7 ms·

Is it that different from how we view Github copilot ? As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who don't intend to ever rely on copilot, and I would

Is it that different from how we view Github copilot ? As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who don't intend to ever rely on copilot, and I would expect the a similar trend in the drawing community with amateurs and pros not specially anti-AI, but not wanting to have a random generator meddle with their art.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who don't intend to ever rely on copilot" Is that really a thing? I mean, I also don't want to rely on Microsoft and therefore also not on Copilot, but not using AI tools in general out of principle is probably a very rare minority. I simply would prefer my own local LLM. But in the thread linked above I read "AI never had and never will have it’s place in art." And this stance would be very weird for me for devs.
- dartos 3y ago
  Well think of how AI was trained. GitHub trained copilot on _mostly_ open source data with permissive licenses. Giving away code and their rights for free is commonplace. Also it’s not like you can use “by Ryan Dhal” to make the output from copilot better. But these art AI were trained on. CC, CC-BY, and closed license pieces of art. And you can use “by Greg Rotowski” to get art in that artist’s specific style. I don’t think comparing the use of AI or the general attitude towards AI between artists and devs makes sense. Very apples and oranges.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    I see the licence issue, so hypothetically, if a LLM was only trained on code that explicitely allowed LLM training, would you use that?
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Hmm, is it possible to include a bit of prompt in copilot, something like “follow the formatting guidelines of the Linux kernel,” or something like that? I dunno if it would help, but people do seem(?) to be improving their ChatGPT responses by telling it to answer as if it is an expert on a topic.
    - dartos 3y ago
      I’m sure it is, but the Linux kernel is freely available already AND it’s much less personal than directly naming someone to use their style
- southerntofu 3y ago
  > "As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who don't intend to ever rely on copilot" I'm one of those. I've been programming for a while now and there's no way i'm gonna trust a neural network with my code. Debugging is painful enough without having to deal with subtle bugs hallucinated by ML. Some machines are really useful to reduce human suffering and augment our collective capabilities. Some machines are just useless, polluting gadgets. I think ML sits in the middleground: if your job is pissing meaningless code all day that's very repetitive it can probably do it for you... but if you have to actually do R&D to develop new tools i don't think ML will be any use. So yes AI can reduce work, but arguably work that was never required nor beneficial to humanity to begin with. I would be way more interested in society reflecting on "bullshit jobs" and how to actually share the workload so that we can have 1-day work-weeks planet-wide, just as the scientists from the 19th/20th century envisioned. Instead of continuing to destroy the planet so we can run bullshitting neural nets in the cloud that produce arguably little value. But sure, ML is fun. Let's just pretend we don't see the whole world burning outside the window.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    "So yes AI can reduce work, but arguably work that was never required nor beneficial to humanity to begin with" Hm, just a suggestion, I would be careful with such statements, if you don't want to insult peoples work you know nothing about. Because LLMs enable a very broad spectrum of work. I don't use them in my current workflow(nor am I that easily insulted), but the times I did use them, they were useful. My problem with them was mainly ChatGPT4 was out of date, but it did produce very useful results for me for WebGPU and Pixijs, which I had not used before and the solutions it gave me, I could not find on the internet. So for my novel work, they don't help me in general, but they do help me if I need a new custom part, without having to reinvent the wheel. And then of course there are people who greatly benefit from them, who did not study CS, like a friend who is ecologist and all he wants are some custom python scripts, to modify his GIS tool. I think he is doing useful work and with LLMs he is indeed spending less time on his (freelance) work and has more time for his children. Isn't that, what you are also hoping for?
    - 3y ago
- lionkor 3y ago
  Yes, that's a thing, I'm one of those people. While impressive, the two issues I have with codepilot and other AI tools are: 1. The code is usually the same code I'd get a few web searches away, except then it would have the appropriate copyright. As a FOSS developer (in my free time), I do not want to risk using code I don't have a license for, and thus dirtying up my entire project and putting it in danger of being taken down. 2. I really don't need it. At very few points in a project do I both think "I want to continue this" and also "I want my code written for me". I like autocomplete, I use autocomplete, and I like Visual Studio's suggestions, too. It's only wrong 50% of the time, around about. I have no interest in a tool that writes my code for me, because I have learned everything I know from solving problems myself. Edit: Clauses in the AI's ToS like "all code generated is yours" or something is akin to a sign on a bar saying "if you hit someone in here it's not assault" -- it doesn't change the facts whatsoever, and the fact is that it's still a crime to hit somebody, even if the bar's ToS say otherwise.
