Stun Damage

Ethics and philosophy aside, most major game studios are currently updating their contracts to prohibit the use of generative AI. The film industry is sure to follow, if it hasn't already. I know this eludes techbros' hype bubble, but generated imagery is in copyright limbo. The law always lags a few years behind disruptive technology, and it is not at all clear yet where it's going to land (and there are already legal precedents of individuals being denied copyright of AI images).
All these images may end up in public domain, or even as property of the algorithm's creator, which would be even funnier. No sane company would risk its IP for a workflow speed-up that it doesn't really need in the first place (and believe me, they don't).
Generative fill seems like a more innocuous kind of AI, but it still constitutes whole portions of your image not being yours. You'd need to prove that your use of it is "transformative", as defined by law. That definition is vague, though, and too dated to cover AI use cases, so the extent of changes needed is unclear. Are a few adjustment layers on top considered "transformative"? A liquify? Good luck with that.
The point is, concentrating on AI would move Affinity away from pro concerns and more towards hobbyist territory.     

Please don't. What you seem to be requesting here is the kind of toyish one-click solution nonsense that almost killed Paintshop Pro a few years ago. You'd probably be surprised to learn that most working professionals and dedicated hobbyists are against this. Serious work involves control and precision; pixel-peeping, really. It's not about relying on some mythical algorithm to swap some faces or skies so your aunt can pat you on the head and exclaim that you sure know them computers. There are already quick and powerful ways to do selections in Affinity Photo and I'm sure that you're more than capable to learn them. And even if you just can't be bothered, there will always be apps like Luminar Neo or whatever. No need to request that higher-end software become something it was never meant to be.
Now, about so-called "AI"... Machine learning is not really AI, at least not in a meaningful sense. This is pure marketing speak, please don't fall for it. And look, machine learning has proven itself useful in some areas, most of them having something to do with reconstruction - denoising, upscale, temporal reconstruction in 3d rendering (DLSS, FSR 2). However, these are all things humans have never excelled at, stuff we've always been doing with algorithms. Computers are just better at pattern recognition, no question about that. What they can't replace, though, is the actual creative work people are doing with Photoshop or Affinity Photo. 
Now, should Serif develop some sophisticated machine-learned denoise algorithm? Well, they could, but why would they? There are already at least three great to amazing perpetual license options for that (DxO DeepPrime, Topaz Denoise, On1 NoNoise) and people in need of denoising already have one of these (hell, I have both DeepPrime and NoNoise. And Topaz is far from unaffordable, if I want to go for the overkill). And you see, none of these options are direct competitors to Serif. They can't replace a bitmap editor and two of them are actually available as plug-ins that people run directly from Affinity Photo. So, why enter late into a useless competition with DxO and Topaz and waste resources that you can put into developing your core product instead?

Ethics and philosophy aside, most major game studios are currently updating their contracts to prohibit the use of generative AI. The film industry is sure to follow, if it hasn't already. I know this eludes techbros' hype bubble, but generated imagery is in copyright limbo. The law always lags a few years behind disruptive technology, and it is not at all clear yet where it's going to land (and there are already legal precedents of individuals being denied copyright of AI images).
All these images may end up in public domain, or even as property of the algorithm's creator, which would be even funnier. No sane company would risk its IP for a workflow speed-up that it doesn't really need in the first place (and believe me, they don't).
Generative fill seems like a more innocuous kind of AI, but it still constitutes whole portions of your image not being yours. You'd need to prove that your use of it is "transformative", as defined by law. That definition is vague, though, and too dated to cover AI use cases, so the extent of changes needed is unclear. Are a few adjustment layers on top considered "transformative"? A liquify? Good luck with that.
The point is, concentrating on AI would move Affinity away from pro concerns and more towards hobbyist territory.     

