was
| never required nor beneficial to humanity to begin with"
|
| Hm, just a suggestion, I would be careful with such
| statements, if you don't want to insult peoples work you
| know nothing about.
|
| Because LLMs enable a very broad spectrum of work. I
| don't use them in my current workflow(nor am I that
| easily insulted), but the times I did use them, they were
| useful. My problem with them was mainly ChatGPT4 was out
| of date, but it did produce very useful results for me
| for WebGPU and Pixijs, which I had not used before and
| the solutions it gave me, I could not find on the
| internet. So for my novel work, they don't help me in
| general, but they do help me if I need a new custom part,
| without having to reinvent the wheel.
|
| And then of course there are people who greatly benefit
| from them, who did not study CS, like a friend who is
| ecologist and all he wants are some custom python
| scripts, to modify his GIS tool. I think he is doing
| useful work and with LLMs he is indeed spending less time
| on his (freelance) work and has more time for his
| children. Isn't that, what you are also hoping for?
| elcomet wrote:
| It seems like you tried used copilot did you? To me the
| best thing about it is not the full function generation,
| which doesn't work very reliably, it's to finish the end
| of the line, when you already know what you will type,
| and it just types it for you faster. It feels like magic
| and checking the code is extreme fast as it's just one
| line, much faster than writing it.
| throwaway4aday wrote:
| We don't have 1 day a week workweeks not because it isn't
| possible but because we don't live late 19th / early 20th
| century lifestyles anymore. We have modern cities,
| infrastructure, transportation, manufacturing, power
| generation, diets, and recreation. I don't think many
| would want to go back to an agrarian lifestyle where you
| live in a one or two room brick cottage, walk everywhere,
| till a field with a very simple, small tractor, eat only
| what you grow seasonally, have two changes of clothes,
| and own basically nothing but the bare essentials to
| clean and feed yourself. If you did that then sure you
| could share the work between a little commune and maybe
| get by on a rotation of duties if you had enough up front
| capital to buy all the labor saving devices and could
| manage to keep everyone happy enough to share it all
| equally but I have a feeling it would still wind up being
| a hard life of poverty. There's also the question of how
| you keep all of the manufacturing and professional
| services going with so little demand for their outputs.
| There are very good reasons why the vast majority of the
| populace used to be stuck in subsistence farming for life
| and why that only changed with the advent of mass
| production and market economies.
| bombela wrote:
| I found copilot most useful as an code editing assistant.
| A smart `sed` of sort.
|
| Moving code around a loop, extracting a series of
| variables etc.
|
| Like a sibling comment I also find it useful to complete
| the end of the line.
|
| As for writing code, it mostly produces very convincing
| looking code at a glance, but full of shit on a second
| look.
|
| But as a smart completion and local refactoring tool, I
| really find it useful.
| lionkor wrote:
| Yes, that's a thing, I'm one of those people.
|
| While impressive, the two issues I have with codepilot
| and other AI tools are:
|
| 1. The code is usually the same code I'd get a few web
| searches away, except then it would have the appropriate
| copyright. As a FOSS developer (in my free time), I do
| not want to risk using code I don't have a license for,
| and thus dirtying up my entire project and putting it in
| danger of being taken down.
|
| 2. I really don't need it. At very few points in a
| project do I both think "I want to continue this" and
| also "I want my code written for me". I like
| autocomplete, I use autocomplete, and I like Visual
| Studio's suggestions, too. It's only wrong 50% of the
| time, around about. I have no interest in a tool that
| writes my code for me, because I have learned everything
| I know from solving problems myself.
|
| Edit: Clauses in the AI's ToS like "all code generated is
| yours" or something is akin to a sign on a bar saying "if
| you hit someone in here it's not assault" -- it doesn't
| change the facts whatsoever, and the fact is that it's
| still a crime to hit somebody, even if the bar's ToS say
| otherwise.
| Kiro wrote:
| > The code is usually the same code I'd get a few web
| searches away
|
| My impression is that people normally don't use Copilot
| as a substitute for finding solutions (ChatGPT is much
| better for that), but as a way to help with otherwise
| tedious tasks that are really specific to your codebase.
