No, but this is the beginning of a new generation of tools to accelerate productivity. What surprises me is that the AI companies are not market savvy enough to build those tools yet. Adobe seems to have gotten the memo though.
In testing some local image gen software, it takes about 10 seconds to generate a high quality image on my relatively old computer. I have no idea the latency on a current high end computer, but I expect it's probably near instantaneous.
Right now though the software for local generation is horrible. It's a mish-mash of open source stuff with varying compatibility loaded with casually excessive use of vernacular and acronyms. To say nothing of the awkwardness of it mostly being done in python scripts.
But once it gets inevitably cleaned up, I expect people in the future are going to take being able to generate unlimited, near instantaneous images, locally, for free, for granted.
Did you test some local image gen software in that you installed the Python code on the github page for a local model, which is clearly a LOT for a normal user... or did you look at ComfyUI, which is how most people are running local video and image models? There are "just install this" versions, which eases the path for users (but it's still, admittedly, chaos beneath the surface).
So far Adobe AI tools are pretty useless, according to many professional illustrators. With Firefly you can use other (non-Adobe) image generators. The output is usually barely usable at this point in time.
I've been waiting for solutions that integrate into the artistic process instead of replacing it. Right now a lot of the focus is on generating a complete image, but if I was in photoshop (or another editor) and could use AI tooling to create layers and other modifications that fit into a workflow, that would help with consistency and productivity.
I haven't seen the latest from adobe over the last three months, but last I saw the firefly engine was still focused on "magically" creating complete elements.
No. People create art as a form of expression and other people enjoy it because it resonates with them. Nobody that’s inclined to artistically express a thought or feeling is going to give up on creativity because maybe somebody that isn’t really interested in creating art might be able to type words into their computer and spit out something vaguely similar.
That aside, humans are necessary for making up new forms and styles. There was no cubism before Picasso and Braque, or pointillism before Seurat and Signac. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone argue that if you trained a diffusion model on only the art that Osamu Tezuka was exposed to before he turned 24 it would output Astro Boy.
"AI won't replace you, but someone who knows how to use AI will replace you" appears to be too short a phrase.
There is no better recent example than AI comedy made by a professional comedian [0]
Of course, this makes sense once you think about it for a second. Even AGI, without a BCI, could not read your mind to understand what you want. Of course, the people who have been communicating these ideas with other humans up to this point, are the best at doing that.
Apologies if I wrote my original comment poorly, but that was I was trying to communicate.
Not only was this person able to write good comedy, but they knew what tools were available and how to use them.
I previously wrote:
> "AI won't replace you, but someone who knows how to use AI will replace you." ...
The missing part is "But a person who was excellent at their pre-AI job, will replace ten of the people down the chain."
The possible analog that just popped into my head is the nearly always missed part of the quote "the customer is always right" ... "in matters of taste."
When there's a need for something with specific traits and composition at high quality, I've yet to see a model that can deliver that, especially in a reasonable amount of time. It's still way more reliable to just hand a description to a skilled illustrator along w/references and then go back and forth a bit to get a quality result. The illustrator is more expensive, but my time isn't free, so it works out.
For that matter, the car didn’t make horse riding completely obsolete either.
For artists, the question is whether generative AI is like photography or the car. My guess, at this stage, is photography.
For what it’s worth I think the proponents of generative AI are grossly overestimating the utility and economic value of meh-OK images that approximate the thing you’ve asked for.
I've seen cover art on a lot of magazines already replaced with AI images. I suspect, for the time being, that a lot of the low hanging art fruit will be destroyed by image generation. The knock on effect is less art jobs, but more artists. In the vein of your analogy, it removes the gas station attendants that fill your tank.
Horse and buggy isn't quite the analogy, I think it is more like the arrival of junk food, packed with sugar, salt and saturated fats. You will still be able to find a cafe or restaurant where a full kitchen team cooks from scratch but everything else is fast food garbage.
Maybe just the advent of the microwave oven is the analogy.
Either way, I am out. I have spent many days fiddling with AI image generation but, looking back on what I thought was 'wow' at the time, I now think everything AI art is practically useless. I only managed one image I was happy with and most of that was GIMP, not AI.
This study has confirmed my suspicions, hence I am out.
Going back to the fast food analogy, for the one restaurant that actually cooks actual food from actual ingredients, if everyone else is selling junk food then the competition has been decimated. However, the customers have been decimated too. This isn't too bad as those customers clearly never appreciated proper food in the first place, so why waste effort on them? It is a pearls and swine type of thing.
Artists no, illustrators and graphic designers yes. They'll mostly become redundant within the next 50 years. With these kind of technologies, people tend to overestimate the short-term effects and severely underestimate the long-term effects.
The more I think about it, most artists/illustrators will be replaced by workers who can't draw or paint but are better than artists at generating AI prompts.
And some day the news will announce that the last human actor has died.
No, but this is the beginning of a new generation of tools to accelerate productivity. What surprises me is that the AI companies are not market savvy enough to build those tools yet. Adobe seems to have gotten the memo though.
In testing some local image gen software, it takes about 10 seconds to generate a high quality image on my relatively old computer. I have no idea the latency on a current high end computer, but I expect it's probably near instantaneous.
Right now though the software for local generation is horrible. It's a mish-mash of open source stuff with varying compatibility loaded with casually excessive use of vernacular and acronyms. To say nothing of the awkwardness of it mostly being done in python scripts.