Ethics and philosophy aside, most major game studios are currently updating their contracts to prohibit the use of generative AI. The film industry is sure to follow, if it hasn't already. I know this eludes techbros' hype bubble, but generated imagery is in copyright limbo. The law always lags a few years behind disruptive technology, and it is not at all clear yet where it's going to land (and there are already legal precedents of individuals being denied copyright of AI images).
All these images may end up in public domain, or even as property of the algorithm's creator, which would be even funnier. No sane company would risk its IP for a workflow speed-up that it doesn't really need in the first place (and believe me, they don't).
Generative fill seems like a more innocuous kind of AI, but it still constitutes whole portions of your image not being yours. You'd need to prove that your use of it is "transformative", as defined by law. That definition is vague, though, and too dated to cover AI use cases, so the extent of changes needed is unclear. Are a few adjustment layers on top considered "transformative"? A liquify? Good luck with that.
The point is, concentrating on AI would move Affinity away from pro concerns and more towards hobbyist territory.     

Ethics and philosophy aside, most major game studios are currently updating their contracts to prohibit the use of generative AI. The film industry is sure to follow, if it hasn't already. I know this eludes techbros' hype bubble, but generated imagery is in copyright limbo. The law always lags a few years behind disruptive technology, and it is not at all clear yet where it's going to land (and there are already legal precedents of individuals being denied copyright of AI images).
All these images may end up in public domain, or even as property of the algorithm's creator, which would be even funnier. No sane company would risk its IP for a workflow speed-up that it doesn't really need in the first place (and believe me, they don't).
Generative fill seems like a more innocuous kind of AI, but it still constitutes whole portions of your image not being yours. You'd need to prove that your use of it is "transformative", as defined by law. That definition is vague, though, and too dated to cover AI use cases, so the extent of changes needed is unclear. Are a few adjustment layers on top considered "transformative"? A liquify? Good luck with that.
The point is, concentrating on AI would move Affinity away from pro concerns and more towards hobbyist territory.     

Ethics and philosophy aside, most major game studios are currently updating their contracts to prohibit the use of generative AI. The film industry is sure to follow, if it hasn't already. I know this eludes techbros' hype bubble, but generated imagery is in copyright limbo. The law always lags a few years behind disruptive technology, and it is not at all clear yet where it's going to land (and there are already legal precedents of individuals being denied copyright of AI images).
All these images may end up in public domain, or even as property of the algorithm's creator, which would be even funnier. No sane company would risk its IP for a workflow speed-up that it doesn't really need in the first place (and believe me, they don't).
Generative fill seems like a more innocuous kind of AI, but it still constitutes whole portions of your image not being yours. You'd need to prove that your use of it is "transformative", as defined by law. That definition is vague, though, and too dated to cover AI use cases, so the extent of changes needed is unclear. Are a few adjustment layers on top considered "transformative"? A liquify? Good luck with that.
The point is, concentrating on AI would move Affinity away from pro concerns and more towards hobbyist territory.     

Since the lens in question is a zoom (not fixed/single focus), you would have to do this for all focal lengths. Then, according to the specific photo (focal length used), apply the measured correction parameters of the relevant focal length. That's quite a lot of work 🙂

Every artist I know and follow is ardently against generative AI. There are serious ethical concerns in how Adobe and others have obtained the data, as well as legal ambiguity that leans toward being unable to copyright the resulting images.
 
It's gotten to the point that digital artists who grew up on Adobe products are boycotting them completely now. And a lot of those artists are picking up Serif's products to fill that hole. I've personally been recommending the products solely because they don't support AI image generators. This is a serious issue for creatives and it absolutely drives the decision to purchase Serif's products.
 
Even ignoring the Ethical and potential legal issues, it just makes sense for Serif to differentiate itself from the competition hy giving artists what they want-- a program that doesn't actively promote theft.
 
All the crypto/nft/AI grifters can get their  image generators elsewhere. Please keep it away from one of the few good alternatives to Adobe.

