I'm open minded, I think both are good to have. The beauty of human art is not just the object, or the design, but the concept behind, the experience, the human value. AI will be able to do very advanced stuff but it will never replicate those things. I think the problem is not AI, but greedy companies trying to replace humans, feelings, and concepts that can't be replicated with machines by AI.
What is worse this current Adobe thing highlights again, is that Adobe becomes ransom ware. If you DO NOT agree to the new terms, you can't access your work anymore...no warning given. No deactivation of some features so that you still have access, simply, "oh you want to get your work, agree to give it to us first".
In Krita we are actually working on a neural network project - but it won't be generative AI, just a sort of a smart filter. We'd probably need way less data than the generative AI does, and yes, we'd make a call for donating it (especially since we'd probably need to have the artworks created just for this purpose to get as easy training as possible). There should be an announcement post about it next week or so. It's a bit similar to the feature that Inkscape has that it traces the bitmap and makes a vector from it - this one will trace a sketch to make a clean lineart-like image. Since it's raster-to-raster and we want to have some width variation and possibly different brushes in the final image, it makes sense to use NN/AI for that. The model will be relatively tiny, and all calculations local. And we really do hope to avoid all the common AI pitfalls and concerns in that project.
Narrow NNs make sense for many applications. I think we in the open source world have the right guard rails to be able to do some of these in the right ways. Respectfully. Do you know if your NN will output vector information that gets rendered as lines in raster or is it all diffusion type models?
have you actually asked if people want or need such a feature ? i understand the appeal but it might give off negative impressions to different types of artists that like more manual approaches to art.
@@ali32bit42 There are people who want it. Those who don't, don't need to use it. The difference is that the NN for Krita won't be forced on anyone; it will be a tool available for individual artists/teams to adopt, and train on their own art/data.
good to hear such sound and reasonable perspective from someone more on the programming side. Those handweavy arguments that skip the moral implications of the lack of consent are truly terrifying. It's the exact same reason we ban so many medical experiments, yet you never hear these people arguing that we ought to do immoral medical procedures to advance medicine just because we would be "giving an unfair advantage to OuR eNeMiEs"
It is not a miracle. The nightmare was to aceept it to start off with. The miracle is Blender and programs like Inkscape. From 1990-2010 all you could feasibly do on a computer was play games and hardcore be a nerd and make games like Minecraft in your basement. (very much a coder first world computers.) Today? Last 5years? 2D, 3D, Game engines, Rendering engines. I mean heck even LiberOffice is on par with Microsoft Word of 2008 or whatever. Edit: Ofc since the .com boom you could always watch cats on the internet. But I mean using a computer to do stuff. And without paying for 'professional' licneses. Today Danci Resolve is even a decent if not best in class video editior too. I mean Microsoft/Apple had a free version of a video editor? Paint? Something like that. Today Blender is a not impossible video editor to use. If you are doing it simply as side hobby? You are more then welcomed to use a tool that decades ago would require you to spend $$$ just to play around with it. Today? You feel bad not giving something back to the grate free and open tool projects. In 2020-2024? Every imaginable tool is getting better and better. And cost nothing to get started in. Now you even have Godot 3D. You can make a vitrual walk around simulator of a chuch. Or really anything. Make a model train set going around tracks in Blender? Like anything! All completly free and YOURS. Without 3dMax or Maya bugs. Without AI nonsense or Photoshop faking the world.
A few years ago I sarcastically complained on Twitter about having to learn Inkscape because Adobe had made it impossible for me to reinstall and register the legit copy of Photoshop CS2 I owned and had been using since 2008 (I believe they shut down their registration servers in 2020 or something like that). Someone from Inkscape replied to my tweet explaining how they believed it was important for people to own the software they used--I'm paraphrasing but it was such an impressive response that I've been thinking about it ever since, especially whenever a company like Adobe pulls some new sketchy nonsense.
Right now, CMYK is the most important new feature to add into Inkscape. Or add some kind of cross-link script to work between Inkscape and GhostScript. We don't need AI in everything we do. This is getting people more dumb.
More important and necessary in inkscape than AI is CMYK support. A lot of people don't go to Inkscape because of this issue, otherwise the software is excellent, on par with any vector software on the market.
I made an add-on on GitHub called InkSync which you can use to embed your work in Krita to ensure CMYK colour space. But I agree, Inkscape should just have it.
Ditto that for GIMP. Supposedly it's coming in v3.0. whenever that eventually lands. Sad part about that is that this would make GIMP about a feature packed as Photoshop 3.0, maybe 4.0 if we pushed it? Seriously why is CMYK so hard?
@@fablewalls I suspect the Inkscape Team, are waiting on the GIMP Team to re-invent the CMYK Wheel for them, and then use that Fruit to feed Inkscape with it down the road.
as a 3D artist i think the solution to the consent problem might just be to legally license the work from artists. if their artstyle and works are good enough to be profitable in an AI then its only fair that you compensate them perpetually for taking their work and profiting off it. its not as good as commisions but its passive income for artists and it adds a cost to prevent over saturation of AI images since you pay the license .
Just as Unity set fire to their fan base and caused major development and user shifts to Unreal and Godot, Adobe has gone the extra mile in their unethical pursuit of total market dominance. What will happen is end users and developers will discover the Affinity products and others such as Luminar and hopefully cause some major commercial damage. Adobe will never be an ethically run company, just as Google will never stop being evil. I’m with Louis Rossman here, we are obligated to sail the high seas yo ho yo ho a … well you know the tune.
Looks like I'm in the right place, no going back to Adobe so I'll make it work whatever I have to learn. Inkscape for Illustrator and mainly my vector work, found Da Vinci Resolve for Premiere so good there - before looking at the next three Adobe program replaces.
Sad truth is, in the long run, Adobe's current tactics will give them an irrefutable advantage over their competitors (once the technology catches up in the vector graphics department). People complain, yet keep using their products, giving Adobe all right access to their creations stored on Adobe's servers. This in turn will make Adobe's generative fill features the gold standard in the industry - achieved through questionable means. Well, I guess we get what we deserve
I suppose the secret is to bugger off to the Options Settings, and disable the Cloudy bits. Makes you wonder how the BIG BOYs play it (i.e. Newspaperss / Glossy Magazines), not sure they'd be up to Sharing their copyrighted images, for free.