  - Kiro 3y ago
    > The code is usually the same code I'd get a few web searches away My impression is that people normally don't use Copilot as a substitute for finding solutions (ChatGPT is much better for that), but as a way to help with otherwise tedious tasks that are really specific to your codebase. Check out 6:05 and 6:25 in this Andreas Kling video for a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxubNQC5O8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxubNQC5O8 Regarding your second point Copilot helps me when I least expects it. I think the video illustrates what I mean with that as well.
    - tambourine_man 3y ago
      It really is amazing and Andreas Kling is awesome. Thanks for the link
    - Nullabillity 3y ago
      > Check out 6:05 and 6:25 in this Andreas Kling video for a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxubNQC5O8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxubNQC5O8 Oof. So not only was it a poor replacement for a macro, it didn't even generate the correct code!
- tambourine_man 3y ago
  I’m a Vim guy and I’m very impressed with VS Copilot, but: - Not enough to switch (yet, at least) - I would have to carefully review the generated code, which is not as fun writing The license issue is something I expect will be solved in the next few years (a dropdown menu to choose from, maybe).
  - happymellon 3y ago
    > The license issue is something I expect will be solved in the next few years (a dropdown menu to choose from, maybe). I'm not sure it will, as everyone who uses it don't appear to really care about other people's licences anyway. It's just a method of BSD washing GPL code.
  - Filligree 3y ago
    You can use copilot with vim, no problem.
    - freedomben 3y ago
      Yes, original copilot, but not new copilot with expanded features. I'm a vim person and wold rather give up copilot than move to vs code, so I do hope they aren't going to leave vim behind and focus only on vs code moving forward.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  In an ideal world I'd choose stacks with not enough boilerplate to warrant copilot. I had my share of auto generation with enterprise Java stacks, and tried as hard as I could to move to stacks where what we write is concise and relevant (rails is the closest I came to this, not perfect but clearly going in the right direction). I think AI has its place, but I also hope to be lucky enough to not have to use it. Illustrators might have similar issues, where some of them need to produce boilerplate drawings a lot, but I think they'd also prefer working on project that aren't that.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    Yeah these Copilot type tools shouldn’t help much if a language is well-designed, or a project is structured in a fashion that doesn’t require a ton of boilerplate. If we’re doing things well, we’ll only have to tell the computer something once, right? If it is possible to guess what we’re going to write, then we aren’t transmitting much information to the computer. Copilot seems to be very popular though.
- RunSet 3y ago
  I see a different future where people continue to write their own code rather than trust Microsoft AutoPlagiarist™. Perhaps I am wrong and this no-code solution will at last relieve us of our onerous cognitive burdens.
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  > Is that really a thing? Yes. I'm a Vim user with 100 WPM typing speed, and I can say with confidence that Copilot isn't that useful to me. Typing boilerplate is not an issue - understanding what I wrote is most of the work. And having an AI spew code that I have to read is more work for me than just writing it myself.
  - radlad 3y ago
    Just as a data point counter to yours, I'm a Vim user with a 150+ wpm typing speed, and I have to say I find Copilot massively useful. In Go, it's great for dealing with a lot of the repetitive code one finds themselves writing. When writing Android apps, it's useful for API discovery!
    - OOPMan 3y ago
      Are you guys seriously involved in a WPM pissing contest?
      - disqard 3y ago
        Ssshhhh! You just scared away a 200+ wpm person from adding on to this interesting conversation.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - bheadmaster 3y ago
        Do you know how many hours I've spent grinding gtypist? Of course I'm going to involve myself in WPM pissing contests. Not doing so would be like going to the gym and not posting your muscle flexing photos on social media. It's just taking away the joy.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - radlad 3y ago
- jwells89 3y ago