Ethics and philosophy aside, most major game studios are currently updating their contracts to prohibit the use of generative AI. The film industry is sure to follow, if it hasn't already. I know this eludes techbros' hype bubble, but generated imagery is in copyright limbo. The law always lags a few years behind disruptive technology, and it is not at all clear yet where it's going to land (and there are already legal precedents of individuals being denied copyright of AI images).
All these images may end up in public domain, or even as property of the algorithm's creator, which would be even funnier. No sane company would risk its IP for a workflow speed-up that it doesn't really need in the first place (and believe me, they don't).
Generative fill seems like a more innocuous kind of AI, but it still constitutes whole portions of your image not being yours. You'd need to prove that your use of it is "transformative", as defined by law. That definition is vague, though, and too dated to cover AI use cases, so the extent of changes needed is unclear. Are a few adjustment layers on top considered "transformative"? A liquify? Good luck with that.
The point is, concentrating on AI would move Affinity away from pro concerns and more towards hobbyist territory.     

Ethics and philosophy aside, most major game studios are currently updating their contracts to prohibit the use of generative AI. The film industry is sure to follow, if it hasn't already. I know this eludes techbros' hype bubble, but generated imagery is in copyright limbo. The law always lags a few years behind disruptive technology, and it is not at all clear yet where it's going to land (and there are already legal precedents of individuals being denied copyright of AI images).
All these images may end up in public domain, or even as property of the algorithm's creator, which would be even funnier. No sane company would risk its IP for a workflow speed-up that it doesn't really need in the first place (and believe me, they don't).
Generative fill seems like a more innocuous kind of AI, but it still constitutes whole portions of your image not being yours. You'd need to prove that your use of it is "transformative", as defined by law. That definition is vague, though, and too dated to cover AI use cases, so the extent of changes needed is unclear. Are a few adjustment layers on top considered "transformative"? A liquify? Good luck with that.
The point is, concentrating on AI would move Affinity away from pro concerns and more towards hobbyist territory.     

Ethics and philosophy aside, most major game studios are currently updating their contracts to prohibit the use of generative AI. The film industry is sure to follow, if it hasn't already. I know this eludes techbros' hype bubble, but generated imagery is in copyright limbo. The law always lags a few years behind disruptive technology, and it is not at all clear yet where it's going to land (and there are already legal precedents of individuals being denied copyright of AI images).
All these images may end up in public domain, or even as property of the algorithm's creator, which would be even funnier. No sane company would risk its IP for a workflow speed-up that it doesn't really need in the first place (and believe me, they don't).
Generative fill seems like a more innocuous kind of AI, but it still constitutes whole portions of your image not being yours. You'd need to prove that your use of it is "transformative", as defined by law. That definition is vague, though, and too dated to cover AI use cases, so the extent of changes needed is unclear. Are a few adjustment layers on top considered "transformative"? A liquify? Good luck with that.
The point is, concentrating on AI would move Affinity away from pro concerns and more towards hobbyist territory.     

Ethics and philosophy aside, most major game studios are currently updating their contracts to prohibit the use of generative AI. The film industry is sure to follow, if it hasn't already. I know this eludes techbros' hype bubble, but generated imagery is in copyright limbo. The law always lags a few years behind disruptive technology, and it is not at all clear yet where it's going to land (and there are already legal precedents of individuals being denied copyright of AI images).
All these images may end up in public domain, or even as property of the algorithm's creator, which would be even funnier. No sane company would risk its IP for a workflow speed-up that it doesn't really need in the first place (and believe me, they don't).
Generative fill seems like a more innocuous kind of AI, but it still constitutes whole portions of your image not being yours. You'd need to prove that your use of it is "transformative", as defined by law. That definition is vague, though, and too dated to cover AI use cases, so the extent of changes needed is unclear. Are a few adjustment layers on top considered "transformative"? A liquify? Good luck with that.
The point is, concentrating on AI would move Affinity away from pro concerns and more towards hobbyist territory.     