| Check out 6:05 and 6:25 in this Andreas Kling video for a
| good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxubNQC5O8
|
| Regarding your second point Copilot helps me when I least
| expects it. I think the video illustrates what I mean
| with that as well.
| tambourine_man wrote:
| It really is amazing and Andreas Kling is awesome. Thanks
| for the link
| Nullabillity wrote:
| > Check out 6:05 and 6:25 in this Andreas Kling video for
| a good example:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxubNQC5O8
|
| Oof. So not only was it a poor replacement for a macro,
| it didn't even generate the correct code!
| philote wrote:
| 3. To be truly useful, you have to send your company's
| proprietary code to a 3rd-party AI, which may or may not
| use it for training their AI, or which may or may not
| have security issues and leak your proprietary code. Yes,
| we do this already with GitHub/GitLab, etc. but those are
| mature and (AFAIK) haven't had big security issues like
| OpenAI has had in the past year. 4. For ChatGPT at least,
| you have to give them your phone number to sign up. For
| me this is a deal-breaker, but I get others are fine with
| it.
| tambourine_man wrote:
| I'm a Vim guy and I'm very impressed with VS Copilot,
| but:
|
| - Not enough to switch (yet, at least)
|
| - I would have to carefully review the generated code,
| which is not as fun writing
|
| The license issue is something I expect will be solved in
| the next few years (a dropdown menu to choose from,
| maybe).
| happymellon wrote:
| > The license issue is something I expect will be solved
| in the next few years (a dropdown menu to choose from,
| maybe).
|
| I'm not sure it will, as everyone who uses it don't
| appear to really care about other people's licences
| anyway. It's just a method of BSD washing GPL code.
| Filligree wrote:
| You can use copilot with vim, no problem.
| freedomben wrote:
| Yes, original copilot, but not new copilot with expanded
| features. I'm a vim person and wold rather give up
| copilot than move to vs code, so I do hope they aren't
| going to leave vim behind and focus only on vs code
| moving forward.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| In an ideal world I'd choose stacks with not enough
| boilerplate to warrant copilot.
|
| I had my share of auto generation with enterprise Java
| stacks, and tried as hard as I could to move to stacks
| where what we write is concise and relevant (rails is the
| closest I came to this, not perfect but clearly going in
| the right direction).
|
| I think AI has its place, but I also hope to be lucky
| enough to not have to use it.
|
| Illustrators might have similar issues, where some of
| them need to produce boilerplate drawings a lot, but I
| think they'd also prefer working on project that aren't
| that.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Yeah these Copilot type tools shouldn't help much if a
| language is well-designed, or a project is structured in
| a fashion that doesn't require a ton of boilerplate. If
| we're doing things well, we'll only have to tell the
| computer something once, right?
|
| If it is possible to guess what we're going to write,
| then we aren't transmitting much information to the
| computer.
|
| Copilot seems to be very popular though.
| RunSet wrote:
| I see a different future where people continue to write
| their own code rather than trust Microsoft
| AutoPlagiarist(tm). Perhaps I am wrong and _this_ no-code
| solution will at last relieve us of our onerous cognitive
| burdens.
| bheadmaster wrote:
| > Is that really a thing?
|
| Yes.
|
| I'm a Vim user with 100 WPM typing speed, and I can say
| with confidence that Copilot isn't that useful to me.
| Typing boilerplate is not an issue - understanding what I
| wrote is most of the work. And having an AI spew code
| that I have to read is more work for me than just writing
| it myself.
| johnmaguire wrote:
| Just as a data point counter to yours, I'm a Vim user
| with a 150+ wpm typing speed, and I have to say I find
| Copilot massively useful.
|
| In Go, it's great for dealing with a lot of the
| repetitive code one finds themselves writing.
|
| When writing Android apps, it's useful for API discovery!
| jwells89 wrote:
| I'll use ChatGPT to help surface docs and examples or to
| get a very rough high level overview if what a task might
| involve, but I don't really want an LLM in my IDE.
