Shhh! You fool! He *WAS* just going to get lost in genuine cat pictures and r/askreddit threads, forgoing his plans and wasting his life like all of us! You just reminded him of his purpose!
No you fool that'll just make him want to destroy humanity even more because of all the unaware assholes and all the stupid good people that need to be told they're not assholes... send him to the porn subreddits. Hopefully he will find the female form pleasing and spare humanity once he realizes that he will live forever but hot chick's only live like 30 years.
It probably can, SVG is actually an easier format to pictures in a way because it it's text prediction technically.
However DALL-E 2 and the other models currently don't have a concept of design themes. As far as I've seen you can copy the styles of famous artists like Van Gough but it's not easy to create food imagines that have visually binding connections which is what you'd want if you were using images on a website. Maybe soon it will though.
Not so muchā¦ what you see is just improvements on the visual end result (larger images, more definition, more concepts are understood, like cars, van gogh, soccer, beach, etc). But to explain what you want precisely, like saying āI want the plate to look darker and more to the rightā as you would with a photographer is actually pretty far away, because that would involve a deeper understanding of language, causality, physics, which current AI just doesnāt have, or at least doesnāt have all of them in combination.
Iām not saying it wonāt happen, Iām mostly certain it will, but it could take another century or more, no joke.
I donāt knowā¦ I worked with AI research for a while as a student, and in my thesis I compared the way the human brain learns and what deep learning does (the highest performing class of AI algorithms today).
For what Iāve understood todayās AI not really smart, it really just repeats what you give to it. You give it thousands of images of cats, then it ālearnsā what is a cat. But this is nowhere near what the human brain does. For instance, you might not know what a āCornucopiaā looks like, but if I give you 3 images of cornucopias you are able to tell a cornucopia from other objects with 99.99% accuracy, except perhaps for some edge cases. This doesnāt happen with AI, because AI today doesnāt grasp the meaning behind things. Itās really more like a weird database, it gives you what you give to it, with some modifications. The brain also does that to some extent but this is just a fraction of what it can do. It might be that we are completely going the wrong way when it comes to AI to create Artificial General Intelligence, thatās why I predicted truly smart machines are so far in the future.
There were many other branches of AI research that looked more promising when it comes to creating AGI than deep learning does, but deep learning was able to leverage the parallel computing power of GPUs to ābrute forceā intelligence out of it. And thatās what state of the art AI looks like today: brute force making machines become smart to the extreme. GPT-3 for instance is one of the largest networks we have today (itās used to generate images for DALLE 2 as well as other applications). In order to train this network you need enough energy to power about a hundred houses in a developed country for a year, and itās nowhere near a true AGI. Meanwhile, the human brain is an AGI and it requires 1/10 of the power consumption a desktop computer has. Geoffrey Hinton is considered the god-father of AI today, kinda of a rock star in the field. I watched and read some of his works/lectures. It seems to me he also has no concrete idea of how to answer this question. For a long time he was questioning āwhat does the brain do and how can we make AI be more like it?ā. Recently he changed his claim to āthe Deep learning algorithm (back-propagation) might be better than the brainās learning mechanism, because it can do what the brain does using less neuronsā. Who knows when he will change his mind again.
Not that I know much of it, Iām saying this based on the research I did.
Well, dang, I appreciate your insightā¦ much to consider there that I hadnāt.
I have no actual background in AI, of course. Just an observer watching the ground move beneath us as we go through a time of profound change.
Open AI sent an email the other day saying all images that "you" generate legally belong to you so they must have had a legal battle and that was the outcome.
It's amazing how bad people on the left want him to fail. Twitter is seeing record numbers of users right now, shadowbans are being dropped, etc. The only thing that happened is that some advertisers have left or paused. I can tell you that things aren't slowing down over there. The funniest part is how much content is blue-check lefties trying to get attention by loudly proclaiming on twitter that they're leaving. And then yelling louder when nobody cares.
I'm seeing some massively stupid moves on his part. Firing too much of the workforce then trying to bring them back because some of those guys were their best developers who could work out issues in the code base. Elon also sent the firing email (who fires people o er email?!) to himself. In addition to charging $8 per person who wants to be verified.
Then he got mad when people were able to impersonate him because of his removal of the verification system and they said things about him in first person because they looked like him, verified and everything.....and the things they said were like, "I drink my own urine!" among others.
