32 ms·

Adobe Firefly: AI Art Generator

• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• robg 4y ago
  Is this all Adobe developed or they are relying on partners?
• rcarmo 4y ago
  Obviously requires an Adobe account, which hints at it being folded into their subscription pricing. I wonder if this is a customer retention move given the number of third-party plugins to use Dall-E, SD, Midjourney, etc. with Photoshop. (I also wonder who is powering this or if it's an in-house solution -- that should be telling...) Edit: Why, they've trained this on Adobe stock images. OK, this may be very interesting for publications worried about copyright.
  • joelfried 4y ago
    Their blog about their methodology[1] implies to me it's an in-house solution. They also talk at length about maintaining provenance, ethics, and transparency. I found it a much more informative read than the product announcement. [1] https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/03/21/responsible-innovation-age-of-generative-ai https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/03/21/responsible-inn...
  • sourcecodeplz 4y ago
    Actually, when signing up for the waitlist, they don't ask for your Adobe account.
    • biccboii 4y ago
      it's only a matter of time i'm sure. I don't think you can use any adobe product today without Adobe Creative Cloud™
      • ghaff 4y ago
        There are a variety of consumer products (and Adobe Reader) that are still non-subscription. There also subsets of Creative Cloud. But, yes, this will presumably be part of their subscriptions at some point.
      • KineticLensman 4y ago
        > I don't think you can use any adobe product today without Adobe Creative Cloud The Elements versions of Photoshop and Premiere are paid for with a one-off purchase and are not part of a cloud subscription. I use Creative Cloud photoshop but a while ago purchased a separate Premiere Elements license for video editing - this was cheaper than extending my CC subscription to include Premiere Pro. But I switched to (the awesome) Davinci Resolve for video editing when my copy of Premiere elements wasn't able to open video clips from just-released cameras and phones.
  • olejorgenb 4y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35247630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35247630 points to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35089661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35089661 from Adobe Research. Maybe it's based on that?
• whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  It's a trap. They already have you locked in for photo and video work, AI is the chance to escape them.
  • inductive_magic 4y ago
    Photopea considered, is PS still as prevalent?
• ben174 4y ago
  Closed beta. Requesting access requires filling out a four page form. Product page is a bunch of hand-selected images. Nothing to see here.
  • vecinu 4y ago
    Did you bother to browse the entire page? There are videos showing live editing and changing a backdrop. This is a teaser of a live product that is actually working remarkably well.
  • mesh 4y ago
    You can see it in action here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkTXyY9cnEs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkTXyY9cnEs and there is a live stream later today here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3z9jYtPx-4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3z9jYtPx-4
• endisneigh 4y ago
  Looks pretty polished honestly. I wonder who they're partnering with for the GPUs. Does Adobe have their own data centers?
  • lancesells 4y ago
    Adobe is an ad network, stock house, analytics, etc. They probably have the resources to do this.
  • dharmab 4y ago
    Yes, Adobe has their own datacenters as well as very large infrastructure on both AWS and Azure. Source: I was on Adobe's container infrastructure team 2017-2021, most of that time as a lead.
• motoxpro 4y ago
  Interesting that the large company AI products (this, Microsoft copilot, etc) are so much more compelling than any of the startups I’ve seen. Makes me think that we haven’t seen what true innovation looks like in this space. Right now, AI is a feature, not a product. Edit: Not talking about the models themselves (stability, mid journey, GPT-x), talking about what is built on those models.
  • l33tman 4y ago
    I would consider both Stable Diffusion and MidJourney to be startups and both are better by far than the established companies like OpenAI, and there are dozens of LLMs soon catching up with GPT3/4. As you say, it will be a very interesting next 6-12 months..
    • saiya-jin 4y ago
      I played around (till free account expired) with MidJourney and what one can produce out of blue is mind-boggling. Indie devs can with a bit of effort generate much of their art via this for peanuts (the only problem may be consistency from what I've seen, basically every image is like from another artist, even in same batch)
      • GaggiX 4y ago
        The biggest problem is that you can't do much if not conditioning the generation with your prompt and maybe image embeddings, if you are an indie dev you would probably find much more useful Stable Diffusion.
      • chillfox 4y ago
        If you control the --chaos --stylize and --seed then you can get more consistent results.
    • Kye 4y ago
      Stable Diffusion is a thing you can run on your computer for free and train models for. It's from a research university. Is this one of those more expansive definitions of startup?
• msoad 4y ago
  Based on my experience with the podcast product they released recently I am excited to see what this would look like. I think they can execute on UI for working with generative AI much better than others.
• DizzyDoo 4y ago
  How is this 'Firefly Model' trained and sourced? Will it be on the contents of the stock.adobe.com library? Clicking through the available pages it seems like a lot of 'coming soon' talk, so there's not really any detail about any of the underlying process.
  • rcarmo 4y ago
    all you've asked is in the FAQ, right at the top.
  • timdiggerm 4y ago
    > The current Firefly generative AI model is trained on a dataset of Adobe Stock, along with openly licensed work and public domain content where copyright has expired. https://www.adobe.com/sensei/generative-ai/firefly.html#faqs https://www.adobe.com/sensei/generative-ai/firefly.html#faqs
  • m_ke 4y ago
    I'm sure it's all of their content plus half of the web. The proprietary data they get from Behance, Lightroom, Photoshop and Illustrator (and soon figma) has to be a great advantage for them though.
