How close do you think it is to creatingexactly what you want without having to use design skills?
I've always found with anything that automates (and throws me into a job-loss panic) that it can get 70% of the way there, which is enough for a lot of people and so does lose work. However, if anyone wants to make changes to fix or improve things, you still need a person with higher-end skills to do so.
In the case of AI art, I can see it making retouching a far easier job, but reckon you'll always be able to play spot-the-mistakes for anything bigger (which is a fun game I enjoy playing with AI pictures and wish I could find a workable format to code it up).
(I've always found with anything that automates (and throws me into a job-loss panic) that it can get 70% of the way there, which is enough for a lot of people and so does lose work. However, if anyone wants to make changes to fix or improve things, you still need a person with higher-end skills to do so.
In the case of AI art, I can see it making retouching a far easier job, but reckon you'll always be able to play spot-the-mistakes for anything bigger (which is a fun game I enjoy playing with AI pictures and wish I could find a workable format to code it up).
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 3 Dec 2023, 14:13,
archived)
I honestly find this stuff fascinating. 
mofaha โ( ห_ห)โ ส
(ฬโกโ)ส,
Sun 3 Dec 2023, 16:12,
archived)
I haven't used it in such a precise way, I use it more like a game or a toy, just mess around with it and see what happens. Inpainting is different though, it's already a simple thing that works well most of the time. It's going to be a compliment to existing tools initially, but it will make them redundant eventually, I think that's inevitable. How soon is more a function of the market than the capabilities of the software I think.
( mofaha โ( ห_ห)โ ส
(ฬโกโ)ส,
Sun 3 Dec 2023, 16:07,
archived)
I'd question the redundancy being inevitable.It's really impressive technically, but when there's errors in your input data, I don't get how it can't ever not have some errors in the output. That final leap to it understanding aesthetics seems massive.
I've kept an eye on what ChatGPT is like at coding, and when I've experimented with that, you ask it to fix one thing and it breaks two others.
I suspect we'll just end up with a lot of slightly broken things, and less people to fix them. But, yeah, it can be fun toy as it stands.
(I've kept an eye on what ChatGPT is like at coding, and when I've experimented with that, you ask it to fix one thing and it breaks two others.
I suspect we'll just end up with a lot of slightly broken things, and less people to fix them. But, yeah, it can be fun toy as it stands.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 3 Dec 2023, 16:33,
archived)
The answer to your first point is, basically all current public standard diffusion models are built on huge datasets that are riddled with garbage and noise.Companies like Adobe can easily develop proprietary datasets consisting solely of decent, well-tagged images, something which has reportedly already been shown to hugely improve results just as things stand.
But I don't really see Adobe being at the forefront of AI image generation (and in fact they have a stock image portfolio to protect). I see it more likely to be adopting AI for things like filters and retouching.
For most uses, inpainting AI could already do away with the need for most of the specialized selection tools in Photoshop. Inpainting 'selection' involves painting very roughly over the whole area you want to change, deliberately going over the edges of the area. Enter the right prompt and it will only change the parts you specify, "different hat", that sort of thing. Again, the current datasets are full of garbage, the implementations are experimental, but it already all works pretty well. Adobe and others can do so much better.
I think ChatGPT's coding (in)ability is a great example of what commercial AI currently can and can't do. I've spent a lot of time on ChatGPT and to me it feels like spending some fun time skipping from one subject to another on Wikipedia, except it's edited by pathological liars. Conversationally, it's amusingly good/bad. In terms of factual accuracy though, it's a joke. So it's not a surprise that when it comes to something as unforgiving as code, it's basically useless most of the time.
The same is true if you look critically at the output of text-to-image applications, especially if you use artist names. It may accurately reproduce some aspects of an artists style, but it may also produce something historically linked to the artist which has no visible bearing at all on their actual work. But it's a picture, and if it's nice to look at, suddenly the rest isn't very important to most people. It's a hugely forgiving application of AI, which is why I think it's more likely to be immediately useful just as it is.
(But I don't really see Adobe being at the forefront of AI image generation (and in fact they have a stock image portfolio to protect). I see it more likely to be adopting AI for things like filters and retouching.