Instead of ai for producing or generating image, i would love if it can be an enhanchment tech for bitmap tracing, it more usefull in inkscape, imo. For now tracing image in inkscape, especially colorfull image, is pain :")
Adobe should make *its source code public to be used by anyone* - that's what they're asking creators: to have them work used without licence. I'm still waiting for any corporation to do it... * they also should pay *a monthly fee* to any creator on which works the future AI were trained. That should level the field a bit :) (I know Adobe like and understand why monthly fees are important :D)
Procedural generation would likely come first, then machine learning algorithms could be used to 'AI assist' on generating a layout or shapes representing an object. Little steps, but more importantly SAFE steps.
Actually there is a VERY easy fix for vector AI generations within Inkscape. You can ask any image generator such as Midjourney or Leonardo etc, to give you a vector looking image of a whatever logo. You will then get a bitmap file that looks like a vector image which... you can image trace in either Illustrator or Inscape. That, could be an automated default process within Inkscape, so... it generated a standard bitmap image, which then traces to vector and then! gives you the results. A direct vector file of what you asked for.
People are cancelling the WEF-based subscription model in droves and quite rightly. Adobe’s stock is tanking. The company have shafted its core customer base & i for one hope they go down. After 30 years of registered usuage they accused me of theft (piracy) because i couldn’t produce a receipt from over ten years past. Even if i could, they wouldn’t validate their own software (they have pulled the validation server). Now they are simply using people as cash cows. Adobe can FRO&D.
I love your philosophy, Martin. 👍 Adobe's behavior is typical of not wanting to know the answer to the question they know they should ask, but are too big to care about the relatively small amount of users they'll lose, and sadly the amount they make from the suckers who stay will more than make up for it.
I think the real reason for Adobe to do this is just to cash off users hard work. Many open source projects do not directly earn money, so there is literally no reason to introduce AI services yet.
I really feel how companies are utilizing AI for art is ridiculous. As a designer/artist/coder.. I would rather have the AI assist in predicting my next line or help with particular tasks not do the whole thing for me. What would I learn from writing a prompt? I think there’s things AI could assist the designer with, or these companies would just listen to the users for the tools and functionality they want. Like how is it that I can’t assign a brush to a layer.. so say have an ink layer.. that layer should be associated with a brush, I click on that layer and it automatically assigns the brush and maybe even some of the settings I chose for the brush as well.. how is this so difficult?
Great video, Martin. Adobe and Meta are broadcasting to the wide world that they don't understand their users. We should no longer be associating ourselves with these people.
There should be an AI tool that helps sort and manage vector image assets, allowing users to create generative projects using their own libraries. Additionally, users could submit to a public library and choose to contribute to training the AI. A blockchain-style system could track reference material usage and frequency. Submitting items for training would earn users points, which could be used to access content. These credits would be pooled into the public library.
I 100% agree. As a designer, AI has been something that I have had to look into heavily due to copyright laws. Fortunately, unless there have been a significant change in the past month, it is not possible to copyright AI art because of the way the art is created. It is a similar principle with sites like Canva or Kittl. The elements you put together are someone else's creation. This is why I simply use AI as a tool for referencing. In respect of Inkscape, I agree that AI tools are not needed at the moment. I would happily add some of my work to the AI database BUT there are still products that I would never want to share ie work done for clients who want to trademark a design I did. A lot more needs to be done to protect artist's work. Maybe when that is done, months/years later from now, you can revisit the idea?
excellent, sim ple and to the point. Lawmakers need to pass legislation making it clear to the companies that they cannot bypass consent when building technology, and changing EULA/TOS will not be tolerated as a means of bypassing consent.
@@ilonachan With Modified Windows I mean a special forked version of windows which Is modified by somebody and distributed to others. Like I am using Nexus Win 10 (1) In this version all the Bloat or Microsoft sh#t is removed, which usually comes with Original Win 10 As a result, windows which uses about 4-6 GB in normal Now uses only 800MB to 1.2 GB to operate ( Also Depends on additional drivers you have Installed (2) Also Original windows strains CPU more But this one is Minimal like Linux (3) My win 10 version comes with additional softwares installed Like Drive Booster and SDL Drivers With Drive Booster you can boost system and even install Genuine Drivers and update them. And a software from that Guy called " Nexus Toolkit " This kit allows us to tweak system attributes for various purposes. And you can also install other apps from it. This was it fron the version am using But there are many windows modified version like Atlas Os, Ghost Spectre and many more. You can choose what you want.
this just sounds like someone watch the episode “Terms of Service” form Silicon valley and went "we'll sell this all to someone else before it blows up.
@@doctormo i Watched a detailed vdo on Affinity Designer. In affinity you just drag a layer on another layer. Like A layer I dragged on B then A will work like a Tatto of B. But to achieve same in Inkscape we create mask then B will gi invisible in this process. But I want B to be visible and still masking happen ( like a designs and shades on my Octopus Obj ) I am not native so I don:t think I can explain with much accuracy.
I notice that Krita has a generative AI plugin based on Stable Diffusion. If (hypothetically) Stable Diffusion was eventually developed such that it could produce vector images, would developers be interested in producing a corresponding Inkscape plugin?
I'd honestly be more interested in targeted models, like trace bitmap first. Then let's talk "where is it running", "who's running it", "how much power", "what is it trained on". The host of difficult questions are hurdles which Stable Diffusion doesn't pass at the moment.
Adobe isn't asking for consent because it's more profitable for them to just take your data. Also, there's no real guarantee that they aren't taking the data already. Remember, a lawsuit is simply the cost of doing business if they can make more money from breaking the law.
Thanks for your video. The issue then becomes; what creator would want to submit their own artwork to train a system that could potentially make them redundant. I get that it’s happening anyway but we need to tread very carefully with this tech in the future. Problem is it’s also a digital arms race and to not play along hands others an advantage..
Doing the right thing does not mean doing nothing. Nor does it mean that your principle can be so unconvincing. Of course, I point broadly to the amount of money flowing through these systems and how much of it ISNT going to any owners of the data. That's seriously wrong.
I know you are saying some important stuff but all I am thinking is Heart performance of Stairway to heaven by Led Zeppelin and entire choir wearing that hat.
I would like to become a programmer and become a part of this wonderful business. Thank you, thank you, thank you very much for giving us the opportunity for free to learn and benefit.❤❤❤
AI can stay away from creative processes. YOU ARE NOT AN ARTIST IF YOU USE AI. It's not opinion. You and only you have creativity, therefore you create the work. AI does not and therefore it doesn't create, it produces. It doesn't think, it doesn't reason. On top of everything else, the energy and resource cost to the world to train and use AI I would really love that Inkscape stays very far away from it #humanmade #madebyhuman #notforscraping #notformachinelearning #notforai
Oh I very much agree with the conditions you've laid out here. It's only useful in so far as it can be created and run ethically, in all the ways you say. A very tall order that I don't expect to me met any time soon.