    • mesh 4y ago
      Does not include Behance data or user data. https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learning-faq.html https://helpx.adobe.com/manage-account/using/machine-learnin... "The insights obtained through content analysis will not be used to re-create your content or lead to identifying any personal information."
  • olejorgenb 4y ago
    For what kind of model it is, another poster pointed to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35089661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35089661 (a GAN) as a possibility.
• dopeboy 4y ago
  What this reinforces is that unlike with previous big innovations (cloud, iphone, etc), incumbents will not sit on their laurels with the AI wave. They are aggressively integrating it into their products which (1) provides a relatively cheap step function upgrade and (2) keeps the barrier high for startups to use AI as their wedge. I attribute the speed at which incumbents are integrating AI into their products to a couple things: * Whereas AI was a hand-wavey marketing term in the past, it's now the real deal and provides actual value to the end user. * The technology and DX with integrating w/products from OpenAPI, SD, is good. * AI and LLMs are capturing a lot of attention right now (as seen easily by how often they pop up on HN these days). It's in the zeigeist so you get a marketing boost for free.
  • wongarsu 4y ago
    Another point is that many of the incumbents have seen the trend for far longer than the general public, and had time to gather inhouse talent. For example this isn't Adobe's first stint into generative AI, back in 2016 they announced (and quietly dropped after the backlash) Adobe VoCo, "photoshop for voice".
    • dopeboy 4y ago
      This is a great point. It appears the success of OpenAPI has validated their approach, specifically around (1) using the web as a training set and (2) using transformers. I imagine a lot conversations with in-house AI folks is around deploying these methods.
    • MarcoZavala 4y ago
      [dead]
    • Pxtl 4y ago
      Right? Adobe was first to market with properly integrated AI-based photo editing features with stuff like Content Aware Fill back in 2015 iirc.
  • nvr219 4y ago
    > * Whereas AI was a hand-wavey marketing term in the past, it's now the real deal and provides actual value to the end user. Ehhh.... Sometimes. It's still a hand-wavey marketing term today. Almost every sales call I'm in either the prospect is asking about AI, or more likely the vendor is saying something like "We use our AI module to help you [do some function not at all related to AI]". Also, even when it's "real" AI (in the sense that we're talking about here), it's not always providing actual value to the end user. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.
• jonifico 4y ago
  IMHO,it was only a matter of time before the big names started to include AI generations on their software. I'm guessing if most of the AI design tools that are being launched everyday and which relies mostly in consuming a public api could be easily absorbed?
  • daveslash 4y ago
    People have been talking about things like ChatGPT Doing code, but I just realized... something like ChatGPT could be incorporated right into your IDE. Think Clippy, for Code... "I see you're trying to write a recursive function to compute finocacci. Would you like help?" Or Code Reviews / Static-Code-Analysis: "Hey Visual Studio. I've written a RESTful API for my application. What do you think of the approach, architecture, and adherence to best practices? What can I do to improve it?" Or instead of scratching your head going "why doesn't this work?", just typing that question directly into your IDE....
    • clpm4j 4y ago
      This is kind of like Copilot inside of VSCode right now.
    • rubyron 4y ago
      Clippai™
      • Nevermark 4y ago
        I was just going to downvote you, but really, this deserves some very public shaming! Ugh!!! /h But it does appear that we are all doomed to spend our lives with assigned clippai’s Dystopia. Dystopai?
    • rafram 4y ago
      That’s just Copilot.
• faizshah 4y ago
  At this point someone is going to make a startup off just managing your AI waitlists. (Kidding)
  • turnsout 4y ago
    So tempted to throw GPT4 at this problem and launch it today.
    • petargyurov 4y ago
      Will there be a waitlist?
      • turnsout 4y ago
        Of course, that would be at least 50% of the joke! haha
        • neoromantique 4y ago
          AI Waitlist Management Solutions (AWMS) is a startup that aims to streamline and manage the ever-increasing demand for AI services by providing a one-stop platform for tracking and managing AI waitlists. Leveraging the advanced capabilities of GPT-4, our service will analyze the market, monitor AI waitlist positions, and provide customers with real-time updates on their status. Additionally, AWMS will offer recommendations on alternative services and provide estimated wait times for better decision-making. Our target audience includes businesses and individuals who require AI services and are looking for a way to efficiently manage their place in multiple queues, as well as AI service providers seeking to optimize their waitlist management processes. To further enhance our value proposition, we will incorporate a waitlist for our own platform, adding a sense of exclusivity and generating buzz around our service. This humorous, self-referential twist will serve as a unique marketing strategy, setting us apart from competitors and attracting potential clients. Our revenue model will include a tiered subscription plan, offering various features and services at different price points to cater to a wide range of customers. With a strong focus on customer satisfaction and continuous improvement, AWMS will strive to become the go-to solution for managing AI waitlists and revolutionize the way users access and interact with AI services.
• m3kw9 4y ago
  This will supercharge artists, it won’t replace them because details matter and when you need to get it just right, you cannot just keep rolling the dice by “prompting better”
  • PaulHoule 4y ago
    There are interfaces where you can not just "prompt better" but change the image with a tool like Photoshop and then feed that back into the diffusion model. Also there are people who really don't care about quality. There have always been different tiers of art: it's one thing to have clip art for a throwaway blog post (royalty free stock), it's another thing to base a marketing campaign around images (rights managed stock) because you don't to have all your competitors choose the same image. https://cxl.com/blog/stock-photography-vs-real-photos-cant-use/ https://cxl.com/blog/stock-photography-vs-real-photos-cant-u... The bottom feeders will be very happy to accept the problems of A.I. art and in fact you might not have the embarrassing dogpiling problem that the above blog post describes.