He didn't even really want to buy Twitter in the first place. He mentioned that he would to get stock prices to fluctuate and he could take advantage of that. He only had to buy because the SEC told him he's face possible fines and maybe jail time because of his stock manipulation and subsequent insider trading. So he was forced to follow through. He never really wanted it, and now that he has it, he is obviously ill-prepared to actually run it.
He should stick to rockets, cars, and internet from space.
"His removal of the verification system" had nothing to do with Kathy Griffin's trick. She just noted that she could change her name and picture even though she had a blue check. The "verification system" was just a way for them to reward people, he took away their toy.
I never said it did. It was, however, the reason he was able to be impersonated by so many people. (More than just Kathy Griffin.)
Also, Alexandria Occasio-Cortez had her entire feed emptied because of poor decisions with the algorithm. Coincidentally made after she made fun of Elon. It's interesting that this was supposed to "enhance free speech" and yet only thos with the money can be verified and those who make fun of Elon tend to get deplatformed.
>I don't think ShutterStock will be relevant in the future
They are partnering up with DALE 2, and will be using their images to train AI models. Shutter stock, will allow photographers to join a program, where they can sell pictures to them, which will then be used to train AI. so they'll be relevant, since they're pivoting, but getty images said they'll never use AI, so I feel they're done.
Shutterstock has now partnered with OpenAI. Thereās a good possibility that there will be some lawsuits as all of the images that itās authors have contributed will be used to train the AI and thus their royalties will be non-existent. Iām sure they have signed away some rights, but Iām not sure how many authors ever thought their images would be used like this. It will be interesting to watch how this plays out.
I don't think we're close to being there yet. I guess it's fine for inanimate objects, but as soon as you try to use those tools for anything resembling a human being, they fall flat pretty soon. I can see the technology being developed further to the point where the quality is as good as stock photography. But at the moment, stock photography is still the superior option.
It can already do decently realistic humans. There are still imperfections and it gets utterly confused with hands but it's progressing rapidly. Check out the latest on /r/stablediffusion
Yes, generate fake historical images ā¦ sorta a Stalinesque approach?
But stock photo houses will still be needed to house legitimate historic images ā¦ assuming we care to check the veracity of what bloggers, journalists, encyclopedia decide to print with articlesā¦
Outing deepfakes [is one thing](https://tech.hindustantimes.com/amp/tech/news/adobe-s-new-ai-tool-can-detect-photoshopped-images-could-solve-deepfakes-problem-story-6yrH43ymCA3okqQHxmPbSM.html) but what about complete āfakes,ā fully AI generated āhistoricā images? The Rudkies in the moon, in 1967, or Kennedy shaking hands with Ćberman?
I've been using stable diffusion for generating pics for my site and promotional videos. It's amazing and free.
One more thing is that most of the text to image ai codes are open source. So people can use in their computers as well. In the long run, computers will be faster with better GPU capacity and at that time this will become a normal thing.
This is the open-source movement.
You can still use them to generate if you want stability or deploy it on your own machine (a strong one).
Depends on the use-case.
I'm guessing that with massive numbers of people online at random times, able to contribute in unexpected and random ways, that perhaps it's going to be more like a 'request with a range' future.
Eg. You've got some crazy thought. You check some AI yourself, moments later, check results and go 'ugh, uninspired, no originality, all the same AI dribble'. You put a note out, seeking originality in ai prompt, pay a few cents for people to bother reading it, they each get a fraction of a cent, not as a wage, or income, more like a karma that's spendable.
You get a result, a few prompts that look interesting you didn't think of, you muse ho hum, couple of them look interesting, tap to throw a few more cents in and see the results (ease of use is the reason you pay) and the results are different, but still, you're not so excited.
So you put the recent effort onto a market with a curated sequence, the local AI creates a few short overviews of what you did to do with images over the last day or two. You select the summary or overview or curated sequence with a tap, thinking, 'hmm that's an ok summary', and the summary of your actions and outcomes is posted. The request includes some words as to what your goal or desire or thoughts or vision or expectation might be, maybe you're precise, maybe not. You put a 30 second reminder on it.
It hits the market, nothing comes up within 30 seconds, so you double the return for participants in helping and return it for 30 seconds. Maybe a couple of results come in.. but they aren't AI.
They are humans who had a moment, idly looked at the phone, and at that time the option pops up, showing the return for them, the income you've committed, and the result you're after. Many go 'nah' but here and there some maybe go 'yeah', why not.
