Hacker News Reader

Comment by russianGuy83829 | Hacker News Reader

I don't see the mental gymnastics here, the post you linked pretty clearly delineates the differences to AI in the sense it is used today.

As major differences I'd highlight: local and offline, so drawings not sent anywhere trained on artist work with explicit consent

In Krita's case, they claim the AI isn't generative so it doesn't add detail.

Whereas the AI today is trained on stolen work and often on the inputs as well.

View on HN

Well, first of all, I don't buy the idea that there is a clear line between 'filter' and 'generative' AI. Even in the example Krita dev posted [0], you can see the 'filter' AI made up a bit detail (the way the girl's eyes look became different), it's just not as smart as so-called generative AI.

And about the privacy and copyright concern, what we currently have are:

Stable Diffusion: local and offline, but not copyright-clean.

Adobe Firefly: online, but copyright-clean (if we believe Adobe's claim).

So if we combine the better sides of both, it suddenly becomes okay?

[0]: https://krita-artists.org/uploads/default/original/3X/1/4/14...

Well, there is a clear line between a handmade filter and AI. But this is clearly AI since it relies on a filter optimized via automated training on images.

I think we are in agreement, I have used more descriptive wording to just clearly indicate what I consider as a filter.

(Edit: yeah, looking at the image I can see it clearly takes some artistic liberties. Even on the dragon.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com