CM0

But that is an argument that could be put forward against any new feature. For example, even macros. AI is not a one dimensional tool. And FWIW I am also not interested in the random generative AI slot machines that people use to post images all over social media. However, AI that is finely tailored to specific and narrow tasks that can be used as a tool is extremely beneficial and lots of individuals are interested in those capabilities. Anyone can skip any of the existing advanced tools like the inpainting brush and do it manually if they choose, that doesn't change with AI.
Nonetheless, my primary interest would simply be that Affinity first focus on API's that simply allow the community or 3rd parties to build these integrations as there is no downside in such focus as they are already working on the API's. This is just an opportunity to make sure they can optimize for the use cases that we can see will be coming and will be in high demand.

I think that misses on a couple of points.
AI is not limited to only generative AI. The potential productivity improvements don't have any limits. New uses will continue to be discovered and applied. Neglecting a potential feature that is in high demand simply because some do not use that feature is of detriment also to those that don't use the feature. Why? because it brings lots of paying users to the application that in turn gives more resources to be applied to all features of the application.

The point is that it will become just as ubiquitous as the internet. It is already being embedded in OS, search, social media, all development tools etc. You might not use it explicitly, but you will use it indirectly without even knowing as it becomes the new base layer of all technology.

I am retired so there is no business for me to conduct. My online "social life" is quite limited -- I do not use any of the major social media platforms.

I don't think anyone can make that statement with certainty anymore unless you conduct almost your entire business and social life offline. If you have a business and are advertising on just about any platform, AI is making decisions for you on ad placement. Just one example of behind the scenes use of AI.
AI eventually will not be mentioned anymore at some point as a key feature. As it is just common place tech used in every service.

The point is that it will become just as ubiquitous as the internet. It is already being embedded in OS, search, social media, all development tools etc. You might not use it explicitly, but you will use it indirectly without even knowing as it becomes the new base layer of all technology.

The point is that it will become just as ubiquitous as the internet. It is already being embedded in OS, search, social media, all development tools etc. You might not use it explicitly, but you will use it indirectly without even knowing as it becomes the new base layer of all technology.

The point is that it will become just as ubiquitous as the internet. It is already being embedded in OS, search, social media, all development tools etc. You might not use it explicitly, but you will use it indirectly without even knowing as it becomes the new base layer of all technology.

I think that misses on a couple of points.
AI is not limited to only generative AI. The potential productivity improvements don't have any limits. New uses will continue to be discovered and applied. Neglecting a potential feature that is in high demand simply because some do not use that feature is of detriment also to those that don't use the feature. Why? because it brings lots of paying users to the application that in turn gives more resources to be applied to all features of the application.

But that is an argument that could be put forward against any new feature. For example, even macros. AI is not a one dimensional tool. And FWIW I am also not interested in the random generative AI slot machines that people use to post images all over social media. However, AI that is finely tailored to specific and narrow tasks that can be used as a tool is extremely beneficial and lots of individuals are interested in those capabilities. Anyone can skip any of the existing advanced tools like the inpainting brush and do it manually if they choose, that doesn't change with AI.
Nonetheless, my primary interest would simply be that Affinity first focus on API's that simply allow the community or 3rd parties to build these integrations as there is no downside in such focus as they are already working on the API's. This is just an opportunity to make sure they can optimize for the use cases that we can see will be coming and will be in high demand.

I think that misses on a couple of points.
AI is not limited to only generative AI. The potential productivity improvements don't have any limits. New uses will continue to be discovered and applied. Neglecting a potential feature that is in high demand simply because some do not use that feature is of detriment also to those that don't use the feature. Why? because it brings lots of paying users to the application that in turn gives more resources to be applied to all features of the application.

AI is such a massive part software development now and this is the big deciding year.
It is far from being limited to design software. As well as the amazing new features in Photoshop, we are seeing it creep into video editing, 3D and office software.
By the end of this year we will all be using and relying on AI so much that we will wonder what we did before we had it.
A good example is; Tomorrow I have a brief for a list of images I need to generate for a documentary we are working on. The list of images would normally take me a week to generate in previous projects. The ones I will make tomorrow will take a few minutes thanks to AI.
AI will affect our lives in the same way as the internet did, only much quicker.
If I was Serif. I would be looking for people to work with that could integrate AI into the suite. Rather than being left behind.

I've also heard that Adobe plans on using their AI to compensate the original works as their AI can determine which pieces contributed to the generation.

Okay, I found the Adobe document. It is only for the beta that it's restricted to non-commercial use.
The document I linked earlier states they used the stock images that they own in order to train the AI. Surely no one thinks that they've spent all this money and time on developing this just for it to be used only by people playing around for personal use.

I believe the limitation is applied only for beta.

I agree. That is the most logical assessment for Affinity not making a direct commitment.
Indeed, there are still other opportunities to leverage the technology. Furthermore, I still think finishing their APIs for plugins/scripting may be the fastest path for us to benefit from some of these capabilities as the community and 3rd parties can start making some of these capabilities available via integrations.