  I’ll use ChatGPT to help surface docs and examples or to get a very rough high level overview if what a task might involve, but I don’t really want an LLM in my IDE. Not only does it feel like something that might be dangerous to become reliant on (what happens when it’s not working or I don’t have access to it), I have no idea what material it was trained on which makes it ethically gray. I might be more receptive to a local LLM where I can personally vet what it was trained on (primarily, I’m concerned with if the material was obtained fully consensually or not). My attitude towards image generators is similar. Adobe’s is totally out of the question for example, because though they claim it’s 100% ethically trained because all material came from their stock image service, I know that’s bullshit because I’ve seen stolen art put up for sale there more times than I can count (and worse, they’re unresponsive when theft is reported).
- nine_k 3y ago
  There is a big difference between AI generating a piece of picture which you completely observe, and AI generating a piece of code that may contain a subtle, hard-to-spot bug. In both cases you're also risking being accused of plagiarism, when the model literally remembers, or reconstructs, a piece it has seen, and finds it perfectly matching your request. I think "AI" tools in Krita may have their place: object detection and selection / tracing, upsampling, seamless resizing, cutting and pasting, texture generation, light adjustment, stuff like that. An integrated analog of DALL-E or Midjourney would likely be a poor for.
loki-ai 3y ago
Like the artists, this won't be an option. Market pressures will force devs to use AI assistance. For example, this recent GitHub presentation about productivity improvements: 35% acceptance rate, 50% more pull requests, etc. I believe these numbers, and even if you don't, they will be a reality soon. https://youtu.be/AAT4zCfzsHI?t=486 https://youtu.be/AAT4zCfzsHI?t=486
- chefandy 3y ago
  That's true. However, as an adjacent point, I do want to highlight how the impact will be totally different in art than in development, because many seem to be equating them. The main difference is that in development, more of the tedium gets removed-- e.g. interacting with some API or UI boilerplate-- and more of the more satisfying work-- how the program, generally, is going to solve a problem-- remains. In art, the more satisfying part-- conceptualization and forming those ideas into images-- is entirely removed but the tedium remains. Commissioning a piece of art from an artist entails describing what you want, maybe supplying some inspo images, and then going through a few rounds of drafts or waypoint updates to course-correct before arriving at a final image. Sound familiar? Generative AI art isn't making art: it is commissioning art from a computer program that makes it from an amalgam of other people's art. It reduces the role of the "artist" to making up for the machine artist's shortcomings. When you're making art, making the details are ingrained in that process-- a requisite step to forming your ideas into images. Details are critical in high-level commercial art, and despite the insistence of many developers who know far less than they realize, current generative AI isn't even close to sufficient. Economic realities aside, when you're merely editing someone else's images, you've basically transitioned from "writer" to "spell checker" and I don't understand how so many refuse to see how a professional artist would be distraught about that.
boppo1 3y ago
>I would expect the a similar trend in the drawing community with amateurs and pros not specially anti-AI, but not wanting to have a random generator meddle with their art. Hi! This is me! I'm good enough that I can draw and paint whatever I want manually. I (generally) don't want it in my (main) workflow and I don't want telemetry training models against my work (without knowledge & consent). However, I don't have any qualms against other people using it and I think it's exciting technology.
zamadatix 3y ago
Has anyone found out what the "sizable number" actually looks like? Is it sizable as in "13% of devs, 35% in niche areas like HN, say they are against it wholesale" or sizable as in "3% of devs can make a lot of noise, especially in nice areas, when it's something they care about"? Even 0.1% of devs would be quite sizable by number but still irrelevant in context of why one group's opinion is like another. Of those that don't ever intend to rely on something like copilot - is the majority because "I can code better without it in the current capabilities" or a principled matter about the technology wronging them in some way?
Gormo 3y ago
I think it's a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison. There are vastly different downstream consequences and risk exposure associated with using AI to design and implement functionality for mission-critical infrastructure vs. using AI to draw pictures.
raincole 3y ago
There are a lot of people who draw and paint. Of course there will be people who reject AI. There are people who restrictly only use traditional media too. That's why I said Krita will (and should?) fork into 2 apps, one for people who reject AI. But the line between "random generator" and "artistic finer control" isn't that sharp and clear. How do digital artists draw leaves and bushes in background? If not photobashing, most experienced people will use some kind of brushes[0] with some radnomness built into them, like random rotation or spray. Randomness is even more prevelant in traditional media. And I'm 100% sure AI will evolve to cover as much as both ends. [0]: Not necessarily a leaf brush. A common misconception held by digital painting newbies are you need X brush to paint X efficiently. Experienced aritsts don't want X -- they want some controllable randomness.