  • spoiler 4y ago
    Agreed. I think it will decrease iteration time during an exploration phase for new artists or when you're not quite sure what you want and want to explore your idea space more quickly (and maybe even get new ideas as you iterate). It's similar with these coding AIs. A lot of the time it's great for the "blank page" phase of a project where you have to do all the "boring" stuff out of the way. Another great example (I think it was a blog post here) where the AI recommended a method the author didn't know about that yielded a crazy performance boost. I tried to get some help from copilot on writing a shader the other day, and it was really an amazing experience. One still needs to have a pretty deep understanding of what needs to be done to use these tools. I imagine it's similar for writers. Maybe they want some help to reword a sentence to be more succinct, but the ideas will still come from their heads. I can't predict if this will one day be so sophisticated that you can have it do both low level and high level "thinking" when exploring ideas, but if that day comes I don't think it will mean an end to jobs, just that some jobs will become more accessible, or that it won't be so much about nitty-gritty work and more about higher level idea-level work (which to me sound good, not bad). Obviously there's people who enjoy the nitty gritty (as a developer, and amateur painter who does enjoythe process), and I don't think that will fully go away, just become more of a creative/artisan field maybe. Who knows, though? I may be way off, but I don't think it's as bleak as some people fear.
• O__________O 4y ago
  Anyone able to comment on where in their opinion the measure is for current state of copyright law when generative AI is a subset of an image?
  • Spivak 4y ago
    It's currently unknown, but copyright law is really political in nature and companies are hopping on using AI like crazy and delivering real value so my expectation is that it will be granted fair use for no philosophical reason but because US legislators don't want to put their boot-heel on American business. Because if they stifle this is will basically cement China is the world's AI powerhouse who will give zero shits about copyright. This is gonna be interesting times for copyright because this is the first time copyrighted works are actually useful in building tools. I think it's a very neat real-world example of how universities are actually right to make engineers take humanities courses because your code writing AI is actually better for having read Vonnegut.
  • nstj 4y ago
    ``` Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence A Rule by the Copyright Office, Library of Congress on 03/16/2023 ``` https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...
    • O__________O 4y ago
      Aware of the ruling, reviewed it when it was released, though it does not appears to cover any aspect related to for example layout, color select, etc — and to me targets one-shot generative art; poorly so at that. As is, landscape photographers for example, control camera angle, timing of photograph, camera type, lens type, etc — but they rarely create the landscape itself or for that matter the equipment and related technologies. Even “found object” art is covered by copyright: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_object https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_object At this point, to me, it’s unclear author of that ruling even understands technology used to create the outputs that were the subject of that ruling.
• linuxftw 4y ago
  What I love about this AI generative art is it will finally put the right price on computer generated art: $0. It will be interesting to watch the entire Hollywood and associated creative industries lose control to AI. Entire movies will be created in small basements. Same with AAA video games.
  • bufferoverflow 4y ago
    And digital art in general. If you can't tell the difference between human made and AI made art, they will cost the same. Near $0.
  • TylerE 4y ago
    Creative people are paid to be creative, not enter keyboard shortcuts all day. It’s the idea and vision that are the real differentiator.
    • usrusr 4y ago
      Kids at street corners have idea and vision, no shortage in that. What matters is putting together idea and vision with execution. And for anything that is beyond basement scope, execution further subdivides into craft and access. Access to the means, and that is true for Hollywood as much as it is true for the smallest-time painter who might not be good at making friends with gallerists. The outliers are those that learn the craft, network into a position of access and still retain some trace of idea and vision through all of that.
      • TylerE 4y ago
        Kids on corners have ideas. Very few of them are GOOD ideas. Anyone can say 'Make a movie with lots of aliens and lasers'. It still takes Ridley Scott to make Alien.
        • usrusr 4y ago
          Yet at the same time that "Pinback chased by the beach ball monster" scene that eventually evolved into Alien is hilariously deep in "kids on street corner ideas" territory
• RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
  One thing that disturbs me is the push to censor the AI output. Photoshop is used to produce a ton of porn, but Adobe doesn’t try to stop that. In terms of “safety”, models Photoshopped to impossible standards have helped create impossible beauty standards causing depression and even life threatening eating disorders in teenage girls. Yet, Adobe and all the others will carefully censor the output of these generative models.
  • postsantum 4y ago
    That would be the job of AI ethicists to ensure models generated to be all across the BMI spectrum
  • zirgs 4y ago
    Photoshop runs on the user's machine. This AI is running on Adobe's servers - that's the difference.
• mk_stjames 4y ago
  I found the little sketch-to-vector-variations part interesting and surprising- this is something that is solidly not done via a diffusion model unlike everything else shown. Although I note it says "We plan to build this into Firefly" implying that... this isn't something already finished.
  • alexwebb2 4y ago
    I imagine this would use "in the style of a line drawing" prompts under the hood to produce line-esque raster images suitable for vectorization, with the resulting vectorized images being what's shown to the user.
    • mk_stjames 4y ago
      That was also my first instinct, but is vectorization from a line sketch really that smooth and reliable now, though? It has been some time since I've used modern tools, but last I tried any raster-to-vector on line drawings that weren't super basic, the results left a lot to be desired. Jittery, under- or over-fit, etc.