For most uses, inpainting AI could already do away with the need for most of the specialized selection tools in Photoshop. Inpainting 'selection' involves painting very roughly over the whole area you want to change, deliberately going over the edges of the area. Enter the right prompt and it will only change the parts you specify, "different hat", that sort of thing. Again, the current datasets are full of garbage, the implementations are experimental, but it already all works pretty well. Adobe and others can do so much better.
I think ChatGPT's coding (in)ability is a great example of what commercial AI currently can and can't do. I've spent a lot of time on ChatGPT and to me it feels like spending some fun time skipping from one subject to another on Wikipedia, except it's edited by pathological liars. Conversationally, it's amusingly good/bad. In terms of factual accuracy though, it's a joke. So it's not a surprise that when it comes to something as unforgiving as code, it's basically useless most of the time.
The same is true if you look critically at the output of text-to-image applications, especially if you use artist names. It may accurately reproduce some aspects of an artists style, but it may also produce something historically linked to the artist which has no visible bearing at all on their actual work. But it's a picture, and if it's nice to look at, suddenly the rest isn't very important to most people. It's a hugely forgiving application of AI, which is why I think it's more likely to be immediately useful just as it is.
mofaha โ( ห_ห)โ ส
(ฬโกโ)ส,
Sun 3 Dec 2023, 18:01,
archived)
Thing is,a lot of code is being written by people who barely understand what they're doing and just glue stuff from GitHub together with stuff found on StackOverflow...hence all the bloated, insecure crap that passes as apps these days.
Using ChatGPT to produce code isn't much different...
(Using ChatGPT to produce code isn't much different...
Happosai _,,,,_(O ; o)_,,,,
Sun 3 Dec 2023, 18:18,
archived)
ChatGPT is actually partly getting its data from exactly the sort of things you just described It's puking up garbage it's been fed a lot of the time.
( mofaha โ( ห_ห)โ ส
(ฬโกโ)ส,
Sun 3 Dec 2023, 18:34,
archived)
That's exactly my point...Shit code's being created either way, with the attitude that whatever doesn't get caught at the testing phase can always be fixed in an update...
( Happosai _,,,,_(O ; o)_,,,,
Sun 3 Dec 2023, 18:41,
archived)
Stack Overflow can be great if you take the time toread through and understand the threads / learn to write a good question.
ChatGPT is googling it for you, with no thought for what happens if the parasite kills the host and no new questions get created on Stack Overflow for it to read on your behalf. And no uber-nerds to correct it on giving a bad answer.
(ChatGPT is googling it for you, with no thought for what happens if the parasite kills the host and no new questions get created on Stack Overflow for it to read on your behalf. And no uber-nerds to correct it on giving a bad answer.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 3 Dec 2023, 22:47,
archived)
I'm not dissing SO...I've found answers to problems on there (although I've often had to filter out a lot of crap), but some people use it like those homework cheating websites, whilst being paid to supposedly know what they're doing.
( Happosai _,,,,_(O ; o)_,,,,
Sun 3 Dec 2023, 23:05,
archived)
I use it as a toy as well but I have used it on occasion in photoshop to fix missing edges and clothing in photos that hade been cropped in too far and it did a brilliant job but from what I can see its fairly limited as sometimes it made a complete bollox of something fairly simple that photoshops standard filters could fix easily. I liken it to those "colourisation" apps that did the rounds (the ones you recolour old black and white photos) it was overused to the point of total saturation where every image just looked the same as there was little to no variations of colour - everything was black and white with shades of green and purple .
(
TBL I posted this on,
Mon 4 Dec 2023, 0:21,
archived)
Wut? It's already in Photoshop?Just googled it and I'm not sure what I'm looking at, the first thing I saw looked like a stand-alone app?
I'll look at this properly tomorrow, I am seriously out of touch with PS.
(I'll look at this properly tomorrow, I am seriously out of touch with PS.
mofaha โ( ห_ห)โ ส
(ฬโกโ)ส,
Mon 4 Dec 2023, 1:28,
archived)