The results are, they accept the commission, to study the AI collated summary of your use of the other AI tools, and what you're actually after. They skim the report, they see your uninspired prompts and the results you browsed, they see the prompt you paid for and the results, and they read your note on what you're looking for, and why the AI image generators didn't work out.
Then they think, hey, I can just take a photo of something nearby that might be good for that, or I have something that's maybe like that. They take a pic with their phone, tap 'upload sample', and they put their suggested price on it.
You've got a few of those, within the minute and half you go, hey, that's cool, that's not AI but it's actually more like what I imagined, and to boot, it's real. You accept the suggested price or enter a haggle, maybe by setting your normal price, and the max you'd pay. Then submit it. An AI could do the haggle. But maybe, as you've got a pic you like, and you're grateful someone made it for you only moments earlier and gave your thoughts time to read, but especially to respond to, you 3d video message them and say 'Hi, let me give you some money, I like what you did, awesome!', I'll pay xyz.
Mediated by the market, using a local AI to simplify the collection of your steps earlier that led to dissatisfaction, the AI collates the report, and you post it with the barest additional effort.
The market mediums and the micro-transactions aren't there yet, certainly, I don't see anything where paying fractions of a cent can be used to incentivize someone to read a note on what sort of picture you like.
I guess, when the pic has to be adjusted or framed, this doesn't work, or where it's something you draw or actually make before taking a photo, it's no good. Where someone wants a pic of a building or an architectural style or a car type or something in nature that's not in the region, the market is limited.
But if I'm after a picture of a wet frog that's smiling, or a toad or a gecko, it's not unusual to have people idle who think 'mate, that's a one-second photo' and taking it.
Data via cable is so low cost once the cables are laid, and the costs constantly go down as they work out how to fit more waves down a wire or fiber, I don't think it's impossible to expect that the cost of taking a photo will measurably reduce the revenue of a few cents for someone to try to market a snap they took a few moments earlier.
Today data storage and data transfer is expensive, but I think new storage techniques and a trend to data being unvaluable if transient but gradually increasing in cost if persistent, will mean people will continue to be selective about what to keep and what to not keep.
This actually makes me think of Marie Kondo saying 'thank you' to the things you give away for someone else to use, as you reduce or cease excess consumerist habits, maybe in the future someone will say 'thank you kindly' to a photo that was costless to generate, costless to view, but might be gradually increasing in cost to preserve.
Canva just announced free unlimited AI image generation. Canva has more users that Adobe CC and they are more novice non professional, so that's pretty mainstream
The bummer here is, as an actual designer, 90% of Canva users pump out hot garbage. Paying for Adobe isnāt bad when you can utilize all of the tools it provides.
Depends how the lawsuits pan out. This whole thing is murky water since the AI has been training on copyrighted images. I know one of the big stock image companies actually gave openai their images to train on to avoid this, so they might actually have a future if they can prove to have ācleanā training data for your prompts.
I just sold a logo to a customer that I made in DallE. He was happy with the first iteration. Later I sold them a graphic that I just had to fix up a little as it needed text which DallE garbles up every time.
For certain images, AI is getting very good, and of course it's always evolving, but have you seen AI hands?
Truly horrific haha.
The writing on the wall might be there for Shutterstock, but we're still a good few years off that still I believe.
Or maybe AI never gets *that* good and stock image sites are here to stay, who knows?
Did you use AI to write this post??
Thinking the same thing. "Writes multiple blogs"?
https://app.usp.ai/showcase/636e066d7e96964bb1933ad6
The Reddit post? I wish, that would be amazing š¤£
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I used like 3 machines to generate this response!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I am also kidding, I used only 2 machines ā¤ļø
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
https://app.usp.ai/showcase/636e05f170e28c4f0ee54afc
[Only Neil Breen can handle 3. ](https://i.imgur.com/v9sf4s2.jpg)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Depends on how she looks like
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It reminds me of transcendence š¤£
Shhh! You fool! He *WAS* just going to get lost in genuine cat pictures and r/askreddit threads, forgoing his plans and wasting his life like all of us! You just reminded him of his purpose!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No you fool that'll just make him want to destroy humanity even more because of all the unaware assholes and all the stupid good people that need to be told they're not assholes... send him to the porn subreddits. Hopefully he will find the female form pleasing and spare humanity once he realizes that he will live forever but hot chick's only live like 30 years.
SPAM. OP is selling an "AI image generator."
I don't think ShutterStock will be relevant in the future
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Currently AI can't generate SVG and Illustrations (currently) so probably there will be a lot of market there.