  • Bjorkbat 4y ago
    I’m intrigued as well, but especially with regards to how it would perform in the real world given that I’ve also observed that diffusion models aren’t great with vectors. I suspect the example they used might have been cherry-picked
• oidar 4y ago
  The high compute costs for training and legacy software foothold seems that it may encourage rent seeking in the big tech companies. I hope the huge costs and compute demands won't only enrich the big tech companies that can afford to run the models on heavy duty hardware. If it does, it will potentially lead to the rich companies, individuals, and persons greatly outpacing their peers.
  • brucethemoose2 4y ago
    These models can be run locally, but I see far too many businesses and bloggers resign themselves to renting OpenAI's cloud instead of tinkering with LLaMA/Alpaca, the community Stable Diffusion finetunes and such. Adobe does have a legal edge here, which is interesting and perhaps actually worth a subscription if needed.
    • int_19h 4y ago
      The problem is that GPT-3.5 is so cheap, and the results that you get out of it are still quite a bit better than LLaMA/Alpaca. There just doesn't seem to be any solid economic reason to run it locally except to keep inputs and/or outputs private.
      • brucethemoose2 4y ago
        That is not sustainable though. OpenAI is in the "burning money to gain market share" phase.
        • int_19h 4y ago
          Is there any concrete evidence for that? Like, did anyone try to calculate how much power it actually costs to run the ChatGPT API at its present scale? My understanding is that the upfront costs on hardware are really expensive, but powering it + amortized wear and tear to replace it eventually is orders of magnitude smaller. So, what is the actual estimated cost of one ChatGPT token, and how much money is getting burned? But also, even if they double the price at some point, it'd still be cheap enough for this to apply.
• LegitShady 4y ago
  I wonder about how companies are approaching letting their customers understand what is and isn't copyrightable with the results of these ai models. The us copyright office has made it clear that elements of designs that lack human authorship cannot be copyrighted. A prompt is not enough - the same way if you provided a prompt to an artist while commissioning a work does not grant you copyright to that work. The results (including specific elements) of these ai models cannot be copyrighted which has extreme implications to commerical art in general. If you have your ai models come up with a character you cannot claim copyright of that character. If your ai models comes up with a composition you cannot claim copyright on that composition. If you use the ai to generate an idea and then have a human develop the idea, the elements of the design that the ai came up with cannot be copyrighted because they lack human authorship. Commercial operations that care about ip beware.
  • stravant 4y ago
    I don't see how this will possibly be relevant. AI generated content is about to sprint so far ahead of the existing legal framework that something will just have to give.
    • LegitShady 4y ago
      on the opposite - existing legal frameworks protect human works, and altering them to allow corporations to own any idea they can provide a prompt for is directly harmful to society and the future of intellectual property in every country. using ml is already powerful and fast. protecting ideas from mass corporate ownership so that your grandchildren will be allowed to think freely is more important than chat gpt or stable diffusion or whatever algorithm replaces them next week.
• codetrotter 4y ago
  Imagine paying for Adobe products. I did that once. Never again. What a shit company. Cancelling the subscription was a total drag. Fuck you Adobe, I hope you go bankrupt sooner rather than later.
  • CyanBird 4y ago
    What they did to allegorithmic, the substance suite and the on boarding process to even learn the system is a travesty Substance Designer used to have a platform called substance share where anyone could share and open source knowledge of complex parametric textures for free to anyone with a substance account, obviously the first draft for how Adobe would get the money back from their purchase is to monetize the entire learning processes by shutting down that website and adding pay walls to near every single interaction to even learn the software, it is just so horribly shortsighted and these ideas can only be approved and implemented by sheer rentiers managers
  • nvr219 4y ago
    https://sniep.net/adobe.png https://sniep.net/adobe.png
  • acomjean 4y ago
    Lamentably adding their training set will make Adobe's value proposition much higher. Open source creative alternatives have a even harder time (Blender, inkscape, krita, Gnu Image Manipulation Program)... Since Adobe lack of Linux support holds it back significantly with creatives, this makes opens source more of a challenge.
• iddan 4y ago
  Finally a big player is talking about image to vector using generative AI. This will make the lives of graphic designers so much better. No reason that humans will continue to trace images in this day and age
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• O__________O 4y ago
  Possible this is not significant, appears that within the feature set is a text-to-vector image generator that produces editable vectors art. There’s no direct link I was able to find, but feature is listed here: https://firefly.adobe.com/ https://firefly.adobe.com/ Is anyone aware of any similar open source or services that handle text-to-vector generative AI?
  • themodelplumber 4y ago
    > services that handle text-to-vector generative AI I think I used one...maybe Kittl or Illustroke. Not FOSS though. In the FOSS world there are some really brilliant tools like potrace at the very least. That one is still built into Inkscape, I believe.
  • olejorgenb 4y ago
    Very short demo of the feature(?): https://youtu.be/c3z9jYtPx-4?t=180 https://youtu.be/c3z9jYtPx-4?t=180
• lelandfe 4y ago
  From that page's FAQs: > trained on a dataset of Adobe Stock, along with openly licensed work and public domain content where copyright has expired > We do not train on any Creative Cloud subscribers’ personal content. For Adobe Stock contributors, the content is part of the Firefly training dataset, in accordance with Stock Contributor license agreements. The first model did not train on Behance. Not sure what "first model" means there. Also interesting: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/firefly-faq-for-adobe-stock-contributors.html https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/firefly-faq-f... > During the beta phase of Adobe Firefly, any Adobe Firefly generated assets cannot be used for commercial purposes. > Can I opt [my Adobe Stock content] of the dataset training? > No, there is no option to opt-out of data set training for content submitted to Stock. However, Adobe is continuing to explore the possibility of an opt-out.
