5 ms·

(Disclaimer: I'm an investor in Krea AI.) When Diego first showed me this animation, I wasn't completely sure what I was looking at, because I assumed the left

by kmavm 3y ago

(Disclaimer: I'm an investor in Krea AI.) When Diego first showed me this animation, I wasn't completely sure what I was looking at, because I assumed the left and right sides were like composited together or something. But it's a unified screen recording; the right, generated side is keeping pace with the riffing the artist does in the little paint program on the left. There is no substitute for low latency in creative tools; if you have to sit there holding your breath every time you try something, you aren't just linearly slowed down. There are points that are just too hard to reach in slow, deliberate, 30+ second steps that a classical diffusion generation requires. When I first heard about consistency, my assumption was that it was just an accelerator. I expected we'd get faster, cheaper versions of the same kinds of interactions with visual models we're used to seeing. The fine hackers at Krea did not take long to prove me wrong!

dvrp 3y ago
Exactly. There is no substitute for real-time when you're doing creative work. That's why GitHub Copilot works so well; that's why ChatGPT struck a chord with people—it streamed the characters back to you quite fast. At first, I was skeptical too. I asked myself “what about Photoshop 1.0? They surely couldn't do it in real-time.”. It turns out that even then you needed it. Of course, compute wasn't there to do a simple translation of all rasterized pixel values that form an image within a layer, but there was a trick they did: they showed you the outline that would tell you, the user, where the content _will_ render if you let the mouse go. You can see the workflow here: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftaIzyrMDqE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftaIzyrMDqE It applies to general tools too; you can see the same on this MacOS 8 demo (it runs on the browser!): > https://infinitemac.org/1998/Mac%20OS%208.1 https://infinitemac.org/1998/Mac%20OS%208.1
- stavros 3y ago
  > that's why ChatGPT struck a chord with people—it streamed the characters back to you quite fast. So did GPT-3, though. ChatGPT (3.5) was a bit faster, but not overly so.
  - dvrp 3y ago
    And it did blow up! But not as much as changing the UI towards a (familiar) chat interface. Good point! I agree with it but forgot to mention it: interaction matters. With GitHub Copilot you are in familiar terrain, your code editor; with ChatGPT, you are talking to it the same way you'd talk to an assistant, via chat/email. And we, at KREA, don't think it'll be the exception for AI for creativity.
    - stavros 3y ago
      That's definitely true, the chat format (vs the completion format) made all the difference. So much so that ChatGPT blew up even though it was inferior in capabilities to GPT-3, just because it was (much) more usable.
spuz 3y ago
Are you an artist? Would you use this tool?
- t0bia_s 3y ago
  I'm artist and I use midjourney for faster work. You still need photoshop skills, imagination and aesthetic to get job done.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - dvrp 3y ago
    Taste is still valuable. It will follow a power law dynamic—might finish my essay about it someday.
    - t0bia_s 3y ago
      Taste is... hard to define. I know quite a lot of artists that lack of taste, but nowadays you need to look for originality offline. Online consumption shape digital creative work significantly. AI wont help here either.
sillysaurusx 3y ago
As an investor, I hope you’re ready to bankroll the inevitable legal battles. These are not going to be restricted to the big players. Eleuther was recently sued, and they’re a non profit. The moment you try to market this, you need to be prepared for the lawsuit. I’m preparing for one, and all I did was assemble a dataset. This model is built off of work which most people (rightly or wrongly) believe is not yours to sell. I’m still not sure how I feel about it. I was forced to confront the question a few days ago, and I’ve been in a holding pattern since then. I’m not so much concerned about the lawsuits as getting the big question right. Ethics has a funny way of sneaking up on you in the long run. At the very least, be prepared for a lengthy, grizzly smear campaign. Two people wrote stories insinuating I somehow profited off of books3. Your crew will be profiting with intent. One reason I’ve considered bowing out of ML is that I’d rather not be verbally spit on for the rest of eternity. It’s nice to have the support of colleagues, but unless you really care solely about money, you’ll be classified in the same bucket as Zuck: widely respected if successful by the people that matter, but never able to hold a normal relationship again. Most people probably prefer that tradeoff, but go into this with eyes wide open: you will be despised. The way out is to help train a model on Creative Commons images. I don’t know if there’s enough data. And it’s certainly a bad idea to wait; your only chance of dominating this market is to iterate quickly, which means using existing models. But at this point, lawsuits are table stakes. You need to be prepared for when they happen, not if. Also, join me in at least one sleepless night pondering the ethics of profiting off of this. Normally people only mention this as a social signal, not because they actually care. But if you sit down and think it through from first principles, the ethics — legality aside - is not at all clear. This also isn’t a case of a Snowmaker startup (https://x.com/snowmaker/status/1696026604030595497?s=61&t=jQbmCk1JqL7depzFWJNuPA); https://x.com/snowmaker/status/1696026604030595497?s=61&t=jQ... he notes that this only works when you have the general population on your side. All of those examples are of startups violating the laws that people felt were dumb. Whereas I can tell you from firsthand trauma that copyright enthusiasts are religiously fanatical. Worse, they might be on the right side of the ethics question. This was the first time in my life that a startup’s ethics gave me pause. Not just yours, but everyone who’s building creative tools off of these models. You’ll face a stiff headwind. Valve, for example, won’t approve any game containing any work generated by your tools. And everyone else is trying to build their own moat. I’m not saying to consider giving up. I’m saying, really sit down and go through the mental exercise of deciding if this is a battle you want to fight for at least three years legally and five years socially. I’m happy to provide examples of the type of abuse you and your team will face, ranging from sticks and stones’ level insults to people directly calling for criminal liability (jail time). The latter is exceedingly unlikely, but being ostracized by the general public is not. At the very least, you’ll need to have a solid answer prepared if you start hiring people and candidates ask for your stance. This comment is as much for your team as for you as an investor, since all of you will face these questions together.