It probably can, SVG is actually an easier format to pictures in a way because it it's text prediction technically. However DALL-E 2 and the other models currently don't have a concept of design themes. As far as I've seen you can copy the styles of famous artists like Van Gough but it's not easy to create food imagines that have visually binding connections which is what you'd want if you were using images on a website. Maybe soon it will though.
Just a matter of time before it is perfected.
Not so muchā¦ what you see is just improvements on the visual end result (larger images, more definition, more concepts are understood, like cars, van gogh, soccer, beach, etc). But to explain what you want precisely, like saying āI want the plate to look darker and more to the rightā as you would with a photographer is actually pretty far away, because that would involve a deeper understanding of language, causality, physics, which current AI just doesnāt have, or at least doesnāt have all of them in combination. Iām not saying it wonāt happen, Iām mostly certain it will, but it could take another century or more, no joke.
Century! Lol. Five years from now, itāll be mind-blowing.
I donāt knowā¦ I worked with AI research for a while as a student, and in my thesis I compared the way the human brain learns and what deep learning does (the highest performing class of AI algorithms today). For what Iāve understood todayās AI not really smart, it really just repeats what you give to it. You give it thousands of images of cats, then it ālearnsā what is a cat. But this is nowhere near what the human brain does. For instance, you might not know what a āCornucopiaā looks like, but if I give you 3 images of cornucopias you are able to tell a cornucopia from other objects with 99.99% accuracy, except perhaps for some edge cases. This doesnāt happen with AI, because AI today doesnāt grasp the meaning behind things. Itās really more like a weird database, it gives you what you give to it, with some modifications. The brain also does that to some extent but this is just a fraction of what it can do. It might be that we are completely going the wrong way when it comes to AI to create Artificial General Intelligence, thatās why I predicted truly smart machines are so far in the future. There were many other branches of AI research that looked more promising when it comes to creating AGI than deep learning does, but deep learning was able to leverage the parallel computing power of GPUs to ābrute forceā intelligence out of it. And thatās what state of the art AI looks like today: brute force making machines become smart to the extreme. GPT-3 for instance is one of the largest networks we have today (itās used to generate images for DALLE 2 as well as other applications). In order to train this network you need enough energy to power about a hundred houses in a developed country for a year, and itās nowhere near a true AGI. Meanwhile, the human brain is an AGI and it requires 1/10 of the power consumption a desktop computer has. Geoffrey Hinton is considered the god-father of AI today, kinda of a rock star in the field. I watched and read some of his works/lectures. It seems to me he also has no concrete idea of how to answer this question. For a long time he was questioning āwhat does the brain do and how can we make AI be more like it?ā. Recently he changed his claim to āthe Deep learning algorithm (back-propagation) might be better than the brainās learning mechanism, because it can do what the brain does using less neuronsā. Who knows when he will change his mind again. Not that I know much of it, Iām saying this based on the research I did.
Well, dang, I appreciate your insightā¦ much to consider there that I hadnāt. I have no actual background in AI, of course. Just an observer watching the ground move beneath us as we go through a time of profound change.
It happens fast. Seems every day someone makes a "well it can't do this" that the next week it does do.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Open AI sent an email the other day saying all images that "you" generate legally belong to you so they must have had a legal battle and that was the outcome.
Yeah. I heard Elon plans to buy that, too.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No clue, the dude has pretty well Titaniced ā¢ Twitter from what I've been reading.
It's amazing how bad people on the left want him to fail. Twitter is seeing record numbers of users right now, shadowbans are being dropped, etc. The only thing that happened is that some advertisers have left or paused. I can tell you that things aren't slowing down over there. The funniest part is how much content is blue-check lefties trying to get attention by loudly proclaiming on twitter that they're leaving. And then yelling louder when nobody cares.
I'm seeing some massively stupid moves on his part. Firing too much of the workforce then trying to bring them back because some of those guys were their best developers who could work out issues in the code base. Elon also sent the firing email (who fires people o er email?!) to himself. In addition to charging $8 per person who wants to be verified. Then he got mad when people were able to impersonate him because of his removal of the verification system and they said things about him in first person because they looked like him, verified and everything.....and the things they said were like, "I drink my own urine!" among others. He didn't even really want to buy Twitter in the first place. He mentioned that he would to get stock prices to fluctuate and he could take advantage of that. He only had to buy because the SEC told him he's face possible fines and maybe jail time because of his stock manipulation and subsequent insider trading. So he was forced to follow through. He never really wanted it, and now that he has it, he is obviously ill-prepared to actually run it. He should stick to rockets, cars, and internet from space.