|
| Not only does it feel like something that might be
| dangerous to become reliant on (what happens when it's
| not working or I don't have access to it), I have no idea
| what material it was trained on which makes it ethically
| gray. I might be more receptive to a local LLM where I
| can personally vet what it was trained on (primarily, I'm
| concerned with if the material was obtained fully
| consensually or not).
|
| My attitude towards image generators is similar. Adobe's
| is totally out of the question for example, because
| though they claim it's 100% ethically trained because all
| material came from their stock image service, I know
| that's bullshit because I've seen stolen art put up for
| sale there more times than I can count (and worse,
| they're unresponsive when theft is reported).
| nine_k wrote:
| There is a big difference between AI generating a piece
| of picture which you completely observe, and AI
| generating a piece of code that may contain a subtle,
| hard-to-spot bug.
|
| In both cases you're also risking being accused of
| plagiarism, when the model literally remembers, or
| reconstructs, a piece it has seen, and finds it perfectly
| matching your request.
|
| I think "AI" tools in Krita may have their place: object
| detection and selection / tracing, upsampling, seamless
| resizing, cutting and pasting, texture generation, light
| adjustment, stuff like that. An integrated analog of
| DALL-E or Midjourney would likely be a poor for.
| loki-ai wrote:
| Like the artists, this won't be an option. Market pressures
| will force devs to use AI assistance.
|
| For example, this recent GitHub presentation about
| productivity improvements: 35% acceptance rate, 50% more
| pull requests, etc. I believe these numbers, and even if
| you don't, they will be a reality soon.
|
| https://youtu.be/AAT4zCfzsHI?t=486
| chefandy wrote:
| That's true. However, as an adjacent point, I do want to
| highlight how the impact will be totally different in art
| than in development, because many seem to be equating
| them.
|
| The main difference is that in development, more of the
| tedium gets removed-- e.g. interacting with some API or
| UI boilerplate-- and more of the more satisfying work--
| how the program, generally, is going to solve a problem--
| remains. In art, the more satisfying part--
| conceptualization and forming those ideas into images--
| is entirely removed but the tedium remains.
|
| Commissioning a piece of art from an artist entails
| describing what you want, maybe supplying some inspo
| images, and then going through a few rounds of drafts or
| waypoint updates to course-correct before arriving at a
| final image. Sound familiar? Generative AI art isn't
| making art: it is commissioning art from a computer
| program that makes it from an amalgam of other people's
| art. It reduces the role of the "artist" to making up for
| the machine artist's shortcomings.
|
| When you're making art, making the details are ingrained
| in that process-- a requisite step to forming your ideas
| into images. Details are critical in high-level
| commercial art, and despite the insistence of many
| developers who know far less than they realize, current
| generative AI isn't even close to sufficient.
|
| Economic realities aside, when you're merely editing
| someone else's images, you've basically transitioned from
| "writer" to "spell checker" and I don't understand how so
| many refuse to see how a professional artist would be
| distraught about that.
| boppo1 wrote:
| >I would expect the a similar trend in the drawing
| community with amateurs and pros not specially anti-AI, but
| not wanting to have a random generator meddle with their
| art.
|
| Hi! This is me! I'm good enough that I can draw and paint
| whatever I want manually. I (generally) don't want it in my
| (main) workflow and I don't want telemetry training models
| against my work (without knowledge & consent). However, I
| don't have any qualms against other people using it and I
| think it's exciting technology.
| zamadatix wrote:
| Has anyone found out what the "sizable number" actually
| looks like? Is it sizable as in "13% of devs, 35% in niche
| areas like HN, say they are against it wholesale" or
| sizable as in "3% of devs can make a lot of noise,
| especially in nice areas, when it's something they care
| about"? Even 0.1% of devs would be quite sizable by number
| but still irrelevant in context of why one group's opinion
| is like another.
|
| Of those that don't ever intend to rely on something like
| copilot - is the majority because "I can code better
| without it in the current capabilities" or a principled
| matter about the technology wronging them in some way?
