AI generative Fill in Affinity

[Frozen Death Knight]

5 minutes ago, BofG said:

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.

AI is currently the wild west. Adobe are a bit more careful than other companies since they are using their own resources to build AI tools, but we won't know for sure how the wind will blow. Just look at the state of NFTs and how fast things changed in a year or two. Discussions around AI will evolve rapidly in the coming years.

[Frozen Death Knight]

20 minutes ago, CM0 said:

Yes, that is what I meant by a mix of AI and human. Nonetheless, it will still be unenforceable as nothing can be enforced that is not knowable. As AI gets better, it will make all IP protections irrelevant, not for just art, but for everything. As Google recently stated, there are no moats with AI.

Furthermore, you don't need copyright for commercial use. The major use cases for this is going to be in social media marketing and social media engagement vs directly selling art. In those instances it doesn't matter.

Companies take copyright very seriously. Just because some may get away with it now doesn't mean that they won't be discovered in the future. I already know of several big named companies in the gaming industry that refuse to work with AI because they are afraid of the legal ramifications. AI is for sure here to stay, but for now companies will stay away from it to protect themselves and their brands.

You are completely missing the point if you think copyright is not an issue for commercial companies. They want to own what they make to protect their business. If anyone can use your stuff then you will not be able to protect your source of income by being out-competed by look-alikes. That's the point of copyright. Imagine a scenario where you use AI to design a character for your next big blockbuster game. Now you have a design that anyone can put into their own stuff, including merchandise, royalties from other companies using the character in other media, etc. Sure, you can try and hide that you made it with AI, but once the truth is out there, it's out there. Now you lost ownership of a piece of your business.

That's why you can't use this argument and say that it doesn't matter. It does.

[CM0]

11 minutes ago, Frozen Death Knight said:

I already know of several big named companies in the gaming industry that refuse to work with AI because they are afraid of the legal ramifications

True, I don't disagree here. However, that will not stop its use as anyone can run models on their own hardware.

12 minutes ago, Frozen Death Knight said:

You are completely missing the point if you think copyright is not an issue for commercial companies. They want to own what they make to protect their business.

There isn't much to protect if you are making ads. Nobody want's to copy your ad and promote your product for you. There is also no incentive to copy your ad either since they can just generate one that is a better match for their own product. You still have trademark which is protected despite AI. So they can't copy your branding.

[albertkinng]

On 5/25/2023 at 6:32 PM, Campfool said:

I started with DrawPlus in the 90s and am still waiting on features.

Is it Affinity problem or yours? If I need a feature and the tool does not offer it, then I change my tool, buy a new tool or look for other alternatives. No offense but, you have wait to much time for results, 6 months is all you can wait to realize the tool is not for you.

[albertkinng]

This topic get lost in translation… now it’s an imitation of a Facebook group post.

[R C-R]

3 hours ago, CM0 said:

There isn't much to protect if you are making ads. Nobody want's to copy your ad and promote your product for you. There is also no incentive to copy your ad either since they can just generate one that is a better match for their own product. You still have trademark which is protected despite AI. So they can't copy your branding.

This is getting far off topic but there a lot of less than ethical companies in the world marketing knockoff lookalike of well established products, so there is at least some incentive for copying ads for the better known ones. AI could probably be used for that as well....

[albertkinng]

7 hours ago, Frozen Death Knight said:

The biggest hurdle that AI will have is the legality around using it for commercial work.

There has been discussion surrounding the compensation of artists, and it appears that they may soon receive the same payment as music artists do. If any of your artwork (or part of it) is utilized to create a generative image, you will receive compensation at a predetermined rate. Many businesses tend to stick to the same methods until they discover a more effective approach.

[albertkinng]

5 hours ago, BofG said:

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.

Well, it depends on how you see this tool. Some people use AI for inspiration and not to have a final commercial artwork. I'm not saying that it was Adobe's want you to do, just sharing another point of view about the use of AI in some artists.

[nezumi]

14 hours ago, CM0 said:

It is actually rather easy. You only need to modify the image and you have human created content.

I dare to say most "prompt artists" lacks such ability

13 hours ago, CM0 said:

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.

And how that suppose to work? Will they track every generated picture? How they will recognize what was done for commercial work and what just for fun? Also - how this would make sense financially? Will you watch advertisement before using generation option? Or they plan on just giving away money? In that case if I was the creator of original work used by Adobe I would make a prompt that is likely to bring my picture in and ask few friends to push that "generate" button couple times daily. Ka-ching! Picture generator turned into money generator  

On serious note - in makes no sense I dont believe it.

[spidermurph]

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.

[CM0]

3 hours ago, nezumi said:

On serious note - in makes no sense I dont believe it.

Most likely it will be implemented as a tax system. Some tiny portion of what you pay for generating images will go back to the authors of original works. I doubt you could game the system for any meaningful profit. Revenues will be tiny in proportion just as they already are for any media published on stock websites. Adobe isn't going to try to make anyone wealthy. They just want a marketing message so they don't look like the bad guys taking advantage of artists.

[R C-R]

3 hours ago, spidermurph said:

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.

I most certainly won't be. I have no use for it.

[CM0]

11 minutes ago, R C-R said:

I most certainly won't be. I have no use for it.

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.