hutzlibu 3y ago

"As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who don't intend to ever rely on copilot" Is that really a thing? I mean, I also don't want to rely on Microsoft and therefore also not on Copilot, but not using AI tools in general out of principle is probably a very rare minority. I simply would prefer my own local LLM. But in the thread linked above I read "AI never had and never will have it’s place in art." And this stance would be very weird for me for devs.

dartos 3y ago
Well think of how AI was trained. GitHub trained copilot on _mostly_ open source data with permissive licenses. Giving away code and their rights for free is commonplace. Also it’s not like you can use “by Ryan Dhal” to make the output from copilot better. But these art AI were trained on. CC, CC-BY, and closed license pieces of art. And you can use “by Greg Rotowski” to get art in that artist’s specific style. I don’t think comparing the use of AI or the general attitude towards AI between artists and devs makes sense. Very apples and oranges.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  I see the licence issue, so hypothetically, if a LLM was only trained on code that explicitely allowed LLM training, would you use that?
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Hmm, is it possible to include a bit of prompt in copilot, something like “follow the formatting guidelines of the Linux kernel,” or something like that? I dunno if it would help, but people do seem(?) to be improving their ChatGPT responses by telling it to answer as if it is an expert on a topic.
  - dartos 3y ago
    I’m sure it is, but the Linux kernel is freely available already AND it’s much less personal than directly naming someone to use their style
southerntofu 3y ago
> "As far as I know there's a sizeable number of devs who don't intend to ever rely on copilot" I'm one of those. I've been programming for a while now and there's no way i'm gonna trust a neural network with my code. Debugging is painful enough without having to deal with subtle bugs hallucinated by ML. Some machines are really useful to reduce human suffering and augment our collective capabilities. Some machines are just useless, polluting gadgets. I think ML sits in the middleground: if your job is pissing meaningless code all day that's very repetitive it can probably do it for you... but if you have to actually do R&D to develop new tools i don't think ML will be any use. So yes AI can reduce work, but arguably work that was never required nor beneficial to humanity to begin with. I would be way more interested in society reflecting on "bullshit jobs" and how to actually share the workload so that we can have 1-day work-weeks planet-wide, just as the scientists from the 19th/20th century envisioned. Instead of continuing to destroy the planet so we can run bullshitting neural nets in the cloud that produce arguably little value. But sure, ML is fun. Let's just pretend we don't see the whole world burning outside the window.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "So yes AI can reduce work, but arguably work that was never required nor beneficial to humanity to begin with" Hm, just a suggestion, I would be careful with such statements, if you don't want to insult peoples work you know nothing about. Because LLMs enable a very broad spectrum of work. I don't use them in my current workflow(nor am I that easily insulted), but the times I did use them, they were useful. My problem with them was mainly ChatGPT4 was out of date, but it did produce very useful results for me for WebGPU and Pixijs, which I had not used before and the solutions it gave me, I could not find on the internet. So for my novel work, they don't help me in general, but they do help me if I need a new custom part, without having to reinvent the wheel. And then of course there are people who greatly benefit from them, who did not study CS, like a friend who is ecologist and all he wants are some custom python scripts, to modify his GIS tool. I think he is doing useful work and with LLMs he is indeed spending less time on his (freelance) work and has more time for his children. Isn't that, what you are also hoping for?
  - 3y ago
lionkor 3y ago
Yes, that's a thing, I'm one of those people. While impressive, the two issues I have with codepilot and other AI tools are: 1. The code is usually the same code I'd get a few web searches away, except then it would have the appropriate copyright. As a FOSS developer (in my free time), I do not want to risk using code I don't have a license for, and thus dirtying up my entire project and putting it in danger of being taken down. 2. I really don't need it. At very few points in a project do I both think "I want to continue this" and also "I want my code written for me". I like autocomplete, I use autocomplete, and I like Visual Studio's suggestions, too. It's only wrong 50% of the time, around about. I have no interest in a tool that writes my code for me, because I have learned everything I know from solving problems myself. Edit: Clauses in the AI's ToS like "all code generated is yours" or something is akin to a sign on a bar saying "if you hit someone in here it's not assault" -- it doesn't change the facts whatsoever, and the fact is that it's still a crime to hit somebody, even if the bar's ToS say otherwise.
- Kiro 3y ago
  > The code is usually the same code I'd get a few web searches away My impression is that people normally don't use Copilot as a substitute for finding solutions (ChatGPT is much better for that), but as a way to help with otherwise tedious tasks that are really specific to your codebase. Check out 6:05 and 6:25 in this Andreas Kling video for a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxubNQC5O8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxubNQC5O8 Regarding your second point Copilot helps me when I least expects it. I think the video illustrates what I mean with that as well.