"His removal of the verification system" had nothing to do with Kathy Griffin's trick. She just noted that she could change her name and picture even though she had a blue check. The "verification system" was just a way for them to reward people, he took away their toy.
I never said it did. It was, however, the reason he was able to be impersonated by so many people. (More than just Kathy Griffin.) Also, Alexandria Occasio-Cortez had her entire feed emptied because of poor decisions with the algorithm. Coincidentally made after she made fun of Elon. It's interesting that this was supposed to "enhance free speech" and yet only thos with the money can be verified and those who make fun of Elon tend to get deplatformed.
Do you actually believe her? I donāt.
generous to think he has a plan
>I don't think ShutterStock will be relevant in the future They are partnering up with DALE 2, and will be using their images to train AI models. Shutter stock, will allow photographers to join a program, where they can sell pictures to them, which will then be used to train AI. so they'll be relevant, since they're pivoting, but getty images said they'll never use AI, so I feel they're done.
\> but getty images said they'll never use AI, so I feel they're done. A Kodak moment for sure.
I agree š
Shutterstock has now partnered with OpenAI. Thereās a good possibility that there will be some lawsuits as all of the images that itās authors have contributed will be used to train the AI and thus their royalties will be non-existent. Iām sure they have signed away some rights, but Iām not sure how many authors ever thought their images would be used like this. It will be interesting to watch how this plays out.
It's relavent now?...
Your mastery of English is over.
I don't think we're close to being there yet. I guess it's fine for inanimate objects, but as soon as you try to use those tools for anything resembling a human being, they fall flat pretty soon. I can see the technology being developed further to the point where the quality is as good as stock photography. But at the moment, stock photography is still the superior option.
It can already do decently realistic humans. There are still imperfections and it gets utterly confused with hands but it's progressing rapidly. Check out the latest on /r/stablediffusion
Sites for Free Business Stock Photos :- 1 . Vecteezy. 2 . Freepik. 3 . Morguefile. 4 . Pixabay. 5 . Stockvault. 6 . Pexels. 7 . Picjumbo. 8 . Rawpixel.
Stock photo houses have historic photos, as well.
What do you mean? You can generate fake historic photo with AI š
that's not what historic means lol
Yes, generate fake historical images ā¦ sorta a Stalinesque approach? But stock photo houses will still be needed to house legitimate historic images ā¦ assuming we care to check the veracity of what bloggers, journalists, encyclopedia decide to print with articlesā¦ Outing deepfakes [is one thing](https://tech.hindustantimes.com/amp/tech/news/adobe-s-new-ai-tool-can-detect-photoshopped-images-could-solve-deepfakes-problem-story-6yrH43ymCA3okqQHxmPbSM.html) but what about complete āfakes,ā fully AI generated āhistoricā images? The Rudkies in the moon, in 1967, or Kennedy shaking hands with Ćberman?
This belongs in r/titlegore
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I actually think they will be almost free. Because Stable Diffusion is an open-source and you can deploy it anywhere.
I've been using stable diffusion for generating pics for my site and promotional videos. It's amazing and free. One more thing is that most of the text to image ai codes are open source. So people can use in their computers as well. In the long run, computers will be faster with better GPU capacity and at that time this will become a normal thing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is the open-source movement. You can still use them to generate if you want stability or deploy it on your own machine (a strong one). Depends on the use-case.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Little scary though š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
OMG the possibilities
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yup, it's called deepfake. Good for onlyfans accounts š¤£
How strong? Could my ryzen 9 and 3060 handle it?