I am old enough to use cameras with film also. I still have two old russian Cmena's, old Minolta and Zenit cameras. Digital cameras didnt made my head spin. Prices of decent camera did the trick
AI is not making my head spin either. Quite contrary. Maybe because I worked on the computer all my life starting with ZX spectrum and C64 ages ago? So all the new things I take with a pinch of salt and dont join the hysteria every time something new appears? Dont want to sound rude but when it comes to so called AI people behave like some sort of primitive tribe looking at TV for the first time, amazed how all these small people entered this box 😮 . 
I wonder from where comes this absolute confidence that this technology will quickly develop into something AMAZING. So many examples of tech that was really promising in early days and then its development plateaued or even completely crashed. Remember the revolutionary, game changing movement sensor Kinect? "You are the controller!". Nothing will be the same again! Well... Or beginning of VR - soon nobody will use monitor! Everything VR! It is around, still developing, maybe one day will be more popular. But it certainly didnt took over in many years. How about self driving cars? So many news, future is here! Well, not really yet, but soon! You will see! That takes long enough too, doesnt it? Turns out its not that easy as we thought it might be.
Recently I read that first 3D scanners were made in the... 60s. I dont even know what purpose it could serve back in a day where computers didnt even had... screen. 60 YEARS later 3d modelers still have jobs. Adobe is praised now for its forward thinking with its AI tools. It took about 30 YEARS to implement in Photoshop something as simple as symmetry - tool that was present in Deluxe Paint made in 80s. Forgive me if I am not joining the chant about how great that company is
I am not against technology (clearly, my everyday work depends on it), I do not afraid of it or anything like that. But sorry - I am not easily impressed by random picture showing up inside of selection... I would absolutely LOVE to see the end of retopologizing 3D objects by hand. Do that, o great AI. Make retopology obsolete, please. And while youre at it do the same with UVs. I will be the most progressive, forward thinking AI supporter then.
But spitting the image...?
I can only quote Shania Twain and say "that don't impress me much"

I often feel that people want this AI for sake of having something new because others are using it
Video with dude generating fox and bird... Fox that is generated is not some specific species of fox that inhabits that specific region on the photo. Its mashed up, non existing, sort of fox looking creature. Pseudo falcon (because its shape looks nothing like falcon...) generated by AI is generated in completely wrong perspective to the photo. Its made from photos that are shot when bird was flying directly over the photographer - makes ZERO sense in that particular photo and looks awful. Unless that bird was starting vertically like a rocket  
Same as the elk on the street in Adobes presentation that is WAY too small. Its a travesty, a photographic equivalent to 5 YO drawing. Not specific, generic shapes roughly connected to the subject. So called AI has no idea about specifics - but for what I see (sadly) people who are using it neither. Dude generating different glasses on his face seems to not care that AI generates completely different eyebrows too... At some point, if you generate enough elements it isn't your picture anymore but some Frankenstein monster put together...
Example with photo of construction worker looking at the ship... It looks exactly like quickly slapped person from another photo with little to none effort to match lighting... In Affinity Photo took me under minute to match it bit more.. "But you have the base quicker!". Maybe - maybe not. Because with AI you have no idea what will show up. Maybe you will be clicking half day and nothing matches. Depends on your luck really.
Majority of this AI things looks like could be helpful but in the end its bit better content aware fill with image search inside of your software. Hardly something revolutionary to the level people describe it. Unless you are making things that can consist of kind-of, sort-of, not very specific, not very detailed stuff. Like that pseudo fox and pseudo falcon on the desert. Stuff that I was making as a young lad playing with Photoshop 3.0 ages ago.

Hi WMax70,
There are no plans for this at present.
Lee

Unfortunately, I do not understand the meaning of your response in the context of the quote from my post. I really don't see the relationship between "losing customers" and the mentioned "UI".
 
P.S. I will also add my opinion about the loss of customers when switching to one all-in application, which will be unnecessarily expensive for many - why should they pay 3x as much when they only need to edit photos, i.e. no drawing (they also have a basis in APhoto) and no text functions (they also have a basis in APhoto), and unnecessarily complicated. Today, they buy one app that fits their needs and wallet exactly. After a certain period of use, they will find that drawing could actually be useful for them (after all, ADesigner is more handy for drawing), the applications understand each other (full file compatibility), they are already familiar with the controls, and other costs will somehow dissolve (it is not a one-time higher investment, and they are buying another function for which they are happy to pay something extra). The same, for example, with APublisher. So in the end they buy two/three apps one by one (they let themselves be lured into another by using one), which they would never do with an expensive all-in, and prefer to buy another simple photo/draw/text app they just need.