  - tambourine_man 3y ago
    It really is amazing and Andreas Kling is awesome. Thanks for the link
  - Nullabillity 3y ago
    > Check out 6:05 and 6:25 in this Andreas Kling video for a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxubNQC5O8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxubNQC5O8 Oof. So not only was it a poor replacement for a macro, it didn't even generate the correct code!
tambourine_man 3y ago
I’m a Vim guy and I’m very impressed with VS Copilot, but: - Not enough to switch (yet, at least) - I would have to carefully review the generated code, which is not as fun writing The license issue is something I expect will be solved in the next few years (a dropdown menu to choose from, maybe).
- happymellon 3y ago
  > The license issue is something I expect will be solved in the next few years (a dropdown menu to choose from, maybe). I'm not sure it will, as everyone who uses it don't appear to really care about other people's licences anyway. It's just a method of BSD washing GPL code.
- Filligree 3y ago
  You can use copilot with vim, no problem.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Yes, original copilot, but not new copilot with expanded features. I'm a vim person and wold rather give up copilot than move to vs code, so I do hope they aren't going to leave vim behind and focus only on vs code moving forward.
makeitdouble 3y ago
In an ideal world I'd choose stacks with not enough boilerplate to warrant copilot. I had my share of auto generation with enterprise Java stacks, and tried as hard as I could to move to stacks where what we write is concise and relevant (rails is the closest I came to this, not perfect but clearly going in the right direction). I think AI has its place, but I also hope to be lucky enough to not have to use it. Illustrators might have similar issues, where some of them need to produce boilerplate drawings a lot, but I think they'd also prefer working on project that aren't that.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  Yeah these Copilot type tools shouldn’t help much if a language is well-designed, or a project is structured in a fashion that doesn’t require a ton of boilerplate. If we’re doing things well, we’ll only have to tell the computer something once, right? If it is possible to guess what we’re going to write, then we aren’t transmitting much information to the computer. Copilot seems to be very popular though.
RunSet 3y ago
I see a different future where people continue to write their own code rather than trust Microsoft AutoPlagiarist™. Perhaps I am wrong and this no-code solution will at last relieve us of our onerous cognitive burdens.
bheadmaster 3y ago
> Is that really a thing? Yes. I'm a Vim user with 100 WPM typing speed, and I can say with confidence that Copilot isn't that useful to me. Typing boilerplate is not an issue - understanding what I wrote is most of the work. And having an AI spew code that I have to read is more work for me than just writing it myself.
- radlad 3y ago
  Just as a data point counter to yours, I'm a Vim user with a 150+ wpm typing speed, and I have to say I find Copilot massively useful. In Go, it's great for dealing with a lot of the repetitive code one finds themselves writing. When writing Android apps, it's useful for API discovery!
  - OOPMan 3y ago
    Are you guys seriously involved in a WPM pissing contest?
    - disqard 3y ago
      Ssshhhh! You just scared away a 200+ wpm person from adding on to this interesting conversation.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - bheadmaster 3y ago
      Do you know how many hours I've spent grinding gtypist? Of course I'm going to involve myself in WPM pissing contests. Not doing so would be like going to the gym and not posting your muscle flexing photos on social media. It's just taking away the joy.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - radlad 3y ago
jwells89 3y ago
I’ll use ChatGPT to help surface docs and examples or to get a very rough high level overview if what a task might involve, but I don’t really want an LLM in my IDE. Not only does it feel like something that might be dangerous to become reliant on (what happens when it’s not working or I don’t have access to it), I have no idea what material it was trained on which makes it ethically gray. I might be more receptive to a local LLM where I can personally vet what it was trained on (primarily, I’m concerned with if the material was obtained fully consensually or not). My attitude towards image generators is similar. Adobe’s is totally out of the question for example, because though they claim it’s 100% ethically trained because all material came from their stock image service, I know that’s bullshit because I’ve seen stolen art put up for sale there more times than I can count (and worse, they’re unresponsive when theft is reported).
nine_k 3y ago
There is a big difference between AI generating a piece of picture which you completely observe, and AI generating a piece of code that may contain a subtle, hard-to-spot bug. In both cases you're also risking being accused of plagiarism, when the model literally remembers, or reconstructs, a piece it has seen, and finds it perfectly matching your request. I think "AI" tools in Krita may have their place: object detection and selection / tracing, upsampling, seamless resizing, cutting and pasting, texture generation, light adjustment, stuff like that. An integrated analog of DALL-E or Midjourney would likely be a poor for.