Thanks for taking a moment to have a closer look 
Yes, I totally agree with that point of view.

I believe Generative fill is just impossible with Affinity.
It would be challenging to handle the costs associated with cloud processing and training photo dataset licenses.
Photoshop can do that because its subscription-based, has huge cloud infrastructure and own Adobe stocks.
It would be more feasible to integrate Affinity with a third-party AI generative images provider, which allow users to have the choice to subscribe to such services if they want.
So Affinity can focus on their thing.
I would still be excited to see basic AI tools integrated into Affinity, such as object selection, sharpening, enlargement, etc
those are useful for photo editing and does not rely on cloud processing.

Talk about totally missing the point. Wow. Did you even read it?

@CM0
I apologize. Frankly you almost lost me at "show me podcasters" and I gave up on "piece I created" presenting generated image. Sorry I have seen too much of it to keep going first time around. Guilty as charged.
Now I read it.
In other part of this forum I have spoken about AI tool for tracing bitmaps. Works very well - most accurate tool for tracing I have used. I am using Davinci Resolve also with quite good AI tools. As a 3D artist I am of course using denoisers to speed up rendering. These are actually helpful tools not just "I will do that for you" image spitters and hell, I will happily welcome that sort of AI in Affinity too. I think sooner or later it will become norm. So I am 100% in agreement with what you said. I just really dislike generative AI spitting ready artwork. Its just... wrong on many levels and sad on many more.
@v_kyrpart of the fun. Obviously nobody will change anything by posting on forum his opinion. Doesn't mean we cant have meaningless yet entertaining conversation for sheer fun of it.

Talk about totally missing the point. Wow. Did you even read it?

I'm old enough to remember digital cameras appearing. They don't take good images, they are bad in low light, the photos look artificial, they lack warmth, you can't develop a proper photo you can hold in your hands... Meanwhile the kids chased them.
I'm hearing all the same things about AI image manipulation/generation. Right now we are at the emergence stage, it's going to improve so rapidly it'll make your head spin. Critiquing an image today is just like the people writing off digital cameras for having a low resolution.
Times, they are a changing.

I find it odd that people want to rail against AI. How does other technology failing to gain traction prove anything about AI? Why don't we list everything that did work and we now rely on? Mouse input? Graphical user interfaces? Spreadsheets (which the guy didn't even patent because he saw no real demand for it)? Laser printers? Spectrophotometers? Email? Websites? Mobile phones with no keys?!? Heck, the clone-stamp tool?
Productivity is the driving factor in whether something like this succeeds. What is better, a "naïve" user typing "remove the cows from this photo" or having them email the graphics guy, wait a few days for the image, forward the invoice on to accounts, have them process the payment...
I get it, people here have learnt their skills and this technology is a threat to that so whether consciously or subconsciously they will likely be against it.
Things move forward, there are still jobs in the creative field and there always will be. We just won't be clicking pixels with a clone tool or feathering out edges of selections for much longer.

I don't think questions and well articulated criticism should ever be considered disparaging or inappropriate. It is precisely because people love a product that they are also critical when it doesn't always deliver. Affinity has created some really great software and the workflow of their integrated apps is one of the major features that sets them apart. They can't set better directions if they don't get the feedback.
But the negativity isn't because of your question, it is because of their answer. IMO, an answer of "we have no current plans for embedding new AI presently, but such use cases will be considered for the APIs we are building" would have been a sufficient response. And if they couldn't state that, at least something like "Affinity have no committed AI features as of yet, but we are aware of the emerging capabilities and features and will be evaluating in what ways Affinity may leverage such tools in the future."

I really feel sorry I started the question; I never meant to disparage Affinity. 
I have worked with Affinity since the beginning and have found many workarounds for many features that were not initially implemented.
I understand that Affinity is not as big as Adobe, and despite of that, Affinity created some awesome tools already.
I also worked with tools like Midjourney and added AI layers or parts of it in my images within Affinity. 
Yes it is working, but takes a lof or time which is now solved in Adobe. 
Affinity should be aware that The better they are are, the more users they get, and consequently, the more questions and wished they receive.
In my humble opinion, this only shows the real potential that Affinity has and the demand, or even desperation from many to keep the great alternative like Affinity alive.

Regardless of what comes next, AI is not something to ignore. A clear directiomn has to be set.
Not every program and edit needs AI, but I'm searching for increased competitive advantages where speed of editing is one of them based on my original image.
Adobe now takes leadership and Affinity has to do some work here I guess. But like iphne today, not always the newest tehnology, but if they implement, it is more usefull, faster, better and more reliable than others.  

And n, I do not have concerns about my images being uploaded to Adobe servers.
If I had concerns, I would also have it when editing and syncing images with any cloud-based server for sharing.

I'm on version 2 already and have added my Photoshop subscription.
Thx Affinity for the great tool you made so far and the fast and effective editing I could do.
Now looking forward to your upgrades. 😉