Why can't AI be part of the process? Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to use line snapping to grid? What about a ruler? Ultimately there is a lot of miss-understanding of AI/Machine Learning and wanting it to replace the human, but how about as a tool to aid a human? There is a lot of all or nothing thinking and not a lot of nuance involved. For reference when taking a photo, your digital camera does a load of algorithmic post production on the file, maybe some lens correction, colour balancing, exposure compensation, red eye reduction... do we get rid of all the tools and just say you have to take raw images only? But wait, isn't a camera a tool to capture the scene for me like a painter attempts to do? Nuance and the middle ground seems to be the first thing a lot of people throw out in these discussions. I'm not going to say an artist can't use AI, I'm going to say an Artist shouldn't use only AI.
And real artists also shouldn't use any form of color correction, as they should be able to pick right colors from the very beginning. And also no selection and copy/paste, because what, are you going to let the machine do all the hard work for you?! No thanks!
Is releasing artwork under a Creative Commons license "explicit consent" It seems as though it might be. Is the study of other people's artwork as part of your own training as a human artist the same thing as training AI models with other peoples artwork? Can it legally be considered the same thing? What happens if it is considered the same thing legally? Where does that leave us? Can Disney or Pixar etc. take their wholly, legally owned, copyrighted and Trademarked intellectual property and train their own LLM with it? And since all the training data will be their own copyrighted, trademarked artwork, audio, video etc why would the corporate owned output of such software not be fully copyrighted and Trademarked as well? Many, many unanswered questions. Almost all will be decided by those with the money and lawyers to grind down any opposition in the courtroom. Rushing to answer many of these questions early on will certainly result in these decisions being used against us later. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
As someone who uses AI for a bunch of creative reasons, I think Adobe was already using Behanced to train their AI. So I'm wondering if this new policy isn't just a way for them to protect themselves since their being sued. The AI debacle in Adobe shows just how out of touch they have always been. They could have just bought or used someone else's AI model, like Stable Diffusion. Instead Adobe was worried about the optics of adding AI to their software and what "artist" would think. They tried to play it up as a AI for artist but seeing how bad Firefly is, well. The thing is and I get plenty of hate for this view is, AI does nothing different then what "artist" and people alike do and have always done. Its inspired by works. It takes information and yes its trained just like a school trains a person how to draw or paint. Its a fine line between coping and/or being inspired by. The fact is if you say AI is just coping work well then the same can be said about anyone who hasn't done an original piece. That means no more Spiderman's or comic artist coping the likes of spiderman or other comics. Same with any art that might have been inspired by DaVinci or Pollock. Now I don't condone coping other work but lets call a spade a spade when it comes to inspiration and what fuels artist to get into art in the first place.
Your argument requires that AI be treated as a person. It is not a person. People have rights above and beyond the technical and the clerical. Human beings have natural rights. What you are proposing is that these natural rights of a human being should be taken for granted to apply to a machine. But they do not apply. And if you want to have these rights, the companies must pay for them. Trying to create a moral equivalence between human beings and machines is a very traditional way of abusing human beings and we should reject it for the rhetorical moral gymnastics that it is.
I'm in the camp of if you've published the artwork in a public place where anyone can see it, then an AI also has the right to see it just like a human would. Were it gets sketchy is like with Adobe, if you've not published your art to be viewed by others then they should not be looking at it. Then again I would never trust a "cloud" service with any of my valuable data, but that's just me. If you want your private data being leaked go for it. Maybe opensource projects could give an incentive to submit original artwork that is otherwise not published, if they have server based AI tools in the programs perhaps give you credits to use it for each piece of artwork submitted. But that system could be abused by people reposting slightly altered art from various sources.
So some nuance here, especially on the consent issue, (and I agree consent is a must if PII is part of the dataset for security and privacy reasons). 1. AI models need a lot of data, I mean a lot. You can fine tune a model with relatively little, but the initial training starts with a lot. 2. Humans learn from seeing others and getting inspiration and from what our senses bring in. It takes years an a lot of data for humans to learn too. You don't need consent to look at a Picasso or DaVinci work to learn from it, in fact copyright law specifically allows this sort of usage because of the nature of being used in learning. My view therefore is more nuanced, that consent isn't always required and shouldn't be. But makes it all more complex. I do believe AI being run server side only and sending one's data off to it is a problem for the final use, I also do believe that being opaque about data collection and doing it hidden in the background is a problem. As for open source projects using AI, Firefox now has local machine learning models built in for language translation and they are working on adding it for automatic image alt tags for accessibility. The models they are using are fine tuned old GPT stuff from when OpenAI was actually more open.
Yes, it will be hard to get enough data to do this morally. But your perspective implies that AI models are the same as human beings. There are customary rights which we give to human beings which we do not give to other, even similar, mechanisms. You can not marry your toaster, your lawn mower can not own it's own garden and monkeys can not hold copyrights. Since AI models are not due customary rights of learning, they should not and ort not to be automatically granted data collection rights in ways that a human being is.
@@doctormoMore they are similar, not the same. There are some similarities, machine learning models are not databases where you can just search and recall an exact match. Also there is a reason I'm using the term machine learning and not AI, much the same reason for your argument. But I do not grant humans automatic collection of all my PII either. We need to consider the nuances here, there is a middle.
@@EwanMarshall This sounds like a manufactured middle. There is nuance, but it's not here. Here is hand waving and objectification of people, anthropomorphising computers, or both. I believe you might be trying to rubber band what is considered acceptable to include things which you need to be acceptable. A MLA is not a person, you've presented no actual argument why human customary rights should apply so either you've jettisoned your original argument or are trying to use rhetoric to pretend it's still logical. You'll have to forgive my ungracious hermeneutics, I'm sure your a perfectly fine, good and probably hansom human being. I just don't like this line of argument, it smells bad.
@@doctormo I also don't like the way OpenAi and co are sucking up all the creative content on the net and commercializing it. But the laws allow it, in Europe with the AI Act explicitly, in America it will end up the same way. I think the best solution is to make this technology at least open source.