For the most part, I’ve resisted putting my 2 cents into this argument, but I think my view on this might be shared by others.
1) I would love it if Affinity Photo would simplify my editing with commands like Select Sky, Select Subject, and so forth. Call it AI; call it machine learning – that’s just semantics. It takes the drudgery out of my editing by automating (and speeding) the process. I’m all for that.
2) Automated selection of photo elements (like those involved in automatic sky substitution) almost always get things close, but not close enough. They always seem to need fiddling with after the fact. And that takes the amazement out of it really quickly. I bought a copy of Luminar AI because of these types of features, and fell out of love with it within days (or was it hours?)
3) I have no particular beef with AI-generated art, even though I have no real interest in pursuing it. For me telling a piece of software “show me a purple cat hanging off the Eiffel Tower” or anything similar is just silly beyond words. I’m willing to call this kind of thing art, but there comes a point where it’s no longer reasonable to call it photography.
4) Given the size-related issues associated with being a relatively small company (specifically, Serif when compared to Adobe) it seems much more reasonable to introduce any truly AI-related features by means of scripting and the associated software hooks that might allow users to create panels and so forth. Add-ins like this would presumably not rob Serif of precious resources, but would make features accessible to those who want them.
5) I would be among those who are happiest if Affinity Photo remained a “photo editing software” application, and avoided becoming an “AI art generator.” Whether this is an “old school” attitude or not, I suspect it is an opinion held by many (though obviously not by all).

See, my reaction is that this crap is yet another reason to use Affinity products instead.
 

The use of AI to create (as opposed to manipulate) images is intriguing, but until the rights issues are actually sorted out, it's more for hobbyists and personal use than commercial use.  If I take a photo or draw an illustration or otherwise create an image, that is mine (unless it was a work for hire or something) to do with as I please.  I can sell prints, mugs, t-shirts, etc.  I can use it on a book cover or license it to a stock image site.
Similarly, if I need an image of a cup of coffee, and cannot create it myself, I can hire someone to do it or license an image from a stock image site.  In those cases, there would be some agreement covering what I can and cannot do with the image.  For example, I may only need it to use in a magazine article or blog post to accompany an article about coffee drinking.  If I want to sell mugs with the image, I will likely need a separate (and more expensive) license.  Regardless, all those are things that can be worked out because the original artist holds the copyright and they can license it to me or a stock image site who in turn can license it to me and so on.
But with AI generated art, at the moment, there is no clarity.  If the AI has "studied" copyrighted images, is the result a derivative work?  Who can copyright an AI generated image?  Can it be protected by copyright?  If so, if someone else generates a similar image to what you have already copyrighted, can you prevent them from using it?  There are no answers right now which limits how you might want to use such an image.  To accompany a blog post, maybe it's okay, but if you need to be able to own or otherwise control the art, it's not usable right now.
And, if it's not commercially usable, Serif probably shouldn't waste time adding it because who knows which way the rights will be legally defined in the future.  The future rights decisions may make it a feature few people will want to use.  For the same reason, while there are some good reasons for an API or SDK to be available, this is not yet one of them, IMHO.

Utter revulsion aside, I just don't understand the point.
We already have humans. Minor flaws aside, I think we're pretty remarkable.

It will get better, but I consider that irrelevant.
You can come up with 50 billion analogies about other inventions, and they all collapse at the same point: human have a need for the arts (both creating and enjoying it).
Having a machine create "art" is totally unclear on the concept, even if it can produce some interesting things at times.
I have less utter disdain for the whole concept than I did at first, because there are creative uses for it (for example creating backgrounds). But it will never be art, no matter how hard you struggle to compare the process.
Shorter version: I don't give a FF about it. No AI can do what I do, and it's not something I'll ever use - whether it's visual art, music, or anything else.