  • judge2020 4y ago
    Still on the fence for whether or not you should be able to opt out of training (I'm sure many artists would love to "opt out" of humans looking at their art if the human intends to, or might, copy the artists' style at some point).
    • madeofpalk 4y ago
      Should Github Copilot be trained on private, closed-source, proprietary code?
      • grondo4 4y ago
        Yes, AI should be trained on every piece of information possible. Am I allowed to become a better programmer by looking at private, (illegally leaked) closed-source, proprietary code?
        • deleted 4y ago
          [deleted]
        • mrelectric 4y ago
• bitL 4y ago
  Generative AI with ClipSeg/ControlNet is the main way to make Adobe products obsolete. No wonder they are pushing it into production ASAP but their investments to advanced tools they had edge over competition like e.g. intelligent background filling can be easily replicated/overcome now. We might see a quick commoditization of Adobe image processing tools.
  • sebzim4500 4y ago
    Yeah but Adobe will presumably outspend stability.ai/midjourney/the stable diffusion community 10 to 1, plus they have access to better datasets. I think if they play this right this could end up building them a moat rather than filling it in.
    • saberience 4y ago
      Yes but Adobe tools are both expensive and their subscription system and website are full of horrible dark patterns. There's a reason Figma users were upset and pissed to hear Adobe was buying them. Adobe used to be a loved company, but this was many many years ago at this point.
• open-paren 4y ago
  Adobe employee, not in Creative Cloud. We got access to this in beta a week ago and it was an instant hit across the whole company. This is just the tip of the iceberg and there is a lot of really cool, in-house products around generative AI. The team is going to great lengths to make this ethical and fair (try and generate a photo of a copyrighted character like Hello Kitty or Darth Vader). I'm excited to see the final product of all the internal work that has been going on for so long.
  • Filligree 4y ago
    One of the great aspects of open-source stable diffusion (civitai.com et al.) is there's a model for every purpose. Does your inpainting model work with every style? Or is it going to have trouble matching the content for e.g. specific fanart?
    • mesh 4y ago
      It would have trouble matching on trademarked styles, or individual artists / creators styles. One of the primary goals for Firefly is to provide a model that can generate output that respects creators and is safe for commercial use. (I work for Adobe)
      • Filligree 4y ago
        So that means it would have trouble matching my style, too.
        • mesh 4y ago
          Yes. Although we are working on allowing you to train on your own content.
      • saberience 4y ago
        Sounds like a good way of making it useless or otherwise 100X less useful than Stable Diffusion.
      • 4y ago
• turnsout 4y ago
  How long do we think this "big company gates access to an impressive AI model" moment will last? I wonder if generative models will become such a commodity that they cease to be a revenue driver or differentiator.
  • layer8 4y ago
    There will be moats around training data (Adobe probably has huge amounts of high-quality training data that isn’t available to the public), and around fine-tuning for specific fields. The more specialized the application, the less of a commodity it will be. And it remains to be seen how long it will take until there is an open-source model on the level of GPT-4. It may be harder than many expect, and the commercial offerings may be on yet another level by then.
    • Someone1234 4y ago
      Exactly, and the moats largely boil down to: "Why is there no Open Source replacing for Google Search?" Big AI's advantage is still being made. Every time a user hits "Feedback" they're fine-tuning this proprietary model. You can absolutely make an Open Source model with enough compute, but if it is only e.g. "95%" good relative to the paid one at "97%" or "98%" are you going to prioritize it? How many of you use Google because it is 2% better than Bing for example?
      • turnsout 4y ago
        If it's 95% as good and it can be rolled into every product at basically zero cost, then yeah, the paid version will die. There are plenty of proprietary technologies that are better than say Postgres, or JPEG, or JSON. And some businesses need that marginal edge. But if the open source option is free, standardized, has great tooling, and is 95% as good, that's a real problem for OpenAI and their peers.
• villgax 4y ago
  Wow zero mention of any competition, these guys will get decimated with proper local tooling for editing.
• daveslash 4y ago
  When I look at older magazines, photos, billboards, and advertisements -- today's world of media is so much more colorful and vibrant than it was in the 60s & 70s. E.g. This [0] vs. this [1]. With the race to the bottom for generating high-quality, scalable, rich and colorful illustrations at almost no cost in massive quantities, I'm envisioning the world is about to get even more colorful and vibrant. [0] https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0050/4252/files/carros_antigos_billboards_vintage_08_1024x1024.jpg?13896687147433498983 https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0050/4252/files/carros_ant... [1] https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MzMrYtY_Ooo/US_iZSd3noI/AAAAAAABCVY/USWDSrscYeg/s1600/porsche+911+carrera+ahead+time+billboard.jpg https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MzMrYtY_Ooo/US_iZSd3noI/AAAAAAABC...
  • mschuster91 4y ago
    > With the race to the bottom for generating high-quality, scalable, rich and colorful illustrations at almost no cost in massive quantities, I'm envisioning the world is about to get even more colorful and vibrant. Counterpoint: The world may get "more colorful and vibrant", but also it will go toward uniform styles as AI will take all the commercial high-paying jobs and leave all but zero opportunities for actual artists.