| Gormo wrote:
| I think it's a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison.
| There are vastly different downstream consequences and risk
| exposure associated with using AI to design and implement
| functionality for mission-critical infrastructure vs. using
| AI to draw pictures.
| raincole wrote:
| There are _a lot_ of people who draw and paint. Of course
| there will be people who reject AI. There are people who
| restrictly only use traditional media too. That 's why I
| said Krita will (and should?) fork into 2 apps, one for
| people who reject AI.
|
| But the line between "random generator" and "artistic finer
| control" isn't that sharp and clear. How do digital artists
| draw leaves and bushes in background? If not photobashing,
| most experienced people will use some kind of brushes[0]
| with some radnomness built into them, like random rotation
| or spray.
|
| Randomness is even more prevelant in traditional media.
|
| And I'm 100% sure AI will evolve to cover as much as both
| ends.
|
| [0]: Not necessarily a leaf brush. A common misconception
| held by digital painting newbies are you need X brush to
| paint X efficiently. Experienced aritsts don't want X --
| they want some controllable randomness.
| __loam wrote:
| I think you don't know a lot of people in the art community
| if you think this. Good to see Krita standing with the people
| who actually use their tools.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| I worked with 2D artists for 5 years, and the actual
| attitude is _much_ more mixed than it might appear from
| listening to the vocal folks. Eventually most will accept
| this as another tech-heavy field like 3D CGI, especially
| when these tools will start to give more usable results in
| the hands of skilled artists. (they mostly don 't, yet)
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Yea, the people that are refusing new tools are _always_
| louder than the ones that just learn, adapt, and adopt
| them.
| __loam wrote:
| The new tools weren't made for or by artists. They're
| labor alienation machines that extract value from our
| communities and remove nearly all creative agency from
| the process. It's not cool to just dismiss this as people
| refusing to learn a new tool when that tool is the
| product of one of the biggest acts of abuse directed
| towards creative labor in decades.
| boredtofears wrote:
| thats such a bummer. are we then doomed to only sample
| previous artists interpretation of an owl for the rest of
| time?
| shultays wrote:
| 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?
| elaus wrote:
| I think it's totally fine and normal for multiple OSS tools
| existing in the same space.
|
| Krita is almost 20 years old and is more focused on painting
| than on image editing - but personally, I use it for both,
| liking the UI much more than that of GIMP.
| Matumio wrote:
| Back in those days, GIMP was just barely usable for
| painting, and Krita was mainly good for crashing. Both have
| come a long way since then. GIMP is still mainly an "image
| manipulation" program. It got better at painting, too, but
| you probably want to give Krita a try for that.
| wastewastewaste wrote:
| It's much closer to how photoshop generally works, with an
| extra focus on drawing. Gimp is not a good replacement for
| photoshop for artists. It's quite popular for this.
| diputsmonro wrote:
| As a software engineer and artist, Krita feels more focused
| on drawing/painting with a pen, while GIMP has always felt to
| me as more focused on photography/editing.
|
| Obviously they both manipulate images so there's lots of
| overlap in features, but the idea of painting or drawing in
| GIMP seems really alien to me. I'm sure the interface and pen
| support was even worse when the Krita project was started.
| raincole wrote:
| Krita aims for SAI/CSP, GIMP aims (well... sorta) for PS.
| duckmysick wrote:
| > Why there is a second open source image editing software
| now?
|
| Because it's possible and someone wants to. Same reason why
| we have multiple Linux distros, multiple databases, multiple
| browsers, multiple text editors.
|
| Are you surprised that open source software in general is
| duplicated? Or is this specific just to image editing
| software. If yes, what makes image editing software special
| so that having a second option is surprising?
|
| Yes, open source promotes collaboration. It also promotes
| forking and starting new projects.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Why there is a second open source image editing software
| now?
|
| There are actually more than two.
| lmm wrote:
| 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?
| vonjuice wrote:
| 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.
| mminer237 wrote:
| For simple image editing with an easy UI, I use Pinta. If I
| need more advanced features, I need GIMP. I've never really
| found a use case for Krita personally.