loki-ai 3y ago

Like the artists, this won't be an option. Market pressures will force devs to use AI assistance. For example, this recent GitHub presentation about productivity improvements: 35% acceptance rate, 50% more pull requests, etc. I believe these numbers, and even if you don't, they will be a reality soon. https://youtu.be/AAT4zCfzsHI?t=486 https://youtu.be/AAT4zCfzsHI?t=486

chefandy 3y ago
That's true. However, as an adjacent point, I do want to highlight how the impact will be totally different in art than in development, because many seem to be equating them. The main difference is that in development, more of the tedium gets removed-- e.g. interacting with some API or UI boilerplate-- and more of the more satisfying work-- how the program, generally, is going to solve a problem-- remains. In art, the more satisfying part-- conceptualization and forming those ideas into images-- is entirely removed but the tedium remains. Commissioning a piece of art from an artist entails describing what you want, maybe supplying some inspo images, and then going through a few rounds of drafts or waypoint updates to course-correct before arriving at a final image. Sound familiar? Generative AI art isn't making art: it is commissioning art from a computer program that makes it from an amalgam of other people's art. It reduces the role of the "artist" to making up for the machine artist's shortcomings. When you're making art, making the details are ingrained in that process-- a requisite step to forming your ideas into images. Details are critical in high-level commercial art, and despite the insistence of many developers who know far less than they realize, current generative AI isn't even close to sufficient. Economic realities aside, when you're merely editing someone else's images, you've basically transitioned from "writer" to "spell checker" and I don't understand how so many refuse to see how a professional artist would be distraught about that.

boppo1 3y ago

>I would expect the a similar trend in the drawing community with amateurs and pros not specially anti-AI, but not wanting to have a random generator meddle with their art. Hi! This is me! I'm good enough that I can draw and paint whatever I want manually. I (generally) don't want it in my (main) workflow and I don't want telemetry training models against my work (without knowledge & consent). However, I don't have any qualms against other people using it and I think it's exciting technology.

zamadatix 3y ago

Has anyone found out what the "sizable number" actually looks like? Is it sizable as in "13% of devs, 35% in niche areas like HN, say they are against it wholesale" or sizable as in "3% of devs can make a lot of noise, especially in nice areas, when it's something they care about"? Even 0.1% of devs would be quite sizable by number but still irrelevant in context of why one group's opinion is like another. Of those that don't ever intend to rely on something like copilot - is the majority because "I can code better without it in the current capabilities" or a principled matter about the technology wronging them in some way?

Gormo 3y ago

I think it's a bit of an apples-and-oranges comparison. There are vastly different downstream consequences and risk exposure associated with using AI to design and implement functionality for mission-critical infrastructure vs. using AI to draw pictures.

raincole 3y ago

There are a lot of people who draw and paint. Of course there will be people who reject AI. There are people who restrictly only use traditional media too. That's why I said Krita will (and should?) fork into 2 apps, one for people who reject AI. But the line between "random generator" and "artistic finer control" isn't that sharp and clear. How do digital artists draw leaves and bushes in background? If not photobashing, most experienced people will use some kind of brushes[0] with some radnomness built into them, like random rotation or spray. Randomness is even more prevelant in traditional media. And I'm 100% sure AI will evolve to cover as much as both ends. [0]: Not necessarily a leaf brush. A common misconception held by digital painting newbies are you need X brush to paint X efficiently. Experienced aritsts don't want X -- they want some controllable randomness.