this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024

122 points (83.5% liked)

Technology

59599 readers

3092 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

122

Adobe Says Artists Should Embrace AI If They Want to be Successful. (80.lv)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/technology

49 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Cryan24 84 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So company with vested interest thinks people should do thing that makes the company money, gotcha

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Pretty much.

Every time I've heard "[X] should embrace AI or get left behind" it's being said by someone making or selling AI (or a product they shoehorned AI into).

[–] HootinNHollerin 59 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Adobe should embrace fucking itself

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago

Adobe should get comfortable with users not using AI

[–] n3cr0 52 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Artists embraced Adobe long enough. It's time for a change.

[–] paraphrand 35 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

So we downvote here when we disagree with an article? Wouldn’t you wanna upvote it so others see the bullshit Adobe is spouting?

[–] ElPussyKangaroo 12 points 3 weeks ago

I had the same confusion a while back... This is just an article... There's no point in downvoting the post sharing the article...

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 weeks ago

Same dumb people that don't want to put a like on news about war because they don't like the fact people die

[–] bamfic 30 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Adobe should embrace my dick

[–] RizzRustbolt 2 points 3 weeks ago

And my turds!

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 weeks ago

I think everybody hates Adobe at this point am I right?

[–] qevlarr 20 points 3 weeks ago

[–] over_clox 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure, because screw artists with unique talent and style, let's just have AI crank out the same style crap every day..

I'm rapidly getting tired of this new AI art era, looks like the same shit every day anymore.

Where's the human factor anymore? Where's the talent, where's the skill?

[+] [email protected] -7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

That's not how we should see it. Digital artists spend a lot of time creating and trying different things. On the other hand we have people with different conditions who have ideas without the skills yo execute anything.

This allows everyone to do more and quicker, increasing the earning potential. AI is useful as long as it levels out the playing field. It's the malicious use we need to moderate and like drugs, thats a slippery slope.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

When I am amazed by a piece of art, it's because a person was able to conceive of a scene and then use techniques they've learned to bring that scene from their mind into reality. I think, "Wow, how did they decide to blend those colors together in such a way, and why? I wonder how hard it is to get that right? How long might it take me to learn the same technique?"

But when I look at a piece of art made by AI, I think, disappointedly, "Oh, they didn't. Nobody leaned the technique to paint this, there may not be any feeling behind it, or any point at all, other than 'it looks good.'" It's just not impressive.

And I'm pretty sure that most people could learn how to prompt successfully in a matter of days or weeks. Real artists practice their craft for years, learning and perfecting techniques and often developing their own unique style.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

“Oh, they didn’t. Nobody leaned the technique to paint this, there may not be any feeling behind it, or any point at all, other than ‘it looks good

"May" being the important word, here.

I suggest that if you cannot tell the difference between "someone who knows art did this piece" and "someone just hit generate" then you have no business critiquing art.

And I’m pretty sure that most people could learn how to prompt successfully in a matter of days or weeks.

...that won't give you art skills. It's practically impossible to develop an artistic eye, much less mind, by hitting generate, the feedback isn't sufficient, you can't train like that. No model prompts the same, btw, frankly speaking prompting is about the worst way to condition a model when you're out to create something specific.

The art is not in the fucking medium. Never was. Never will be. Come at me for this and I'll be referencing urinals on pedestals.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

How does it increase earning potential? Best case it would flood the market with shit and result in less income due to either dilution of spending amongst thousands of idiots using “ai” or destroy the need for a market in the first place. If everything is ai why would I pay the “artist” instead of just going to stablediffusion or something similar?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why would you hire a photographer instead of using your phone?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Because phones are still not able to shoot as well as a professional camera, never mind the skills needed to frame or light the scene correctly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Why would you hire a photographer instead of renting a camera, then?

...because you know shit about photography (I presume, for the sake of argument). Why would you hire an AI artist over doing it yourself, then?

[–] moseschrute 1 points 3 weeks ago

I’m predicting it now. There will be either an app or a bot that collects all the photos taken at a wedding by guests and generates “professional” photos of the event. So you won’t need to frame the photos anymore. You will only need enough perspectives to predict what a framed photo would look like.

I’m against AI replacing human creativity. This is just a prediction. Not saying I want it to happen.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 weeks ago

While they manage to build the crappiest image generator

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago

One can look at art as either being about "the end result" or about the process of human expression. AI can produce the former (of varying quality), but not the latter.

[–] tigerjerusalem 9 points 3 weeks ago

Hot take here: they're not wrong. AI speeds up tons of processes that many traditional artists won't be able to keep up, just like digital painting sped up tons of processes that traditional painting could not keep up.

This doesn't mean that traditional art will die. Physical art will surely find it's niche and it will be sought after by collectors, for example. But in the commercial environment, faster is better and AI will be a factor.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I too embrace Adobe Illustrator once but i'm not successful. Cool program though.

Wait, wrong AI.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

It's by far my favorite tool. Want to see what AI can actually do and not the crap they are pushing so far

[–] ulkesh 7 points 3 weeks ago

Adobe can fuck right off. They have become a completely shit company.