| pkkm wrote:
| > now
|
| Krita is actually quite old. The reason you haven't heard of
| it is probably that it's more focused on digital painting
| than on general image manipulation.
| vonjuice wrote:
| Krita is much better than GIMP, I hope you can make the
| switch.
| ChrisRR wrote:
| Even ignoring the fact that Krita is a digital painting piece
| of software, not general image editing
|
| The fact that you think there's only one open source image
| editor out there is fascinating.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| GIMP isn't designed for drawing. Sounds like bullshit, right?
| But that's what the GIMP manual says: _" GIMP is not designed
| to be used for drawing."_ https://docs.gimp.org/2.10/en/gimp-
| using-rectangular.html
|
| Krita on the other hand _is_ designed for drawing and
| painting.
| lbeltrame wrote:
| Which is kind of funny in a way. I am no artist but I'm using
| Krita with a smallish Wacom tablet to manually refine
| illustrations generated by Stable Diffusion.
|
| But again, some of the Krita team have had strong ideological
| positions on many themes. Luckily you can keep using the
| software whether you agree or not (and you can contribute,
| too).
| axytol wrote:
| They list under hardware requirements "a powerful graphics card
| with at least 6 GB VRAM is recommended. Otherwise generating
| images will take very long"
|
| Does anyone have any idea what would very long mean on a 4GB VRAM
| card?
| simbolit wrote:
| user @bArray 35minutes ago:
|
| "Tested on a NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 under Ubuntu with 4GB
| VRAM. (...) lowered the canvas to 2Kx2K and it seems to just
| about be okay. My test prompt (...) produces a picture of
| rocks. (...) I get a nice scene (...) Both take about two
| minutes."
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| It says Mac OS support is untested, but wouldn't Mac OS be a
| great test bed, with many graphic pro users, and Apple Silicon
| running Stable Diffusion out of the box? DiffusionBee already
| does in-/outpainting and basically all the other things this
| integration is promising, you only have to copy/paste image data
| and resolution/context parameters I guess. But then this brings
| in the Python ML stack which seems like a no-go for an end-user
| product AFAICS, unless you wanted to generate endless support
| tickets.
| OsrsNeedsf2P wrote:
| It was made by 2 people. Probably neither of them have
| Macbooks.
| dustypotato wrote:
| Too bad I don't have the Hardware to run it. Anyone had success
| with stable diffusion on Steam Deck ? The only thing that works
| for me is https://github.com/rupeshs/fastsdcpu , but it takes 1m
| per 512x512 image and is LCM
| eterps wrote:
| > Too bad I don't have the Hardware to run it.
|
| Cloud GPUs is supported if that is an option:
|
| https://github.com/Acly/krita-ai-diffusion/blob/main/doc/clo...
| bArray wrote:
| Trying it now and will update later (as a comment), takes a
| little while to download and install.
|
| One note about the installation on Ubuntu is that you need to
| install Krita first, run it, and then copy the plug-in to the
| desired folder - otherwise there is nowhere to copy it to.
| bArray wrote:
| Tested on a NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 under Ubuntu with 4GB VRAM.
| Initially tried with a 4Kx4K canvas size, but it seems too much
| and fails. I lowered the canvas to 2Kx2K and it seems to just
| about be okay.
|
| My test prompt (to compare against other models):
|
| > (masterpiece, best quality), a giant made of rock, highly
| detailed, rock texture
|
| For Cinematic Photo XL this produces a picture of rocks. For
| Digital Artwork XL I get a nice scene with a complex rock
| structure. Both take about two minutes.
|
| It seems to work well and the integration into Krita seems
| quite nice. The settings are suitably simple, but would be nice
| if more was exposed in an advanced window or something.
| unixhero wrote:
| This looks incredible. It runs locally???
| esjeon wrote:
| I saw a person using this. The system had 4090, which can pull
| about 20-30 iter/sec. This roughly translates to 4 image/sec with
| 8 iter/image. This allows _interactive AI drawing_ (thou a bit
| quirky). Once the desired image is reached, the user can re-run w
| / 30-50 iterations to finalize the image. This is really cool.