But once it gets inevitably cleaned up, I expect people in the future are going to take being able to generate unlimited, near instantaneous images, locally, for free, for granted.
Did you test some local image gen software in that you installed the Python code on the github page for a local model, which is clearly a LOT for a normal user... or did you look at ComfyUI, which is how most people are running local video and image models? There are "just install this" versions, which eases the path for users (but it's still, admittedly, chaos beneath the surface).
2 replies →
[dead]
> Adobe seems to have gotten the memo though.
So far Adobe AI tools are pretty useless, according to many professional illustrators. With Firefly you can use other (non-Adobe) image generators. The output is usually barely usable at this point in time.
I heard it’s useful for non illustrators? Surely those non professionals will pay for Adobe software.
I've been waiting for solutions that integrate into the artistic process instead of replacing it. Right now a lot of the focus is on generating a complete image, but if I was in photoshop (or another editor) and could use AI tooling to create layers and other modifications that fit into a workflow, that would help with consistency and productivity.
I haven't seen the latest from adobe over the last three months, but last I saw the firefly engine was still focused on "magically" creating complete elements.
DxO PureRaw & Topaz for photography are both "AI" tools that integrate into the workflow. Mostly for denoising & sharpening photographs.
No. People create art as a form of expression and other people enjoy it because it resonates with them. Nobody that’s inclined to artistically express a thought or feeling is going to give up on creativity because maybe somebody that isn’t really interested in creating art might be able to type words into their computer and spit out something vaguely similar.
That aside, humans are necessary for making up new forms and styles. There was no cubism before Picasso and Braque, or pointillism before Seurat and Signac. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone argue that if you trained a diffusion model on only the art that Osamu Tezuka was exposed to before he turned 24 it would output Astro Boy.
"AI won't replace you, but someone who knows how to use AI will replace you" appears to be too short a phrase.
There is no better recent example than AI comedy made by a professional comedian [0]
Of course, this makes sense once you think about it for a second. Even AGI, without a BCI, could not read your mind to understand what you want. Of course, the people who have been communicating these ideas with other humans up to this point, are the best at doing that.
[0] old.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1oqnwvt/ai_comedy_made_by_a_professional_comedian/
> There is no better recent example than AI comedy made by a professional comedian
To clarify, the “comedy” part of this “AI comedy” was written entirely by a human with no assistance from a language model.
> For anyone interested in my process. I wrote every joke myself, then use Sora 2 to animate them.
Exactly.
Apologies if I wrote my original comment poorly, but that was I was trying to communicate.
Not only was this person able to write good comedy, but they knew what tools were available and how to use them.
I previously wrote:
> "AI won't replace you, but someone who knows how to use AI will replace you." ...
The missing part is "But a person who was excellent at their pre-AI job, will replace ten of the people down the chain."
The possible analog that just popped into my head is the nearly always missed part of the quote "the customer is always right" ... "in matters of taste."
3 replies →
Yes and now. IKEA and co didn't replace custom made tables, just reduced the number of people needing a custom table.
Same will happen to music, artists etc. They won't vanish. But only a few per city will be left
[dead]
When there's a need for something with specific traits and composition at high quality, I've yet to see a model that can deliver that, especially in a reasonable amount of time. It's still way more reliable to just hand a description to a skilled illustrator along w/references and then go back and forth a bit to get a quality result. The illustrator is more expensive, but my time isn't free, so it works out.
I could see that changing in a few years.
For some applications.
Photography didn’t make artists obsolete.
For that matter, the car didn’t make horse riding completely obsolete either.
For artists, the question is whether generative AI is like photography or the car. My guess, at this stage, is photography.
For what it’s worth I think the proponents of generative AI are grossly overestimating the utility and economic value of meh-OK images that approximate the thing you’ve asked for.
I've seen cover art on a lot of magazines already replaced with AI images. I suspect, for the time being, that a lot of the low hanging art fruit will be destroyed by image generation. The knock on effect is less art jobs, but more artists. In the vein of your analogy, it removes the gas station attendants that fill your tank.
Horse and buggy isn't quite the analogy, I think it is more like the arrival of junk food, packed with sugar, salt and saturated fats. You will still be able to find a cafe or restaurant where a full kitchen team cooks from scratch but everything else is fast food garbage.
Maybe just the advent of the microwave oven is the analogy.
Either way, I am out. I have spent many days fiddling with AI image generation but, looking back on what I thought was 'wow' at the time, I now think everything AI art is practically useless. I only managed one image I was happy with and most of that was GIMP, not AI.
This study has confirmed my suspicions, hence I am out.
Going back to the fast food analogy, for the one restaurant that actually cooks actual food from actual ingredients, if everyone else is selling junk food then the competition has been decimated. However, the customers have been decimated too. This isn't too bad as those customers clearly never appreciated proper food in the first place, so why waste effort on them? It is a pearls and swine type of thing.
Artists no, illustrators and graphic designers yes. They'll mostly become redundant within the next 50 years. With these kind of technologies, people tend to overestimate the short-term effects and severely underestimate the long-term effects.
The more I think about it, most artists/illustrators will be replaced by workers who can't draw or paint but are better than artists at generating AI prompts.
And some day the news will announce that the last human actor has died.
[dead]