[–] werefreeatlast 5 points 3 weeks ago

Forget artists! I'll just get Adobe AI and create the logo I would have paid an artist to make....if I had ever a need for a logo. What else does Adobe do anyways other than logos 😆.

Goodbye artists, is also saying goodbye Adobe. They gotta thread lightly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

So when do the artists get to move on to extending AI?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

They prolly right. Peeps of da future prolly look back and be like, "damn! Art before 2022 really kinda sucked!"

[+] [email protected] -37 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Let the Luddite’s not use it if they don’t want to, they’re only hurting themselves.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There's no such thing as AI assist for decades and people still success creating masterpiece. It's techbro and tech tycoon that hurts everyone.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

There were no movies for millennia, leaving people bereft of Seven Samurai. Imagine what Homer could have done with the tech!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

plagiarism != art

No matter how many artists' work is collected, combined, and regurgitated as algorithm puke, it's still not art and never will be.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Anyone spreading this misinformation and trying gatekeep being an artist after the avant-garde movement doesn't have an ounce of education in art history. Generative art, warts and all, is a vital new form of art that's shaking things up, challenging preconceptions, and getting people angry - just like art should.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Oh this is just nonsense. This isn't "gatekeeping being an artist". You want to be an artist? Great! learn some skills and make some art (you know, your own art, which you make yourself). And yes I know "all art is derivative". That is entirely beside the point.

Machine learning is a vacuum connected to a blender. It ingests information which it combines with statistical analyses and then predicts an output based on an algorithm generated from the statistical model. There is nothing "avant-garde" here because all it can do is regurgitate existing material which it has ingested. There's no inspiration, it can't make anything new, and it can only make any product by ripping off someone else's work.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sure the style isn't new, but you can make it work in new pieces that didn't exist before, you can also merge art styles and combine concepts not blended before. There have been many innovating art kinds from generative ai, like infinitely zooming pieces or beat-synced deformation of faces or working qr code art pieces, mix use of 3d modeling then controlnet to make custom scenes, many things too detailed to be done by a human in a reasonable time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

We're not talking about a "style", we're talking about producing finished work. The image generation models aren't style guides, they output final images which are produced from the ingestion of other images as training data. The source material might be actual art (or not) but it is generally the product of a real person (because ML ingesting its own products is very much a garbage-in garbage-out system) who is typically not compensated for their work. So again, these generative ML models are ripoff systems, and nothing more. And no, typing in a prompt doesn't count as innovation or creativity.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Generative ai is not only prompting, which shows you don't know. Who are you to decide what is creativity and innovation? Are you Mr Art?

Anyway, it is not ingesting images and photobashing them into a final picture, that's not how it works. It has no memory of training data images, instead it learned to generate images by trying and when similar to a training data image going more in that direction. So it has the ability to create in the same style, but the original images it doesn't have them

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I see, so your argument is that because the training data is not stored in the model in its original form, it doesn't count as a copy, and therefore it doesn't constitute intellectual property theft. I had never really understood what the justification for this point of view was, so thanks for that, it's a bit clearer now. It's still wrong, but at least it makes some kind of sense.

If the model "has no memory of training data images", then what effect is it that the images have on the model? Why is the training data necessary, what is its function?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

the training data is not stored in the model in its original form,

It is not stored in the model, period. Same as you do not store the shape of the letters you're reading right now, not even the words, but their overall meaning. Remembering the meaning of what I write here, you can then produce words and letters again and you might be close but even with this short paragraph you'll find it very hard to make an exact replica. That's because you did not store it in its original form, not even compressed, you re-encoded it using your own understanding of language, of the world, of everything.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Here's a video explaining how diffusion models work, and this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

I agree with what @[email protected] said here. My argument is the same than what you've already heard: since it doesn't take the original images, but rather learn from them, it acts as a human who also learns from many different images and it would make no sense to copyright all artists that a human is trained on. Also it's true that a human artist also has his own experience that also influence the art while the neural network only has the art, however, the ai artist will provide this personal experience. So imo you shouldn't consider image generations as plagiarism.

Though, I do agree that having people scraping your art to train a model on it is frustrating, even though it was already the case with people training on your art for their personal experience. In the case of a model it's way more similar to the original art pieces. I haven't made my mind on the ehtics of model training, but generating is not plagiarism in my opinion.

Anyway, my original stance was on generative ai to be used as art and not on it being plagiarism or not. Generative ai brings a say to make full pictures with minimal effort and some people generate hundreds of unoriginal similar images. Imo, since it is easy to have a final image, the artistic effort is elsewhere: the composition, originality of the subjects, mixing of new techniques: regional prompt, lora, controlnet, etc., mixing with other tools : photoshop, blender, animation, etc. You definitely can make art with generative ai, and it takes more time that it looks like. (Look up a video on comfyui, sdnext or invokeai to see example of workflows)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

Your comment made my day. Thanks.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Stop saying random things you don't understand

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And what is it you think I don't understand?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Both neural networks and the current state of ai art

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago

Shantanu Narayen’s still not giving you a free license