| pedrovhb wrote:
| Latent consistency models are a pretty radical game changer
| that came up recently. There are LoRAs [0] that you can just
| use alongside any SD or SDXL that just cut the number of
| inference steps you need to 2-8, rather than the usual ~25+.
| It's as close to magic as one could expect, and on ComfyUI my
| modest RX 5700XT spits out 512x512 images in probably around a
| second each, or a couple of seconds for a 4x batch. A more
| beefy GPU could certainly enable high res, very low latency
| interactive use.
|
| For even better latency perception, you could hook into the
| generation steps and have TAESD [1] decoding intermediate
| latents.
|
| [0] https://huggingface.co/collections/latent-
| consistency/latent... [1] https://github.com/madebyollin/taesd
| Keyframe wrote:
| Does anyone know / tried if it works with multiple GPUs?
| Fraterkes wrote:
| A theoretical nice thing about Krita and art in these past
| decades was that you could be an 18 year old with some ok drawing
| skills, a thinkpad, a secondhand wacom tablet and a version of
| krita, and the internet, this wonderful innovation, could enable
| you to make some money as an artist. If the future expectation is
| that artists all have 2000 euro graphics cards, I think that will
| really make art a lot less democratic.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| That's not the expectation at all; _a lot_ of work is being
| done to make it run on underpowered hardware. SD in particular
| runs on a 8-years-old potato, albeit slowly and with
| limitations, despite originally barely fitting into 10GB VRAM.
|
| _> A theoretical nice thing about Krita and art in these past
| decades was that you could be an 18 year old with some ok
| drawing skills, a thinkpad, a secondhand wacom tablet and a
| version of krita_
|
| You never needed a computer for that, just a pen/pencil and
| paper.
|
| For digital painting in particular though, that only became
| possible in the recent years. Free digital painting software
| sucked until recently, so 20 years ago every 18 years old just
| pirated commercial software. And drawing tablets only became
| cheap and good after Wacom battery-less patents expired
| (alternatively, with the advent of iPads with pens that a lot
| of parents bought for their kids, and cheap drawing software in
| the App Store).
|
| I'm not even starting on 3D, which always required beefy
| hardware. Tinkering with Maya/3DSMax/Lightwave in early 2000s
| required a really powerful gaming PC. These days you can at
| least rent a powerful GPU for peanuts to run the AI model.
| Fraterkes wrote:
| Sure, the part about everyone just pirating photoshop is
| absolutely tue (it comes out to be the same thing though, you
| can't pirate hardware). My point is the gap in potential
| quality and art output between photoshop on a powerful pc an
| a pirated copy of ps on a thinkpad is pretty small: you need
| a lot of ram to produce 4k art, but a thinkpad is fine for
| most comissions. The gap is obviously a lot larger with ai:
| you yourself mention that sd (just one of the models people
| are currently using) runs slowly and with limitations. If the
| expectation becomes that you deliver 100 4k permutations on a
| certain theme, the time it takes to achieve that from a human
| labor standpoint will be similar, but the time that takes to
| render wise will vary orders of magnitude based on your
| resources. Not to mention that a workflow with a realtime
| refresh rate is qualititavely different frome one that runs
| 0.1fps.
| orbital-decay wrote:
| Commissions are professional work. If you need speed to get
| things done, you can pay to rent the GPU and the cost will
| be negligible to what you earn, even if you're just
| starting. This is really not _that_ much of a barrier
| compared to the hoops hobbyist 3D artists had to jump
| through 20 years ago.
|
| Regardless, you can run SD on a several years old laptop
| just fine, this is entirely within the reach of most; yes
| you won't be getting realtime updates but that's not really
| necessary.
|
| And that's only the beginning. SD was trained using really
| poor data; everybody is doing that on semi-synthetic
| datasets with much higher quality labeling now; high
| quality data and new advancements (see the Beyond U paper
| [1], for example) allow fitting more into several times
| less weights with much faster inference. In a year or two,
| this will be available to practically everyone.