    • ghaff 4y ago
      I'm not sure it's commercial high-paying so much. If you're going to do a rebrand, you're still going to hire an agency that will fuss with the tiniest details. At least initially, the impact will probably be more on the type of thing that even a junior designer can do in their sleep but is a lot harder for someone who isn't a designer to do.
  • ghaff 4y ago
    Even pretty routine graphics and illustrations for books and presentations are pretty hard for the average person to do by themselves and there's often no budget to have someone else, whether internal or external to a company, to do them. Tools have improved a lot in the past few decades but it still takes a degree of talent to produce even routine polished work.
  • 4y ago
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• epups 4y ago
  It doesn't seem to do be able to do anything that Stable Diffusion cannot do, and I bet they put a ton more restrictions too. Other than OpenAI, most of these closed-source AI developments are quite underwhelming.
  • mesh 4y ago
    Not specifically in comparison to Stable Diffusion, but in general our approach is to provide a model that is really easy to use, can be used commercially, and has deep integration with our our creative tools. On this last point, we have really only shared about the model and "playground" which is a web based interface to play around with Firefly. We are working on initial integrations in the tools, and will have more info on that in the coming weeks / months (particularly for Adobe Express and Photoshop). While you can do a LOT with plugins in tools like Photoshop (which may be enough for some users), we can do much deeper integration into the tool, and integrate it in ways not otherwise possible. (I work for Adobe)
  • EZ-Cheeze 4y ago
    Did you see how it accurately put the snow on the surfaces where it would accumulate? I don't know how to do that with SD, but I'll try it later with ControlNet.
• nuc1e0n 4y ago
  Man, Adobe knows what they're doing. This is the right response to image generative AI, to integrate it into workflows.
• aleksandrm 4y ago
  A little bit too late to the market for a company of their size.
• d0100 4y ago
  I hope this means that the next generation of Manga & Comics et al will be daily serializations No more waiting 30 days for the next episode, hurray
  • illwrks 4y ago
    Unless of course you were to work in that area. If I did, I would be terrified.
• aschearer 4y ago
  While this is very exciting it's worth pointing out most of the page falls under "WHAT WE’RE EXPLORING." That is to say, these are from the marketing department and it's impossible to know whether they are strictly aspirational or just around the corner. From the page: > Looking forward, Firefly has the potential to do much, much more. Explore the possibilities below ... We plan to build ... We’re exploring the potential of ... the plan is to do this and more ... in the future, we hope to enable. All that being said, shut-up-and-take-my-money.jpg!
  • mesh 4y ago
    Yeah, we are being a little more open, a little earlier, in part because this space is so new, and we really want feedback / direction from the community. Currently in the beta, there is text to image, and text effects, and will have vector recoloring in the next couple of weeks.
    • aschearer 4y ago
      Keep up the good work. I raise my point solely because people are comparing these trailers against Stable Diffusion and the like, when in reality the examples are artists renditions. There's no point in comparing. I hope someday y'all get to the point where we can change a video's season, time of day, etc. and have things work seamlessly. That would be quite incredible!
    • 3d_prod_rendr 4y ago
      I was incredibly happy to find a second career in 3d. To get there, I focused on building skills that I could find clients to pay for, and I love the process: modeling, texturing, lighting. Getting the details of products just right. I worked a lot of hours after a my day job an unrelated field to build a client list, learn more, provide more value, and keep doing the thing I love. Eventually, I was able to go freelance. I knew I would be competing with a globalized world, but I figured I could maintain my career through proven value and relationships. And so far, that's been true! Despite the ubiquity of 3d services in low-wage areas of the world -- and good ones! I've been able to build a career that I'm proud of. I'm the millionth person to say it, but this is like watching a predator you know you can't avoid, slowly gaining on you. I'll find another job, I'm sure. But it won't be the one I love and that I worked hard for.
• bestcoder69 4y ago
  Any relation to GigaGAN? Page doesn't seem to mention what kind of NNs are used.
• s1k3s 4y ago
  Wow, what a waste of time for Adobe to implement something like this. Who’s even going to use this since all the artists said AI is bad and everyone who uses it should be put in prison? Sorry, couldn’t resist.
• germinalphrase 4y ago
  Can anyone speak to company culture/QoL of working at Adobe?
  • dharmab 4y ago
    I worked for 5 years at Adobe on an infrastructure team. My team and management was amazing and it was a genuinely good workplace. But it is a very large company and many of the usual tradeoffs if large companies still apply (eg small cog, big inscrutable machine). People's experiences varied across teams and I seemed to be on one of the better ones at the company.
    • germinalphrase 4y ago
      Much appreciated.
  • etblg 4y ago
    I work at a smaller department, that was a company bought by Adobe. Can't speak for every part of the company, but it's been pretty nice so far. Competitive pay, good benefits, for American standards it has great time-off (https://benefits.adobe.com/us/time-off/vacation-and-paid-holidays https://benefits.adobe.com/us/time-off/vacation-and-paid-hol...). It seems very supportive to employees, and has a bunch of "employee networks" for supporting employees (https://www.adobe.com/diversity/strategy/employees/employee-networks.html https://www.adobe.com/diversity/strategy/employees/employee-...) with events and help and stuff. No complaints so far really, that's always subject to change, but so far it's been a nice place to work.