Few years ago I was super exited  about AI .  Hoped it could help to get rid of  lots  of annoying  routine.  Would make human interaction with a computer much more  simple and let us focus on creative tasks. 
Nothing of this have happened since.    I admit AI  perhaps succeeded in a few very narrow tasks  like coloring b&w images  and de-noising   but mostly AI is a few  useless toys , not helping a bit.   In many cases it rather annoying   like AI selection  always selecting something  you don't need really .      Same with AI usage in other  fields of  computer generated graphic:  AI LODs , AI unwraps , AI  3d modelling     etc   where it's often stupid like a rock  and  also rather annoy you than helps.    Pretty much like  AI  support in your bank.
 
My impression  it will take hundreds of years  till we get any helpful AI  really  and it  dangers only those kinds of jobs where  you couldn't stress  your own brain at all.   You indeed  should get rid of such job asap .      Including  some   brainless art generation tasks.   Like those where you could call anything an art and that in fact was just a happy and fan random canvas smearing or random photo or fonts compositing .    
 
    When it comes to something  where a good taste,  a good sense of nuances , something of a true inventive  nature like  3d animation,   video games  and movie graphics,   fashion and costume design,  something with clear understandable  criteria where you have to find a way to overcome limitations ,  any field where you should solve unsolvable  and   hopeless tasks  and nobody but you could invent how to do it ,  in such fields  AI  is still  totally useless and been a huge disappointment during last decade. 
 
Any content  creation  software  is  still tremendously  inconvenient  and a huge pain in your ass to use ,  and at the same time not that flexible at all.   It all looks like  mad scientist nightmare ,  totally artist unfriendly   , illogical   and  over-complicated.     The adjective "convenient"  next to "software" still  sounds like dry water , an oxymoron  basically .        I wish developers would focus on this issue first.   
 
 
 
 
 
 

Please don't. What you seem to be requesting here is the kind of toyish one-click solution nonsense that almost killed Paintshop Pro a few years ago. You'd probably be surprised to learn that most working professionals and dedicated hobbyists are against this. Serious work involves control and precision; pixel-peeping, really. It's not about relying on some mythical algorithm to swap some faces or skies so your aunt can pat you on the head and exclaim that you sure know them computers. There are already quick and powerful ways to do selections in Affinity Photo and I'm sure that you're more than capable to learn them. And even if you just can't be bothered, there will always be apps like Luminar Neo or whatever. No need to request that higher-end software become something it was never meant to be.
Now, about so-called "AI"... Machine learning is not really AI, at least not in a meaningful sense. This is pure marketing speak, please don't fall for it. And look, machine learning has proven itself useful in some areas, most of them having something to do with reconstruction - denoising, upscale, temporal reconstruction in 3d rendering (DLSS, FSR 2). However, these are all things humans have never excelled at, stuff we've always been doing with algorithms. Computers are just better at pattern recognition, no question about that. What they can't replace, though, is the actual creative work people are doing with Photoshop or Affinity Photo. 
Now, should Serif develop some sophisticated machine-learned denoise algorithm? Well, they could, but why would they? There are already at least three great to amazing perpetual license options for that (DxO DeepPrime, Topaz Denoise, On1 NoNoise) and people in need of denoising already have one of these (hell, I have both DeepPrime and NoNoise. And Topaz is far from unaffordable, if I want to go for the overkill). And you see, none of these options are direct competitors to Serif. They can't replace a bitmap editor and two of them are actually available as plug-ins that people run directly from Affinity Photo. So, why enter late into a useless competition with DxO and Topaz and waste resources that you can put into developing your core product instead?

I think people are looking at pricing the wrong way. The 40% discount is super generous, more generous than a lot of upgrade pricing from other companies. They didn’t have a way to make it available to only V1 customers, so they made it available to everyone. So what's the problem? Everybody wins!
And for those who recently purchased V1. Yes, that does sting. But it takes 5 seconds of searching to see that Serif always give their best prices in their November event. They have done this for the last 5 years. And 5 seconds of searching shows that there hasn't been any new beta for over a year, which is a good sign that a new version was coming. So if getting a good price was important, then it doesn't seem wise to buy until November, which is when V2 became available.