|
| [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.20092
| throwaway30230 wrote:
| At this point it seems pointless to even bother to try given that
| AI will generate all possible artwork within a couple years.
|
| I mean. Say you get "good" at using this. What's the life
| expectancy at any kind of creative outlet you could have that
| would support you? I mean if we're talking this is fun as a toy,
| yeah ok. I could see that. But as a job? When everyone can paint
| no one is paid for it.
|
| I suppose that we could all go back to paying people who can
| physically lift things or wait on tables, but that's about it.
|
| I want to use this, but then I just think "Holy shit, what if I
| get good at this and then get my hopes up like I did with React?
| What am I going to do, sell artwork that anyone can make for next
| to nothing on the internet?" I believe I could probably come up
| with some cool paintings, but the question is "why"? Everyone
| else on the internet will generate all the possible content it's
| possible for me to come up with anyway, so why does it matter?
|
| And if that makes me care about "money" then yeah, I care about
| money. So what?
|
| All of that being said I'm now going to draw a latex glad ninja
| being molested by a demon. Also I'm broke and living in a
| homeless shelter. But I can get a supercomputer to make me draw
| sexy girls so I have that going for me.
| LoganDark wrote:
| Never underestimate the number of kinks out there
| lfkdev wrote:
| I'm quite sure the will be models specific for all kind of
| kinks.
| LoganDark wrote:
| But not every permutation.
| lock-the-spock wrote:
| Maybe a nice analogy are the old trades: knitting, weaving,
| ceramics, glass blowing, woodworking, ... Still down for
| pleasure and a niche audience.
| sndwnm wrote:
| Seems pointless to learn to make singular highly detailed
| visual art pieces? Maybe. Maybe it always was pointless.
|
| But most visual art is not just single pictures in a vacuum.
| Say you want to make a game with 2d still-art, or say a comic.
| You will need dozens or hundreds of images and they will have
| to be tied together by a common design -- characters and style
| that look similar in the different images, and most of all you
| have to have a story to back it up. This is not something AIs
| can do well, not for a long while, but a human artist now may
| do significantly better than before with help of "dumb AI",
| such as the featured Krita plugin.
|
| Finally, most artists don't think like you. It's not
| "pointless" to do something that can be technically repeated by
| other humans or AI. You do art because you want to express
| yourself.
| awfulneutral wrote:
| > Finally, most artists don't think like you. It's not
| "pointless" to do something that can be technically repeated
| by other humans or AI. You do art because you want to express
| yourself.
|
| I've seen this sentiment a bunch of times, but I don't agree.
| Most people practice skills and make art in order to
| demonstrate their value to society. Art (and media) doesn't
| exist in a vacuum, it surely exists for societal reasons.
|
| A person may want to make a game or a comic, but the reason
| they want to make those things, instead of just consuming
| existing media, is also to demonstrate their value to
| society. But they won't have any value either when everyone
| else can easily make games and comics.
| sndwnm wrote:
| I don't think you are disagreeing with me. I also mean by
| "expressing yourself" that the artist is trying to
| communicate with the community and be of value to them.
|
| I'm saying AI does _not_ allow anyone to easily make games
| and comics, at least not for a some while. Currently AI
| allows you to easily make still pictures, maybe a written
| chapter of a story. It does not yet compete with artists
| who do larger pieces of work like a book. And I 'm not sure
| AI ever(?) will make "complete" works because it doesn't
| have full human background required to have "something to
| say". It only "mimics" in a manner that many artists
| focused on technical ability find threatening. So yeah some
| "artists" will be out of work because of AI, but it will
| not be a big loss for the community if they are merely
| replaced.
|
| The surface area of "art with message or meaning" within
| "all art AI can randomly generate" is so vanishingly small
| that it doesn't matter. Humans will be in control of the
| message, and thus in control of art for the foreseeable
| future.
|
| When the AI finally is smart enough to have something to
| say, it will be an AGI and humanity will quickly be
| enslaved to it. No point thinking that far.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-20 23:01 UTC)