    • germinalphrase 4y ago
      SWE? Thanks!
      • etblg 4y ago
        Yes, software engineering.
• UberFly 4y ago
  Adobe will need to allow the importing of custom models, or else their product will be too limited. That then allows the "unofficial" use of copyrighted material for image generation. They're definitely starting from a place of advantage leveraging their already vast open-license stock portfolios.
• irrational 4y ago
  When is Getty Images going to release their own AI Art Generator?
• user3939382 4y ago
  Adobe has lost any good sentiment I had for them with their forced subscriptions and dark patterns. I use their products begrudgingly, it’s a sunk cost fallacy from decades of muscle memory. My reaction to seeing any announcement from them is, yeah whatever Adobe.
  • aceazzameen 4y ago
    Agreed. Adobe has lost my complete trust and I've learned to avoid their tools. I honestly don't know what they can do to win me back. They're a damaged brand.
  • pcurve 4y ago
    Once you get stranglehold of the market place, you can pretty much do whatever you want. Adobe... Microsoft... Apple... Google... all pulling the same lever.
    • roflyear 4y ago
      At least with all of those (except Adobe!!) you can cancel your subscription using the same interface you bought the subscription on!
  • roflyear 4y ago
    Agreed. Greedy company, no longer associated with cool creators. I hope people start to move away from their products.
  • wraptile 4y ago
    I'm surprised so much good sentiment in this thread as I honestly don't think I ever met anyone who hasn't had a great distate for this company. The first thing that came to my head when I read the headline - oh no, can we not have Adobe stink up this party?
• NaN1352 4y ago
  What’s interesting to me is how this only works because of prior art. BUT, when prior art will be AI-assisted if not 99% generated art, from a pool of prior human art ever so slowly diminishing… where is this going? For one, "art" can only lessen in value. Perhaps physical art will grow in value as digital art’s "made by without AI" tag becomes unprovable and meaningless. I think it’s bad. Whomever provides these tools is not refilling the pool of prior human art, only muddying it up. Therefore everything will converge. It was quite obvious already the way eg. most webapps nowadays have the same boring design… but this is worse. But I don’t know it must be the inevitable evolution, perhaps this is how we will end our differences… as human’s "collective mind" becomes more and more evident.
  • joe_the_user 4y ago
    This could be a problem but it seems to like Adobe and other stock image owner may be in a better position to deal with it than companies scanning things from the open net. Lots of arts/craft are kept alive because they form the basis for more automated processes and this may well continue with simple painting and photography.
  • Thorentis 4y ago
    As an accelerationist, I can see an upside. Human culture has been in decline for decades, with mainstream art (of all kinds) rapidly declining in creativity and value. There are always exceptions, but I think this was and is the trend. This AI trend will turn our attention back to what it truly means to be an artist. From the muddy waters of AI art will shine the true works of art that only humans are capable of producing. This will raise the barrier to entry and increase true arts value. This imo will be a good thing.
  • rwmj 4y ago
    Humans are still picking the AI-generated images they like, so there is still human input.
    • wraptile 4y ago
      Also most AI art that is published is retouched and edited. Until it's not of course.
• 29athrowaway 4y ago
  If you use oh-my-zsh, enable the zsh plugin (after installing zsh).
• johndhi 4y ago
  this is very cool.
• jonplackett 4y ago
  Anyone know what underlying tech this is using?
• elietoubi 4y ago
  If anyone wants to do the same thing on Figma, I built a plugin just for that. https://www.magicbrushai.com https://www.magicbrushai.com
  • wappieslurkz 4y ago
    That's awesome! Thanks.
• _jplc 4y ago
  Yeah, Adobe, release a competitor of your own clients, they'll love it.
  • sebzim4500 4y ago
    They'll have to buy it (or something like it), they won't have much of a choice. Artists that use this kind of tool will be so much more productive than ones that don't, that they simply won't be able to find employment otherwise.
    • _jplc 4y ago
      In many circles, discovering that an artist is a copycat is professional death sentence. Discovering an artist using AI generated images won’t be different.
  • furyofantares 4y ago
    It's that or go out of business. Someone's going to have a slick and extremely powerful product where all the tools for creating and editing work seamlessly with all the tools for generating and other ML-assisted processes.
• sourcecodeplz 4y ago
  Wow is all I can say.
• Hard_Space 4y ago
  I wish these schemes would stop using Discord. It's just a cheap grab at building a community where one might not gather naturally, and the generative grunt that goes into public Discord prompts would be just the same in a logged-in API such as ChatGPT.