I agree with your point about consent, in an ideal world that would be the rule, but I see a lot of people refusing AI images no matter what, not necessarily because of the point you made, but because of the idea that over time there would be less and less demand for human labour, which is something that I (speaking as an artist and designer) don't really feel bothered, this already happened to other fields in the past decades to different extents, it is inevitable and I personally find it quite silly seeing people trying to prevent it from happening.
If I ask a painter to paint a scene for me and give very good direction he/she will paint the picture. Am I the artist? No. IMO there is no such thing as an AI artist. You give the computer directions and it copies bits off the net to come up with something. I hope AI never comes to Inkscape. If if must be done at some point, make it a stand alone plug in.
I simply do not agree with many of the views concerning AI. Im as traditional an artist as you can get, as in I make my own inks and i love botanical dyes etc. But even i recognize how weird this is. Everyone argues for the "stealing" of work by AI models. However, unless the original work is being distributed or reproduced then its NOT STEALING by our own legal definition. The nuance is people claiming "little bits" of similarities. But color pallets, compositions, motifs and themes are all very vague and cant really be claimed under copyright. If there were something in an AI generated image that reflected pre existing work, that would then kick off copyright law like normal. This is why META is forcing ppl to send proof for their opt out. I do not believe AI is bad. Because it hasnt broken any rules. It hasnt cheated anybody. It hasnt actually stolen from anyone. All its done, is forced creatives to work differently. Its raised the bar for what is required of a practicing artist. And i believe this is why so many people get so scared about AI. Because they fear it can do things they would have to spend the rest of their life to "honestly" do in a manmade way.
I genuinely believe there are PHILOSOPHICAL questions artists need to ask themselves about all this. Images are data to AI. Just data. Numbers. And your data is collected daily for algorithm training. It isn't illegal for someone to know something about you. But the way you learn something about someone might break the law. Same with AI. There's nothing wrong with data scraping publicly accessible data. Where you get data and what you do with it are another question. The onus should be on either the legal system, digital platforms, companies we trust with our data with etc. Or on US. We should be more diligent about where we put our art, and how that art can be engaged with. With stuff like glaze, the landscape is evolving. I'm sure this will come up legally within the US after elections when things settle down. EU is ahead of us.
We currently call out artists if their work looks too similar to someone else's. Take Pal World for example, everyone knows it rips off Pokemon, and usually that would be deemed wrong, except that Nintendo is already filthy rich so stealing from them "feels" less wrong. On the other hand, stealing from indie artists who are not filthy rich "feels" scummy to most people. I don't know if you fully understand how AI works. If you train an AI on a single picture of a Rooster, and then you ask it to produce an image of a rooster, it will generate the only image in its training data. If you give it 10 images of roosters, it will find the patterns that all of them share and it will use those patterns to generate a new image, but the way it generates that image doesn't change whether you give it 1 rooster or 10. What is being stolen is not the work itself, it is the PATTERNS present in the work, something which the law is blind to because of AI's unprecedented nature. Even the argument that humans steal these patterns isn't very good because most humans aren't very good at finding and replicating patterns like an AI is.
Do you think it's stealing if I copy your image but it's compressed badly? It's not the exact same reproduction after all. I ask because on some level AI models can simply be seen as lossy compression - it has been shown that a zip compressor (yes, the archive format) can be made to fulfill some AI tasks because of that. And it is obvious that diffusion models can reproduce recognizeable styles, often it's enough to prompt for a specific artist's typical kind of content to see similarities in the lines etc, and even I see that as a non-artist. Also even the AI companies think it's not okay to do, they just don't admit it publically. That's why they try to make their AI work look scientific. That's why an OpenAI representative panicked in an interview when asked whether they're using YT videos as training data. If you're not sure whether it's legal, publish a model trained only on Disney-owned content and see how long it takes them to drag you to court.
Hello Martin and all happy people, Ndim Donald here. Inkscape will eventually get to an AI point in the closest future! That's A Future!! AI has been very great in my learning process and not just with arts. Don't miss the mark! for someone who understands it's role... It's not a Replacement, it's an enhancement. I think where people miss the line is where they think of it being an entirety of our Art process. One big thing i wasn't doing was posting my work. Some day we'll get to this. Nice arts on your screen by the way. I didn't like ai until i understood its role and now, it's one other part of the core! I'm still learning. I can't speak for others, just sharing my thoughts. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've been using Inkscape way long before the popularization of AI tools. Mostly for Graphic design, UI design, and for almost all of my app projects. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Much thanks for the amazing content you keep pulling to our community Blessup!
Please join my Patreon and fund my work so we can make the best vector editor: www.patreon.com/doctormo
Long live Inkscape, and long live actually taking the time to make your own art.
I'm open minded, I think both are good to have. The beauty of human art is not just the object, or the design, but the concept behind, the experience, the human value. AI will be able to do very advanced stuff but it will never replicate those things.
I think the problem is not AI, but greedy companies trying to replace humans, feelings, and concepts that can't be replicated with machines by AI.
@@CalaTec The problem is indeed AI, since generative AI in its current state relies on stolen data. There's no open-mindedness to have here ...
What is worse this current Adobe thing highlights again, is that Adobe becomes ransom ware. If you DO NOT agree to the new terms, you can't access your work anymore...no warning given. No deactivation of some features so that you still have access, simply, "oh you want to get your work, agree to give it to us first".
don't worry, I feel like the market for high-quality PSD to
@@ilonachan Affinity Photo can open .psd documents and it can export files to .psd.
In Krita we are actually working on a neural network project - but it won't be generative AI, just a sort of a smart filter. We'd probably need way less data than the generative AI does, and yes, we'd make a call for donating it (especially since we'd probably need to have the artworks created just for this purpose to get as easy training as possible). There should be an announcement post about it next week or so. It's a bit similar to the feature that Inkscape has that it traces the bitmap and makes a vector from it - this one will trace a sketch to make a clean lineart-like image. Since it's raster-to-raster and we want to have some width variation and possibly different brushes in the final image, it makes sense to use NN/AI for that. The model will be relatively tiny, and all calculations local. And we really do hope to avoid all the common AI pitfalls and concerns in that project.
Narrow NNs make sense for many applications. I think we in the open source world have the right guard rails to be able to do some of these in the right ways. Respectfully.
Do you know if your NN will output vector information that gets rendered as lines in raster or is it all diffusion type models?
have you actually asked if people want or need such a feature ? i understand the appeal but it might give off negative impressions to different types of artists that like more manual approaches to art.
@@ali32bit42 There are people who want it. Those who don't, don't need to use it. The difference is that the NN for Krita won't be forced on anyone; it will be a tool available for individual artists/teams to adopt, and train on their own art/data.