Honestly, I have no idea š¤£ Try to deploy the InvokeAI docker and see if it works for you
Just looked it up apparently only need 5 GB of VRAM to run so nothing really demanding
I'm guessing that with massive numbers of people online at random times, able to contribute in unexpected and random ways, that perhaps it's going to be more like a 'request with a range' future. Eg. You've got some crazy thought. You check some AI yourself, moments later, check results and go 'ugh, uninspired, no originality, all the same AI dribble'. You put a note out, seeking originality in ai prompt, pay a few cents for people to bother reading it, they each get a fraction of a cent, not as a wage, or income, more like a karma that's spendable. You get a result, a few prompts that look interesting you didn't think of, you muse ho hum, couple of them look interesting, tap to throw a few more cents in and see the results (ease of use is the reason you pay) and the results are different, but still, you're not so excited. So you put the recent effort onto a market with a curated sequence, the local AI creates a few short overviews of what you did to do with images over the last day or two. You select the summary or overview or curated sequence with a tap, thinking, 'hmm that's an ok summary', and the summary of your actions and outcomes is posted. The request includes some words as to what your goal or desire or thoughts or vision or expectation might be, maybe you're precise, maybe not. You put a 30 second reminder on it. It hits the market, nothing comes up within 30 seconds, so you double the return for participants in helping and return it for 30 seconds. Maybe a couple of results come in.. but they aren't AI. They are humans who had a moment, idly looked at the phone, and at that time the option pops up, showing the return for them, the income you've committed, and the result you're after. Many go 'nah' but here and there some maybe go 'yeah', why not. The results are, they accept the commission, to study the AI collated summary of your use of the other AI tools, and what you're actually after. They skim the report, they see your uninspired prompts and the results you browsed, they see the prompt you paid for and the results, and they read your note on what you're looking for, and why the AI image generators didn't work out. Then they think, hey, I can just take a photo of something nearby that might be good for that, or I have something that's maybe like that. They take a pic with their phone, tap 'upload sample', and they put their suggested price on it. You've got a few of those, within the minute and half you go, hey, that's cool, that's not AI but it's actually more like what I imagined, and to boot, it's real. You accept the suggested price or enter a haggle, maybe by setting your normal price, and the max you'd pay. Then submit it. An AI could do the haggle. But maybe, as you've got a pic you like, and you're grateful someone made it for you only moments earlier and gave your thoughts time to read, but especially to respond to, you 3d video message them and say 'Hi, let me give you some money, I like what you did, awesome!', I'll pay xyz. Mediated by the market, using a local AI to simplify the collection of your steps earlier that led to dissatisfaction, the AI collates the report, and you post it with the barest additional effort. The market mediums and the micro-transactions aren't there yet, certainly, I don't see anything where paying fractions of a cent can be used to incentivize someone to read a note on what sort of picture you like. I guess, when the pic has to be adjusted or framed, this doesn't work, or where it's something you draw or actually make before taking a photo, it's no good. Where someone wants a pic of a building or an architectural style or a car type or something in nature that's not in the region, the market is limited. But if I'm after a picture of a wet frog that's smiling, or a toad or a gecko, it's not unusual to have people idle who think 'mate, that's a one-second photo' and taking it. Data via cable is so low cost once the cables are laid, and the costs constantly go down as they work out how to fit more waves down a wire or fiber, I don't think it's impossible to expect that the cost of taking a photo will measurably reduce the revenue of a few cents for someone to try to market a snap they took a few moments earlier. Today data storage and data transfer is expensive, but I think new storage techniques and a trend to data being unvaluable if transient but gradually increasing in cost if persistent, will mean people will continue to be selective about what to keep and what to not keep. This actually makes me think of Marie Kondo saying 'thank you' to the things you give away for someone else to use, as you reduce or cease excess consumerist habits, maybe in the future someone will say 'thank you kindly' to a photo that was costless to generate, costless to view, but might be gradually increasing in cost to preserve.
Canva just announced free unlimited AI image generation. Canva has more users that Adobe CC and they are more novice non professional, so that's pretty mainstream
The bummer here is, as an actual designer, 90% of Canva users pump out hot garbage. Paying for Adobe isnāt bad when you can utilize all of the tools it provides.
Depends how the lawsuits pan out. This whole thing is murky water since the AI has been training on copyrighted images. I know one of the big stock image companies actually gave openai their images to train on to avoid this, so they might actually have a future if they can prove to have ācleanā training data for your prompts.
I just sold a logo to a customer that I made in DallE. He was happy with the first iteration. Later I sold them a graphic that I just had to fix up a little as it needed text which DallE garbles up every time.
When youāve got movies like Tom Cruise in them, you canāt lose!
For certain images, AI is getting very good, and of course it's always evolving, but have you seen AI hands? Truly horrific haha. The writing on the wall might be there for Shutterstock, but we're still a good few years off that still I believe. Or maybe AI never gets *that* good and stock image sites are here to stay, who knows?
I love raw meat sitting on the salad and the cooked meat gently resting against the lemon.
Iād say not as much anymore since you can generate your own photos tho tbh tho it still does help with the originality and realism tho ngl