AI picture generators urgently required

[PaulEC]

1 hour ago, dcr said:

And now people want Serif to incorporate AI tools that require a subscription into their software? 

I suspect that most of the people who want AI tools added to Affinity will expect them to be included without any increase in price or a subscription!

Going back to the title of this thread, IMHO, the only people who 

[nickbatz]

1 minute ago, PaulEC said:

I suspect that most of the people who want AI tools added to Affinity will expect them to be included without any increase in price or a subscription!

I'd pay money to keep it TF out of Affinity Photo!

Well, it's image generation I hate. Tools that improve with machine learning are another matter.

[PaulEC]

46 minutes ago, nickbatz said:

Well, it's image generation I hate. Tools that improve with machine learning are another matter.

I have no problem with (in fact I’d welcome) AI / machine learning that helps me improve my own images and workflow. My problem is with people who only want AI so that they can use other peoples artwork and claim it as their own!

Going back to the title of this thread, IMHO, the only people who “urgently require” AI generated images are those without the talent to create their own artwork! Rather than using AI, I would suggest that these people either learn how to produce their own artwork, or pay for other peoples artwork that they want to make use of!

[Twolane]

@ Red Sands: With all of those complaints, it is obvious you no longer use the software, if you ever did. On the other hand, most of us put it to good use on a daily basis and are quite happy to have it.

For those wanting AI generators, there are all kinds of them covered here: https://www.youtube.com/@OlivioSarikas

[PaulEC]

It is strange that certain people do nothing but complain about Affinity software and constantly compare it unfavourably with other software, yet they don’t simply stop using Affinity and use the other software, which they think is so much better! 🤔

[pixelstuff]

8 minutes ago, PaulEC said:

It is strange that certain people do nothing but complain about Affinity software and constantly compare it unfavourably with other software, yet they don’t simply stop using Affinity and use the other software, which they think is so much better! 🤔

There's actually nothing strange about that.

[nickbatz]

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

All corporate BS talk translated into English means people lose their livelihood.

Example: "Designed to work as a co-pilot for users to streamline their creativity."

Imagine thinking this steaming pile of goat custards is creative in the first place.

[dcr]

19 hours ago, PaulEC said:

I have no problem with (in fact I’d welcome) AI / machine learning that helps me improve my own images and workflow. My problem is with people who only want AI so that they can use other peoples artwork and claim it as their own!

Where do you draw the line?  (No pun intended.)

Let's say I draw a bird on a perch in a cage with an open door.

Then, I ask the "AI" tool to make the feathering on the bird more realistic.  Is that okay?

If I ask the tool to make the bird's eyes sparkle more, is that okay?

If I ask the tool to make the perch less artificial and man-made and more like a tree branch that was cut and put inside the cage, is that okay?

If I ask the tool to make the cage less modern and more Victorian, is that okay?

At what point is it becoming less improving on your own image and more generating something that's not yours?

If the end result of the above is the same as telling the tool to generate an image of a bird on a tree branch perch in a Victorian cage, where is the difference?

Or, would it be more acceptable if the AI was limited to only utilizing images that you created?  That is, you sketch a bird.  Then you point the "AI" tool to a folder containing all the images of birds you've either drawn or photographed and ask it to make the feathering more realistic.  And then the tool relies only on work you yourself have created in order to add realistic feathering to the bird you sketched.  Likewise for the perch and cage and whatever else.  That way, the only "learning" it does is based on your own work.

[PaulEC]

I think how much you change your own artwork with AI is up to the individual. What I object to is using other peoples artwork, then claiming it as your own because you’ve used AI on it!

[ffrm]

A subscription is not required to generate AI content.

For example, https://stablehorde.net/ provides a cluster of servers that anyone can use, for free.  They have REST APIs described on that page.

A lot of the more technically minded folks would probably prefer directly invoking their local stable diffusion instances, which have plugins to expose the services as APIs.  

Basically, these services are available for easy integration at the HTTP level.  They are practically begging to be used.

Beyond generative AI, also worth noting are tools like Facebooks Segment Anything which can - select anything.  https://segment-anything.com/  

The digital art landscape shift is absolutely tectonic, and its as easy to integrate as an HTTP call.  Again, let the community do the work!  We just need the door opened.

[nickbatz]

18 minutes ago, ffrm said:

The digital art landscape shift is absolutely tectonic

It's not art, and there's way too much hyperbole surrounding this crap.

Also, using the word "community" in this context is pure Orwellian doublespeak.

[drstreit]

"Its not Art"? The intention of the human using it is the Art - computer are dump - but powerful.

Have a look at this video: https://s23.q4cdn.com/979560357/files/doc_news/videos/Adobe-Photoshop-x-Firefly_Sizzle.mp4

Art? No. Powerful, time saving, soul crushing for everybody using a tool that does not offer it soon? YES!

[RobWu]

12 hours ago, nickbatz said:

It's not art, and there's way too much hyperbole surrounding this crap.

Also, using the word "community" in this context is pure Orwellian doublespeak.

Yes... You made it clear you hate AI....... 🤷‍♂️
But you can hold your breath until you see blue in the face, but that will not change things.

For some of us it will just be another tool to do the work, or crank out several variations quickly. For others it will become a huge threat to their work.
This AI thing is in 'avalanche mode' atm, and unless governments will put a full stop on this, we ALL will face some consequences work wise.

You can already generate all kinds of written content, blogs, social media posts, create stock footage, imagery, videos, website and logo design, concept art etc. etc.

Companies will see the financial benefits of this, and will start using AI to cut down on cost, and move through certain tasks way quicker.