• danShumway 4y ago
  > Once Firefly is out of its beta stage, creators will have the option to use content generated in Firefly commercially. The reason this sentence exists is because Adobe wants to create the impression among readers that it owns the output and that it's Adobe's choice how creators use those images. But under current copyright interpretation, Adobe doesn't own those images. So it's nice that it's giving permission, but that's not Adobe's permission to give -- so thanks but also heck off Adobe, nobody needed to ask you for permission in the first place. You can use any AI image commercially because AI images are not under copyright. Of course, Adobe would love to have a world where most art is generated algorithmically and Adobe is in charge of deciding how that art gets used and what gets generated because it controls the tool. So it's in Adobe's best interest to pretend that it's granting artists a permissive right, rather than recognizing that it doesn't have any real legal argument to make that artwork generated through Firefly is owned by Adobe (or by anyone for that matter). And that's good! It's not anti-AI to say that, because what you have to realize is that what companies want from AI image generation is a model where every single artist goes through them in order to build or generate anything. They want a model where creative tools are a service, for the same reason why Adobe wants its tools to all be subscription based. No SaaS company is getting into generative AI with the goal of increasing accessibility of art. They are (Adobe especially) interested in closing down that accessibility. They are all drooling at the opportunity to turn your workflow into a SaaS business that can only be run on extremely expensive hardware clusters. So yes, the denial of copyright for AI-generated images does make it trickier to monetize those images, but denying that copyright has the much more important effect of making harder for these companies to lock out competitors and build services where they control/monopolize an entire creative market. You can still use AI during a creative process and end up with a thing that can be copyrighted. But Adobe can't release a tool and later on start to argue that nobody else can train competing generators using that tool, or that the tool can only be used in a particular way, or that everything the tool can generate is owned by Adobe. That matters. It means that competitors can use Adobe Firefly output to train their own models (including locally run models like stable diffusion). It means that there's a limiting factor in place that keeps Adobe from making lazy grabs to assert ownership over large numbers of images. It means that you can pull images generated by Firefly into other pipelines without asking Adobe permission. You can see the same thing playing out with ChatGPT. OpenAI's TOS states that you're not allowed to use OpenAI to help build something that competes with OpenAI. That's going largely unquestioned, but my strong suspicion is that it's only a TOS violation to break that rule, because again, OpenAI does not own the copyright on anything that GPT generates. So if you're not signing that EULA, it's not clear to me that OpenAI has any legal right at all to restrict you from using output that you find online as training data. As far as I can tell, current copyright consensus in the US is that the text that comes out of ChatGPT is public domain. But that's not what OpenAI wants, because if anyone can build anything using ChatGPT's output, then how is OpenAI going to build a moat around their service to block competitors? How are they going to eventually turn profitable by closing off access and raising prices once people start to rely on their service? So just like Adobe, they stick the language in and hope nobody calls them out on it.
• steponlego 4y ago
  >Adobe: We're going to move you to an all-subscription model and slowly bloat all the software you rely on, my dear captive audience of graphics people. >Also Adobe: HOLD MY BEER!
• doitLP 4y ago
  This is cute and all for creating one-off, in distinct, stylized images. But what if I want to illustrate say a children’s book with generated images? dall-e for example never gets faces right and good luck trying to have the same character look the same between generated images. Feeding it a seed image sometimes got something similar but always with major uncanny valley vibes. Anyone know how to get around this?
  • coldtea 4y ago
    >But what if I want to illustrate say a children’s book with generated images? You'd use what's available as "good enough", and manually modify it when needed. Then you'd wait a few years until it does get faces right (haven't seen much issue with faces to be frank. Hands, yes).
  • TheHumanist 4y ago
    Have you checked out Midjourney? It is very realistic sometimes... It's crazy. https://www.midjourney.com/ https://www.midjourney.com/
  • ta8903 4y ago
    I'm not very familiar with AI art but isn't this what LORAs are for?
• Wennya 4y ago
  [dead]
• ar9av 4y ago
  midjourney data set is curated with only consented images, and they have an artist opt out option for artist who want to be removed from their data set. Either way, competition is always good for the market as a whole.
• Bob2077 4y ago
  Adobe Firefly sounds promising, especially in terms of enhancing creativity and productivity. However, I wonder about the learning curve for users who are not familiar with AI-powered tools. Will there be tutorials or resources available to help users get the most out of Firefly's capabilities? Additionally, I'm curious about the ethical implications of using generative AI models in creative work. How can we ensure that AI-generated content maintains originality and doesn't infringe on intellectual property rights?
• esskay 4y ago
  Thats one way to get people to pay for photoshop instead of pirating it I guess.
• utunga 4y ago
  This is how generative AI art should've been done the first time * get rights to the training data * keep artists and illustrators in the loop Could've saved a lot of pain.
• VincentEvans 4y ago
  Will I be able to generate an image of Xi as Pooh bear? Simple question. Just make it and post here the link to the result. Or will I receive a message that this prompt is not permitted and any attempt to get around the block will result in my account being suspended - like in Midjourney?
  • bamboozled 4y ago
    No.
    • VincentEvans 4y ago
      Is “no” the answer to the first or the second question?
• andrewstuart 4y ago
  Adobe tends to be really old school and doesn’t have APIs. Or if they have an API it’s too expensive or crippled to be useful. That’s Adobes 1980s DNA…. everything is a client application. It’s a pity cause it looks like it would be fun to build with.
  • ivirshup 4y ago
    Most adobe applications have quite extensive APIs. I think you can even do some linear algebra via Illustrator.
    • andrewstuart 4y ago
      I mean you’re not allowed to run it on a server.
• hiccuphippo 4y ago
  And the fingers still look like out of a horror movie.
• polskibus 4y ago
  That’s the real moat for any future startup. You will need so much data to make a dent when you start that it will be too expensive to even consider it. Without $$$$ for the data and compute , you will not be able to produce even an MVP, so you won’t convince VCs to invest.
• jcarrano 4y ago
  I looks like InvokeAI but more expensive.
• alphabetatheta 4y ago
  What lot of folks are missing here is just how easy it is to add "AI" to products for large companies. The APIs are prevalent and easy to integrate with. Right now we're in the hype cycle, but soon people will be finding and reporting on all sorts of limitations and security issues.
• aseany 4y ago
  [flagged]