Interesting, do you have your own ML team or are you using another company?
Adobe is dead. All glory to Inkscape.
good to hear such sound and reasonable perspective from someone more on the programming side. Those handweavy arguments that skip the moral implications of the lack of consent are truly terrifying. It's the exact same reason we ban so many medical experiments, yet you never hear these people arguing that we ought to do immoral medical procedures to advance medicine just because we would be "giving an unfair advantage to OuR eNeMiEs"
The miracle of cloud computing where not accepting an updated TOS could cost you what should be your data. What a nightmare.
It is not a miracle. The nightmare was to aceept it to start off with. The miracle is Blender and programs like Inkscape. From 1990-2010 all you could feasibly do on a computer was play games and hardcore be a nerd and make games like Minecraft in your basement. (very much a coder first world computers.)
Today? Last 5years? 2D, 3D, Game engines, Rendering engines. I mean heck even LiberOffice is on par with Microsoft Word of 2008 or whatever.
Edit: Ofc since the .com boom you could always watch cats on the internet. But I mean using a computer to do stuff. And without paying for 'professional' licneses. Today Danci Resolve is even a decent if not best in class video editior too. I mean Microsoft/Apple had a free version of a video editor? Paint? Something like that. Today Blender is a not impossible video editor to use. If you are doing it simply as side hobby? You are more then welcomed to use a tool that decades ago would require you to spend $$$ just to play around with it. Today? You feel bad not giving something back to the grate free and open tool projects.
In 2020-2024? Every imaginable tool is getting better and better. And cost nothing to get started in. Now you even have Godot 3D. You can make a vitrual walk around simulator of a chuch. Or really anything. Make a model train set going around tracks in Blender? Like anything! All completly free and YOURS. Without 3dMax or Maya bugs. Without AI nonsense or Photoshop faking the world.
A few years ago I sarcastically complained on Twitter about having to learn Inkscape because Adobe had made it impossible for me to reinstall and register the legit copy of Photoshop CS2 I owned and had been using since 2008 (I believe they shut down their registration servers in 2020 or something like that). Someone from Inkscape replied to my tweet explaining how they believed it was important for people to own the software they used--I'm paraphrasing but it was such an impressive response that I've been thinking about it ever since, especially whenever a company like Adobe pulls some new sketchy nonsense.
Ah yes, that was me. 😅
Right now, CMYK is the most important new feature to add into Inkscape. Or add some kind of cross-link script to work between Inkscape and GhostScript.
We don't need AI in everything we do. This is getting people more dumb.
The only place where AI could provide some improvement is in shapes detection when vectorizing some rasters.
@martinowens
More important and necessary in inkscape than AI is CMYK support. A lot of people don't go to Inkscape because of this issue, otherwise the software is excellent, on par with any vector software on the market.
I made an add-on on GitHub called InkSync which you can use to embed your work in Krita to ensure CMYK colour space. But I agree, Inkscape should just have it.
Yeah , that the cool of free software
I just read an Inkscape forum post from 2012 asking for CMYK support. If it hasn't happened 10 years later - it's never happening.
Ditto that for GIMP. Supposedly it's coming in v3.0. whenever that eventually lands. Sad part about that is that this would make GIMP about a feature packed as Photoshop 3.0, maybe 4.0 if we pushed it?
Seriously why is CMYK so hard?
@@fablewalls I suspect the Inkscape Team, are waiting on the GIMP Team to re-invent the CMYK Wheel for them, and then use that Fruit to feed Inkscape with it down the road.
as a 3D artist i think the solution to the consent problem might just be to legally license the work from artists. if their artstyle and works are good enough to be profitable in an AI then its only fair that you compensate them perpetually for taking their work and profiting off it.
its not as good as commisions but its passive income for artists and it adds a cost to prevent over saturation of AI images since you pay the license .
I was thrilled when Inkscape released Inky the AI Assistant in 2023.
Just as Unity set fire to their fan base and caused major development and user shifts to Unreal and Godot, Adobe has gone the extra mile in their unethical pursuit of total market dominance. What will happen is end users and developers will discover the Affinity products and others such as Luminar and hopefully cause some major commercial damage. Adobe will never be an ethically run company, just as Google will never stop being evil. I’m with Louis Rossman here, we are obligated to sail the high seas yo ho yo ho a … well you know the tune.
Looks like I'm in the right place, no going back to Adobe so I'll make it work whatever I have to learn. Inkscape for Illustrator and mainly my vector work, found Da Vinci Resolve for Premiere so good there - before looking at the next three Adobe program replaces.
Inkscape has always been my preferred tool for logo design
Thanks for the video. Completely agree with you, it's not that hard to understand such a logical position either.
Consent is impossible, when people don't understand how things work.
100% in agreement with all you've stated, Martin! ✊🏽
Sad truth is, in the long run, Adobe's current tactics will give them an irrefutable advantage over their competitors (once the technology catches up in the vector graphics department).
People complain, yet keep using their products, giving Adobe all right access to their creations stored on Adobe's servers. This in turn will make Adobe's generative fill features the gold standard in the industry - achieved through questionable means.
Well, I guess we get what we deserve
I suppose the secret is to bugger off to the Options Settings, and disable the Cloudy bits. Makes you wonder how the BIG BOYs play it (i.e. Newspaperss / Glossy Magazines), not sure they'd be up to Sharing their copyrighted images, for free.
EVERYTHING Adobe ever did was achieved thru questionable means.
Instead of ai for producing or generating image, i would love if it can be an enhanchment tech for bitmap tracing, it more usefull in inkscape, imo. For now tracing image in inkscape, especially colorfull image, is pain :")
Yes, it's a fertile application I think.
Adobe should make *its source code public to be used by anyone* - that's what they're asking creators: to have them work used without licence.
I'm still waiting for any corporation to do it...
* they also should pay *a monthly fee* to any creator on which works the future AI were trained. That should level the field a bit :) (I know Adobe like and understand why monthly fees are important :D)
Procedural generation would likely come first, then machine learning algorithms could be used to 'AI assist' on generating a layout or shapes representing an object. Little steps, but more importantly SAFE steps.
From that point, doing a bitmap trace could be much more dynamic.
Not interested in AI being added, even if it was an option.
Actually there is a VERY easy fix for vector AI generations within Inkscape. You can ask any image generator such as Midjourney or Leonardo etc, to give you a vector looking image of a whatever logo. You will then get a bitmap file that looks like a vector image which... you can image trace in either Illustrator or Inscape. That, could be an automated default process within Inkscape, so... it generated a standard bitmap image, which then traces to vector and then! gives you the results. A direct vector file of what you asked for.