[DigitalVisuals]

Well let me say to this theme, I use both together, text to art and afterwards editing and combine in Affinity photo. 
because the images you get the first a very low based, things are not really you want, so its to you as artist to get the picture you have in mind by yourself.

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, CM0 said:

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 quite sure I will know if I am making decisions myself or letting AI do that for me. AI has its place, just not for the things I do.

[albertkinng]

14 minutes ago, R C-R said:

I am quite sure I will know if I am making decisions myself

Do you? AI is used on this forum as well. It's the popular definition that's been labeled differently. You see, when you use the inpainting tool a basic AI is being used. AI has been in its full potential since 2001... but that's another topic.

[R C-R]

13 minutes ago, albertkinng said:

You see, when you use the inpainting tool a basic AI is being used.

Nope. In AP it uses well known algorithms based on textural & structural analysis of the pixel content that require no prior training or machine learning. There are of course 'deep learning' versions using neural network based analysis but they are not present in AP.

[CM0]

24 minutes ago, R C-R said:

I am quite sure I will know if I am making decisions myself or letting AI do that for me.

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.

[albertkinng]

3 minutes ago, R C-R said:

it uses well known algorithms based on textural & structural analysis

I can't explain to you what AI really is, but you did better than me.

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, albertkinng said:

I can't explain to you what AI really is, but you did better than me.

With respect to inpainting, there is more to it than just pixel-based analysis. If that was all it required then AP would do as good a job as apps like PS that do use AI techniques. But anyone who has used AP for this much knows it isn't that good.

[R C-R]

13 minutes ago, CM0 said:

I don't think anyone can make that statement with certainty anymore unless you conduct almost your entire business and social life offline.

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.

[nezumi]

@CM0 everything is possible, true. But it would never reflect the real usage of particular image, nobody knows how many times image was used worldwide, nobody tracks that - they probably just said so to calm down public. In society that mostly reads headlines there is little chance somebody will actually think about details (not talking about you just in general).

As for the AI - obviously when we are talking about "using AI" we mostly mean here generate picture or part of picture by AI, not some behind the scenes, obscure and involuntary kind of AI. Just like when people talk about using Linux they mean having it installed as system on their machine not some "ACTUALLY you are using Linux, because your toaster and fridge is powered by it not to mention servers you are connecting to when browsing internet" kind of thing

I personally could use some quick AI to erase something from the picture or expand it. Its not vital to my work, sometimes client asks me for some banner or other little thing to promote main thing we are working on. I much prefer my time and effort go to main product then promotional materials. So for quick background or something I could use it.

Once again - I really feel like AI tools mostly are done for general public to impress average joe who cant do much on his own. In 3D field I am waiting for years for some good auto-retopo. The closest we got is what ZBrush is offering. And its far from perfect, almost unusable for animation. Impress me there, make AI tool for that. Not some generative nonsense that will make a 3D blob with texture on it and call it a day. Make some AI for beautiful, automatic, straight and not stretched UVs - that will impress me. I will use it every day. Turning head on photo of a doggie... I mean come on. How to use that in production of something significant? Its good to replace  Fiverr $5 jobs, you can generate social media motivational or some virtue signaling thing but it has no use in serious work. Or hell, I dont know, I am 46 now, working all the time in the graphic related industry and I cant think of anything I could use that "oh so powerful generative AI" now. Nothing significant anyways just some annoying stuff that I have to do sometimes and just want it out of my sight as quickly as possible (promotional, social media things). And for that - cool, I'll take it. But its hardly a revolution now.

What is to come? We will see. I will not pretend I know the future - apparently nearly everybody now does I'll see where it goes. For now its in the realm of semi-helpful gimmick for me.

[CM0]

1 hour ago, nezumi said:

But it would never reflect the real usage of particular image, nobody knows how many times image was used worldwide, nobody tracks that - they probably just said so to calm down public.

Adobe can track it because it is their own data, their own model and you are using their platform to create the images. They will likely count a generation as a use.

1 hour ago, nezumi said:

For now its in the realm of semi-helpful gimmick for me.

Yes, this was my position throughout last year and early this year. I found it all completely unusable for any professional work. However, PS has made a big step forward beyond Midjourney. I spent several hours watching what people are doing with it over the weekend. When used for compositing work combining real stock photo and some manipulation you can do some very impressive work that can be far more specific than anything you would get from Midjourney. Furthermore, it seems to be able to mimic any style of your current document even if not trained on it. So you could paint your own creation and it could add to it in a convincing manner.

However, when I say good enough for professional work, I'm still constraining that mostly when used as a complementary tool for blending, photo manipulation etc. It seems to do some excellent work there. Like a super advanced clone, blend and object removal. Nevertheless, for those who do a lot of that type of work, it will likely convert hours into minutes or seconds of work.

Now for other media, like video, as you mention it currently is terrible. However, so were images just over a year ago. I suspect it will be very different a year from now.

[R C-R]

18 minutes ago, CM0 said:

Adobe can track it because it is their own data, their own model and you are using their platform to create the images. They will likely count a generation as a use.

So are you suggesting that users will be charged for each use?

[CM0]

23 minutes ago, R C-R said:

So are you suggesting that users will be charged for each use?

We don't know yet from where they will source the funds. It could be they just pool the funds from everyone's subscription fee and some portion is moved from there. We don't know if they will charge an extra fee for this service either. They might need to as it is not free or they might have to implement usage limits. It costs them for running the GPU's for the generations.