by kmavm 3y ago

dvrp 3y ago

Exactly. There is no substitute for real-time when you're doing creative work. That's why GitHub Copilot works so well; that's why ChatGPT struck a chord with people—it streamed the characters back to you quite fast. At first, I was skeptical too. I asked myself “what about Photoshop 1.0? They surely couldn't do it in real-time.”. It turns out that even then you needed it. Of course, compute wasn't there to do a simple translation of all rasterized pixel values that form an image within a layer, but there was a trick they did: they showed you the outline that would tell you, the user, where the content _will_ render if you let the mouse go. You can see the workflow here: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftaIzyrMDqE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftaIzyrMDqE It applies to general tools too; you can see the same on this MacOS 8 demo (it runs on the browser!): > https://infinitemac.org/1998/Mac%20OS%208.1 https://infinitemac.org/1998/Mac%20OS%208.1

stavros 3y ago
> that's why ChatGPT struck a chord with people—it streamed the characters back to you quite fast. So did GPT-3, though. ChatGPT (3.5) was a bit faster, but not overly so.
- dvrp 3y ago
  And it did blow up! But not as much as changing the UI towards a (familiar) chat interface. Good point! I agree with it but forgot to mention it: interaction matters. With GitHub Copilot you are in familiar terrain, your code editor; with ChatGPT, you are talking to it the same way you'd talk to an assistant, via chat/email. And we, at KREA, don't think it'll be the exception for AI for creativity.
  - stavros 3y ago
    That's definitely true, the chat format (vs the completion format) made all the difference. So much so that ChatGPT blew up even though it was inferior in capabilities to GPT-3, just because it was (much) more usable.

spuz 3y ago

Are you an artist? Would you use this tool?

t0bia_s 3y ago
I'm artist and I use midjourney for faster work. You still need photoshop skills, imagination and aesthetic to get job done.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dvrp 3y ago
  Taste is still valuable. It will follow a power law dynamic—might finish my essay about it someday.
  - t0bia_s 3y ago
    Taste is... hard to define. I know quite a lot of artists that lack of taste, but nowadays you need to look for originality offline. Online consumption shape digital creative work significantly. AI wont help here either.

sillysaurusx 3y ago

As an investor, I hope you’re ready to bankroll the inevitable legal battles. These are not going to be restricted to the big players. Eleuther was recently sued, and they’re a non profit. The moment you try to market this, you need to be prepared for the lawsuit. I’m preparing for one, and all I did was assemble a dataset. This model is built off of work which most people (rightly or wrongly) believe is not yours to sell. I’m still not sure how I feel about it. I was forced to confront the question a few days ago, and I’ve been in a holding pattern since then. I’m not so much concerned about the lawsuits as getting the big question right. Ethics has a funny way of sneaking up on you in the long run. At the very least, be prepared for a lengthy, grizzly smear campaign. Two people wrote stories insinuating I somehow profited off of books3. Your crew will be profiting with intent. One reason I’ve considered bowing out of ML is that I’d rather not be verbally spit on for the rest of eternity. It’s nice to have the support of colleagues, but unless you really care solely about money, you’ll be classified in the same bucket as Zuck: widely respected if successful by the people that matter, but never able to hold a normal relationship again. Most people probably prefer that tradeoff, but go into this with eyes wide open: you will be despised. The way out is to help train a model on Creative Commons images. I don’t know if there’s enough data. And it’s certainly a bad idea to wait; your only chance of dominating this market is to iterate quickly, which means using existing models. But at this point, lawsuits are table stakes. You need to be prepared for when they happen, not if. Also, join me in at least one sleepless night pondering the ethics of profiting off of this. Normally people only mention this as a social signal, not because they actually care. But if you sit down and think it through from first principles, the ethics — legality aside - is not at all clear. This also isn’t a case of a Snowmaker startup (https://x.com/snowmaker/status/1696026604030595497?s=61&t=jQbmCk1JqL7depzFWJNuPA); https://x.com/snowmaker/status/1696026604030595497?s=61&t=jQ... he notes that this only works when you have the general population on your side. All of those examples are of startups violating the laws that people felt were dumb. Whereas I can tell you from firsthand trauma that copyright enthusiasts are religiously fanatical. Worse, they might be on the right side of the ethics question. This was the first time in my life that a startup’s ethics gave me pause. Not just yours, but everyone who’s building creative tools off of these models. You’ll face a stiff headwind. Valve, for example, won’t approve any game containing any work generated by your tools. And everyone else is trying to build their own moat. I’m not saying to consider giving up. I’m saying, really sit down and go through the mental exercise of deciding if this is a battle you want to fight for at least three years legally and five years socially. I’m happy to provide examples of the type of abuse you and your team will face, ranging from sticks and stones’ level insults to people directly calling for criminal liability (jail time). The latter is exceedingly unlikely, but being ostracized by the general public is not. At the very least, you’ll need to have a solid answer prepared if you start hiring people and candidates ask for your stance. This comment is as much for your team as for you as an investor, since all of you will face these questions together.