Well stated, Martin!
People are cancelling the WEF-based subscription model in droves and quite rightly. Adobe’s stock is tanking. The company have shafted its core customer base & i for one hope they go down. After 30 years of registered usuage they accused me of theft (piracy) because i couldn’t produce a receipt from over ten years past. Even if i could, they wouldn’t validate their own software (they have pulled the validation server). Now they are simply using people as cash cows. Adobe can FRO&D.
I've been using stable Diffusion to generate vector art since 2022. It's a simple python script added to the extensions folders in a1111.
Links or it didn't happen. Message me on mastodon if your links get eaten by google.
I love your philosophy, Martin. 👍 Adobe's behavior is typical of not wanting to know the answer to the question they know they should ask, but are too big to care about the relatively small amount of users they'll lose, and sadly the amount they make from the suckers who stay will more than make up for it.
I think the real reason for Adobe to do this is just to cash off users hard work. Many open source projects do not directly earn money, so there is literally no reason to introduce AI services yet.
I really feel how companies are utilizing AI for art is ridiculous. As a designer/artist/coder.. I would rather have the AI assist in predicting my next line or help with particular tasks not do the whole thing for me. What would I learn from writing a prompt?
I think there’s things AI could assist the designer with, or these companies would just listen to the users for the tools and functionality they want. Like how is it that I can’t assign a brush to a layer.. so say have an ink layer.. that layer should be associated with a brush, I click on that layer and it automatically assigns the brush and maybe even some of the settings I chose for the brush as well.. how is this so difficult?
Great video, Martin.
Adobe and Meta are broadcasting to the wide world that they don't understand their users. We should no longer be associating ourselves with these people.
There should be an AI tool that helps sort and manage vector image assets, allowing users to create generative projects using their own libraries. Additionally, users could submit to a public library and choose to contribute to training the AI. A blockchain-style system could track reference material usage and frequency. Submitting items for training would earn users points, which could be used to access content. These credits would be pooled into the public library.
Oh no I don't want AI on inkscape. I chose inkscape since I want to refrain from using generative AI.
Great! There's no AI in inkscape.
I 100% agree. As a designer, AI has been something that I have had to look into heavily due to copyright laws. Fortunately, unless there have been a significant change in the past month, it is not possible to copyright AI art because of the way the art is created. It is a similar principle with sites like Canva or Kittl. The elements you put together are someone else's creation. This is why I simply use AI as a tool for referencing. In respect of Inkscape, I agree that AI tools are not needed at the moment. I would happily add some of my work to the AI database BUT there are still products that I would never want to share ie work done for clients who want to trademark a design I did. A lot more needs to be done to protect artist's work. Maybe when that is done, months/years later from now, you can revisit the idea?
excellent, sim ple and to the point. Lawmakers need to pass legislation making it clear to the companies that they cannot bypass consent when building technology, and changing EULA/TOS will not be tolerated as a means of bypassing consent.
Also, SaaS should be ILLEGAL!
I feel bad for people who have to use spyware.
Modefied Windows and Open source software
@@Volt-Eye. Or Linux :))
@@ivan-_-8577 Linux does not support some softwares I use so I am stuck with Windows ( But i use Nexus Win 10 Lite Version )
@@Volt-Eye. modified Windows? Modified how? Don't get me wrong I'm NOT switching back, but I'm kinda curious
@@ilonachan With Modified Windows I mean a special forked version of windows which Is modified by somebody and distributed to others.
Like I am using Nexus Win 10
(1) In this version all the Bloat or Microsoft sh#t is removed, which usually comes with Original Win 10
As a result, windows which uses about 4-6 GB in normal Now uses only 800MB to 1.2 GB to operate ( Also Depends on additional drivers you have Installed
(2) Also Original windows strains CPU more
But this one is Minimal like Linux
(3) My win 10 version comes with additional softwares installed
Like Drive Booster and SDL Drivers
With Drive Booster you can boost system and even install Genuine Drivers and update them.
And a software from that Guy called " Nexus Toolkit "
This kit allows us to tweak system attributes for various purposes.
And you can also install other apps from it.
This was it fron the version am using
But there are many windows modified version like Atlas Os, Ghost Spectre and many more.
You can choose what you want.
this just sounds like someone watch the episode “Terms of Service” form Silicon valley and went "we'll sell this all to someone else before it blows up.
Could we have masking and Clipping like Affinity Designer ?
Sure, though the question is how do we pay for it?
@@doctormo i Watched a detailed vdo on Affinity Designer.
In affinity you just drag a layer on another layer.
Like A layer I dragged on B then
A will work like a Tatto of B.
But to achieve same in Inkscape we create mask then B will gi invisible in this process.
But I want B to be visible and still masking happen ( like a designs and shades on my Octopus Obj )
I am not native so I don:t think I can explain with much accuracy.
AI in Inkscape (a response to Adobe) would have made more sense as a title.
Not everything needs AI. I'm also not against it either if someone develops it as a 3rd party open source tool to be integrated with Inkscape.
I notice that Krita has a generative AI plugin based on Stable Diffusion. If (hypothetically) Stable Diffusion was eventually developed such that it could produce vector images, would developers be interested in producing a corresponding Inkscape plugin?
That's an unofficial plugin though, not made or even endorsed by Krita developers.
I'd honestly be more interested in targeted models, like trace bitmap first. Then let's talk "where is it running", "who's running it", "how much power", "what is it trained on". The host of difficult questions are hurdles which Stable Diffusion doesn't pass at the moment.
Reporting by 404 media has revealed a stable diffusion plugin was malware by anti ai activists. Love to see it haha
Adobe isn't asking for consent because it's more profitable for them to just take your data. Also, there's no real guarantee that they aren't taking the data already. Remember, a lawsuit is simply the cost of doing business if they can make more money from breaking the law.
Consent in all things, always.
great discussion indeed!
Sir can your team implement pencil tool like adobe illustrator in inkscape 1.5 or 1.6 in future...🫣
Thanks for your video. The issue then becomes; what creator would want to submit their own artwork to train a system that could potentially make them redundant. I get that it’s happening anyway but we need to tread very carefully with this tech in the future. Problem is it’s also a digital arms race and to not play along hands others an advantage..
Doing the right thing does not mean doing nothing. Nor does it mean that your principle can be so unconvincing.