Anyone who thinks AI will not be influencing them are very naive, of very much sticking fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalalalala...'

[ader]

This was an insightful post. I'm curious to see how affinity photography is evolving as AI takes over the world.

[nickbatz]

5 hours ago, RobWu said:

But you can hold your breath until you see blue in the face, but that will not change things.

It will absolutely change things if only artists would stop hyping this crap and focus on educating our audience.

The biggest danger is that this will further dumb down people's concept of what art is - and I mean all the arts, not just fine art.

My response is what I was already doing: to produce art that no robot could possibly imitate. And you know what? Affinity Photo makes that very possible!

3 hours ago, ader said:

This was an insightful post.

Yes, so deep.

6 hours ago, RobWu said:

Anyone who thinks AI will not be influencing them are very naive, of very much sticking fingers in their ears and go "lalalalalalalala...'

Actually, anyone who thinks this is all over and we should just lie down and turn over the soul of humanity to a bunch of self-stimulating tech bros is sticking their fingers... never mind.

[nickbatz]

9 hours ago, drstreit said:

"Its not Art"? The intention of the human using it is the Art - computer are dump - but powerful.

 

Art is expression. This is the opposite of that.

[u84six]

19 hours ago, nickbatz said:

It's not art, and there's way too much hyperbole surrounding this crap.

Also, using the word "community" in this context is pure Orwellian doublespeak.

Have you seen the latest PS beta with AI supported generative fill? Wow! How in hell will any company compete with that without adding their own version of it? It actually does a better job than if you did it manually, and it's a task that photo editors do all the time 😀

[nickbatz]

15 hours ago, RobWu said:

Yes... You made it clear you hate AI....... 🤷‍♂️

Ah, good. I wasn't sure I'd expressed that enough times yet.

[deepz]

12 hours ago, u84six said:

Have you seen the latest PS beta with AI supported generative fill?

Signed up for the beta and finally tried it yesterday.

It can generate "a pointy clowns hat", but it can't generate "a japanese eboshi hat in the style of Hiroshige"

To me, it feels like searching and adding clip-art. It doesn't feel like a generative AI at all.
Having said that, I love the effort and initiative, and as it stands now, I'm sure they'll get there first.

I fear that it will take another 2 year for Affinity to catch up. And I guess most of us (not you, nickbatz) are just worried about this scenario. We don't want to switch back to Adobe. I really love Affinity (... in the same way that I loved Macromedia Fireworks, a long time ago.)

Edited May 25, 2023 by deepz

[RobWu]

2 hours ago, nickbatz said:

Ah, good. I wasn't sure I'd expressed that enough times yet.

Dude, you made your point.......

But denying this will not have an impact on things is just silly. Like @u84six said about the new Photoshop AI driven tools, it's going to be disruptive.
It's not you thinking this AI thing is all nonsense, it's companies expecting you to start doing the work in 30% of the time because they saw the demos too.
Or get their own copy of PS, because photo editing starts to become down to their 'level'.

I already had conversations with lots of people ranging from text writers, web designers, 3d artists, photographers and editors. And they are all worried.
Not that AI will take over their work, but it will be expected to do the work in less time. Hence, less income and more stress.
Also, lots of clients will go for 'good enough', and that's where AI is getting better and better at. Looking at the latest iterations of Dall-E or Midjourney just shows that.
And when tools like ChatGPT get access to the web, this will also go faster.

I understand 'art' for a lot of people means made by humans.
But what if the casual viewer cannot tell it's done by a real person or a complex set of rules in a software program. Is the image less interesting or beautiful?
Unfortunately most of us are creating art for a living, and AI will have a impact on our income for sure.
Go with the flow, don't try to swim against the current..

[thomasbricker]

Hi folks, not only is AI built into Photoshop at this point. (using firefly ) But Adobe has announced that firefly will be generating images within googles bard. So I think it’s not a matter of if affinity photo will have a I. It’s simply a matter of when.

[pixelstuff]

8 hours ago, RobWu said:

I understand 'art' for a lot of people means made by humans.

One aspect to this is that probably 99% of the art generated on a daily basis today is more functional that it is artistic. Things that are used in advertising that gets used once and thrown away. A.I. will probably make that kind of utilitarian art much easier. Hopefully it doesn't make the web look significantly worse.

[nickbatz]

10 hours ago, RobWu said:

Dude, you made your point.......

So did you, but mine is much more important.

[nickbatz]

22 hours ago, u84six said:

Have you seen the latest PS beta with AI supported generative fill? Wow! How in hell will any company compete with that without adding their own version of it? It actually does a better job than if you did it manually, and it's a task that photo editors do all the time 😀

Remember, "AI" is used to sell all kinds of things that aren't really AI.

[nickbatz]

2 hours ago, pixelstuff said:

One aspect to this is that probably 99% of the art generated on a daily basis today is more functional that it is artistic. Things that are used in advertising that gets used once and thrown away. A.I. will probably make that kind of utilitarian art much easier. Hopefully it doesn't make the web look significantly worse.

Of course, but advertising is a reflection of culture - very consciously.

For example, New Wave music was totally rebellious when it came out in the late '70s/early '80s. ** It was only a matter of months before it was used in advertising jingles (remember those?) by very conservative companies.

We're really talking about two things: machine learning features like the one above, and pushing a button and calling it art. There's nothing wrong with using Midjourney backdrops for photos, for example - creative uses. It's when it substitutes for human expression that's so awful.

 

** Actually New Wave was probably a softer evolution of punk, but I think my point is still clear.