Of course, I point broadly to the amount of money flowing through these systems and how much of it ISNT going to any owners of the data. That's seriously wrong.
@@doctormoI appreciate I put forward a rather binary vision. Indeed, the first step is for people to be asked to opt in/out and if so, paid.
Nicely put, sir.
Very refreshing attitude!
not to be confused with Adobe Illustrator
I know you are saying some important stuff but all I am thinking is Heart performance of Stairway to heaven by Led Zeppelin and entire choir wearing that hat.
I would like to become a programmer and become a part of this wonderful business.
Thank you, thank you, thank you very much for giving us the opportunity for free to learn and benefit.❤❤❤
I don't see the need for that kind of stuff in inkscape and open source projects. It's an expensive process for little or niche gain.
AI can stay away from creative processes. YOU ARE NOT AN ARTIST IF YOU USE AI. It's not opinion. You and only you have creativity, therefore you create the work. AI does not and therefore it doesn't create, it produces. It doesn't think, it doesn't reason. On top of everything else, the energy and resource cost to the world to train and use AI
I would really love that Inkscape stays very far away from it
#humanmade
#madebyhuman
#notforscraping
#notformachinelearning
#notforai
Oh I very much agree with the conditions you've laid out here. It's only useful in so far as it can be created and run ethically, in all the ways you say. A very tall order that I don't expect to me met any time soon.
@@doctormo Very sad indeed. It should really only ever be a tool, not a replacement.
Thank you for the work you do.
Why can't AI be part of the process? Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to use line snapping to grid? What about a ruler? Ultimately there is a lot of miss-understanding of AI/Machine Learning and wanting it to replace the human, but how about as a tool to aid a human?
There is a lot of all or nothing thinking and not a lot of nuance involved. For reference when taking a photo, your digital camera does a load of algorithmic post production on the file, maybe some lens correction, colour balancing, exposure compensation, red eye reduction... do we get rid of all the tools and just say you have to take raw images only? But wait, isn't a camera a tool to capture the scene for me like a painter attempts to do? Nuance and the middle ground seems to be the first thing a lot of people throw out in these discussions.
I'm not going to say an artist can't use AI, I'm going to say an Artist shouldn't use only AI.
And real artists also shouldn't use any form of color correction, as they should be able to pick right colors from the very beginning. And also no selection and copy/paste, because what, are you going to let the machine do all the hard work for you?! No thanks!
@@EwanMarshall Please go and read my comments again, but slowly this time
Long Life Open Source Developer 👍🏻🙏🏻
Is releasing artwork under a Creative Commons license "explicit consent" It seems as though it might be.
Is the study of other people's artwork as part of your own training as a human artist the same thing as training AI models with other peoples artwork? Can it legally be considered the same thing? What happens if it is considered the same thing legally? Where does that leave us? Can Disney or Pixar etc. take their wholly, legally owned, copyrighted and Trademarked intellectual property and train their own LLM with it? And since all the training data will be their own copyrighted, trademarked artwork, audio, video etc why would the corporate owned output of such software not be fully copyrighted and Trademarked as well?
Many, many unanswered questions. Almost all will be decided by those with the money and lawyers to grind down any opposition in the courtroom. Rushing to answer many of these questions early on will certainly result in these decisions being used against us later. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
Presumably you mean "generative AI" more generally and not "LLM" when talking about Disney and Pixar.
@@ShankarSivarajan Disney could spend the money to build a LLM devoted solely to their material I'm sure.😁
WE ALL DESIGNERS HATE (AI) BUT SCAMMERS LOVE (AI) AND ADOBE SUPPORT SCAMMERS
I use Inkscape and just unsubscribed from my Photoshop subscription and went to Affinity.
As someone who uses AI for a bunch of creative reasons, I think Adobe was already using Behanced to train their AI. So I'm wondering if this new policy isn't just a way for them to protect themselves since their being sued. The AI debacle in Adobe shows just how out of touch they have always been. They could have just bought or used someone else's AI model, like Stable Diffusion. Instead Adobe was worried about the optics of adding AI to their software and what "artist" would think. They tried to play it up as a AI for artist but seeing how bad Firefly is, well. The thing is and I get plenty of hate for this view is, AI does nothing different then what "artist" and people alike do and have always done. Its inspired by works. It takes information and yes its trained just like a school trains a person how to draw or paint. Its a fine line between coping and/or being inspired by. The fact is if you say AI is just coping work well then the same can be said about anyone who hasn't done an original piece. That means no more Spiderman's or comic artist coping the likes of spiderman or other comics. Same with any art that might have been inspired by DaVinci or Pollock. Now I don't condone coping other work but lets call a spade a spade when it comes to inspiration and what fuels artist to get into art in the first place.
Your argument requires that AI be treated as a person.
It is not a person.
People have rights above and beyond the technical and the clerical. Human beings have natural rights.
What you are proposing is that these natural rights of a human being should be taken for granted to apply to a machine. But they do not apply. And if you want to have these rights, the companies must pay for them. Trying to create a moral equivalence between human beings and machines is a very traditional way of abusing human beings and we should reject it for the rhetorical moral gymnastics that it is.
great work
based and ownership pilled
I'm in the camp of if you've published the artwork in a public place where anyone can see it, then an AI also has the right to see it just like a human would.
Were it gets sketchy is like with Adobe, if you've not published your art to be viewed by others then they should not be looking at it. Then again I would never trust a "cloud" service with any of my valuable data, but that's just me. If you want your private data being leaked go for it.
Maybe opensource projects could give an incentive to submit original artwork that is otherwise not published, if they have server based AI tools in the programs perhaps give you credits to use it for each piece of artwork submitted. But that system could be abused by people reposting slightly altered art from various sources.
So some nuance here, especially on the consent issue, (and I agree consent is a must if PII is part of the dataset for security and privacy reasons).
1. AI models need a lot of data, I mean a lot. You can fine tune a model with relatively little, but the initial training starts with a lot.
2. Humans learn from seeing others and getting inspiration and from what our senses bring in. It takes years an a lot of data for humans to learn too. You don't need consent to look at a Picasso or DaVinci work to learn from it, in fact copyright law specifically allows this sort of usage because of the nature of being used in learning.
My view therefore is more nuanced, that consent isn't always required and shouldn't be. But makes it all more complex. I do believe AI being run server side only and sending one's data off to it is a problem for the final use, I also do believe that being opaque about data collection and doing it hidden in the background is a problem.
As for open source projects using AI, Firefox now has local machine learning models built in for language translation and they are working on adding it for automatic image alt tags for accessibility. The models they are using are fine tuned old GPT stuff from when OpenAI was actually more open.
Yes, it will be hard to get enough data to do this morally. But your perspective implies that AI models are the same as human beings.
There are customary rights which we give to human beings which we do not give to other, even similar, mechanisms.
You can not marry your toaster, your lawn mower can not own it's own garden and monkeys can not hold copyrights. Since AI models are not due customary rights of learning, they should not and ort not to be automatically granted data collection rights in ways that a human being is.
@@doctormoMore they are similar, not the same. There are some similarities, machine learning models are not databases where you can just search and recall an exact match.
Also there is a reason I'm using the term machine learning and not AI, much the same reason for your argument. But I do not grant humans automatic collection of all my PII either. We need to consider the nuances here, there is a middle.
@@EwanMarshall This sounds like a manufactured middle.
There is nuance, but it's not here. Here is hand waving and objectification of people, anthropomorphising computers, or both. I believe you might be trying to rubber band what is considered acceptable to include things which you need to be acceptable.
A MLA is not a person, you've presented no actual argument why human customary rights should apply so either you've jettisoned your original argument or are trying to use rhetoric to pretend it's still logical.
You'll have to forgive my ungracious hermeneutics, I'm sure your a perfectly fine, good and probably hansom human being. I just don't like this line of argument, it smells bad.
@@doctormo I also don't like the way OpenAi and co are sucking up all the creative content on the net and commercializing it. But the laws allow it, in Europe with the AI Act explicitly, in America it will end up the same way. I think the best solution is to make this technology at least open source.
Nice and to the point.
I hope Inkscape will have procedural generation in future just like Blender and Graphite.
I agree with your point about consent, in an ideal world that would be the rule, but I see a lot of people refusing AI images no matter what, not necessarily because of the point you made, but because of the idea that over time there would be less and less demand for human labour, which is something that I (speaking as an artist and designer) don't really feel bothered, this already happened to other fields in the past decades to different extents, it is inevitable and I personally find it quite silly seeing people trying to prevent it from happening.
Thanks for stressing that consent is a central moral issue with AI generated images.
If I ask a painter to paint a scene for me and give very good direction he/she will paint the picture. Am I the artist? No. IMO there is no such thing as an AI artist. You give the computer directions and it copies bits off the net to come up with something.
I hope AI never comes to Inkscape. If if must be done at some point, make it a stand alone plug in.
I simply do not agree with many of the views concerning AI. Im as traditional an artist as you can get, as in I make my own inks and i love botanical dyes etc.
But even i recognize how weird this is. Everyone argues for the "stealing" of work by AI models. However, unless the original work is being distributed or reproduced then its NOT STEALING by our own legal definition.
The nuance is people claiming "little bits" of similarities. But color pallets, compositions, motifs and themes are all very vague and cant really be claimed under copyright.
If there were something in an AI generated image that reflected pre existing work, that would then kick off copyright law like normal. This is why META is forcing ppl to send proof for their opt out.
I do not believe AI is bad. Because it hasnt broken any rules. It hasnt cheated anybody. It hasnt actually stolen from anyone. All its done, is forced creatives to work differently. Its raised the bar for what is required of a practicing artist. And i believe this is why so many people get so scared about AI. Because they fear it can do things they would have to spend the rest of their life to "honestly" do in a manmade way.
I genuinely believe there are PHILOSOPHICAL questions artists need to ask themselves about all this.
Images are data to AI. Just data. Numbers. And your data is collected daily for algorithm training. It isn't illegal for someone to know something about you. But the way you learn something about someone might break the law. Same with AI. There's nothing wrong with data scraping publicly accessible data. Where you get data and what you do with it are another question.
The onus should be on either the legal system, digital platforms, companies we trust with our data with etc. Or on US. We should be more diligent about where we put our art, and how that art can be engaged with.
With stuff like glaze, the landscape is evolving. I'm sure this will come up legally within the US after elections when things settle down. EU is ahead of us.
There's a story you should read called "Manna". It's not about AI, but it is about ownership.
@@doctormo The 1949 short story by Peter Phillips?
We currently call out artists if their work looks too similar to someone else's. Take Pal World for example, everyone knows it rips off Pokemon, and usually that would be deemed wrong, except that Nintendo is already filthy rich so stealing from them "feels" less wrong. On the other hand, stealing from indie artists who are not filthy rich "feels" scummy to most people.
I don't know if you fully understand how AI works. If you train an AI on a single picture of a Rooster, and then you ask it to produce an image of a rooster, it will generate the only image in its training data. If you give it 10 images of roosters, it will find the patterns that all of them share and it will use those patterns to generate a new image, but the way it generates that image doesn't change whether you give it 1 rooster or 10.
What is being stolen is not the work itself, it is the PATTERNS present in the work, something which the law is blind to because of AI's unprecedented nature. Even the argument that humans steal these patterns isn't very good because most humans aren't very good at finding and replicating patterns like an AI is.
Do you think it's stealing if I copy your image but it's compressed badly? It's not the exact same reproduction after all. I ask because on some level AI models can simply be seen as lossy compression - it has been shown that a zip compressor (yes, the archive format) can be made to fulfill some AI tasks because of that. And it is obvious that diffusion models can reproduce recognizeable styles, often it's enough to prompt for a specific artist's typical kind of content to see similarities in the lines etc, and even I see that as a non-artist.
Also even the AI companies think it's not okay to do, they just don't admit it publically. That's why they try to make their AI work look scientific. That's why an OpenAI representative panicked in an interview when asked whether they're using YT videos as training data. If you're not sure whether it's legal, publish a model trained only on Disney-owned content and see how long it takes them to drag you to court.
Hello Martin and all happy people,
Ndim Donald here. Inkscape will eventually get to an AI point in the closest future!
That's A Future!!
AI has been very great in my learning process and not just with arts.
Don't miss the mark! for someone who understands it's role... It's not a Replacement, it's an enhancement.
I think where people miss the line is where they think of it being an entirety of our Art process.
One big thing i wasn't doing was posting my work. Some day we'll get to this. Nice arts on your screen by the way.
I didn't like ai until i understood its role and now, it's one other part of the core!
I'm still learning.
I can't speak for others, just sharing my thoughts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been using Inkscape way long before the popularization of AI tools.
Mostly for Graphic design, UI design, and for almost all of my app projects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much thanks for the amazing content you keep pulling to our community
Blessup!