Last month, when OpenAI's Sora was released for public use I (foolishly) thought I'd manually drag-and-drop each order’s photos into Sora's UI and copy the resulting images back into my system. This took way too much time (about an hour for each of the few books I made and tested with family and friends). It clearly wasn't possible to release this version because I’d be losing a huge amount of time on every order. So instead, I decided I'd finish off the project as best I could, put it "on ice," and wait for the API release.
The API is now released (quicker than I thought it'd be, too!) and I integrated it last night. I'd love your feedback on any and all aspects.
The market is mostly family-based, but from my testing of the physical book I've found that both adults and kids enjoy coloring them in (it's surprisingly cathartic and creative). If you would like to order one you can get 10% off by tapping the total price line item five times.
I don’t understand how you can do this and not feel horrible about it. But I guess not everyone cares as long as it might earn you a few dollars…
Deleted Comment
Sam Altman is also a little bitch for taunting people like that through his business ventures. First that Her actress’ voice and now this.
I don't understand why you think one should feel horrible about generating images in some visual styles. What's the problem?
Demonstrably, it's not something that's generally considered protected - it's not in the laws, and I've got this impression that the request of "$artist/$studio-style art" was generally considered socially acceptable. AFAIK it's also a part of academic courses, where artists practice various styles.
Patron requests, homages, pastiches - all this stuff existed for a long while and was generally accepted (or so I think), the only difference is that a machine does it now, incredibly fast and cheap. People used to hire artists for this kind of stuff since times immemorial. Nowadays, if a machine can do a passable job, then why waste human's most valuable resource (time) for it.
It would be interesting is to hear Studio Ghibli's opinion on the matter. Not someone who thinks they might be wronged somehow (no offense meant, I do not intend to invalidate your opinion) or someone who rather thinks they might be even benefiting from this - I'm sure it's likely to be a multiple-edged sword, as life is rarely simple - but their own actual thoughts on the subject. I wonder if they already published something...
1. https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/hayao-miyazaki-ar...
As for the project: it's nice and easy, likely will be replicated soon.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
I'd like to see what a real physical book looks like before I buy it though. Do you have real pictures of a printed one?
I think our kids would appreciate seeing the original (even if a small thumbnail) along side it. You can't always tell from these AI drawings that it was originally you and your family.
Also, it's REALLY expensive. $30 for a book that my kids will draw on in one or two nights and then never touch again is probably too much.
$24 + postage is the lowest I could reasonably charge for this. Printing costs are a bit more than half of that, OpenAI charge a surprising amount for image generation, but there is also a good amount of human effort (and creative choices) in generating the book. It's not a fully automated process and I hope that's evident from the quality of the end product.
Maybe worth trying to train a better style for this. This is probably something where you could put a little effort in up-front (ie: using a model that's for segmentation to get outlines, using some classic image-processing for boundary detection) and then have AI touch it up a little more lightly and a less of the "default" style.
Also, do you have AI images for the "real world" samples on the left? They have a certain "I don't exactly know what, but it's creeping me out" vibe.
I think the Ghiblipocalypse has gotten people on edge.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43801189
Here's some generic cartoon styles to look at: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5f/04/ef/5f04ef77ce3beb272a61...
The cartoon owl at the top has a different vibe and would probably work for the comics as well.
I put that line about OpenAI's usage policy there for practical reasons. If someone orders something that OpenAI refuses to generate (like a photo of Bart Simpson say), then I can't include it in the printed book. With this project, if someone uploads content that's in any way inappropriate, we'll see it and refuse to fulfill the order (and take other appropriate actions, if needed)
It seems the loophole on this site, is the examples (by my best guess) are AI.
> Generate a version of this photo that can be used as a coloring sheet
> Make this a page in a colouring book. The drawing is in a simple Studio Ghibli portrait style. Bleed all the way to the edges. Background colour is #ffffff and lines are bold and #000000. There is no shading or crossthatching.
No artists are losing income because of this and no industry is being upended. This is a new product that's available because of a technology advanced.
Why the focus the artist? Everytime you order in food online you take away a tip from a host, server, bartender and take away a job from a person who answers a phone. Why focus on artists when so many have been affected by technology.
I reached out to multiple artists, and got one image back (from a good friend). I gave up on commissioning actual artists, and traced the images myself on a tablet. I imagine someone with the right knowledge of where to find artists and the willingness to wait on their schedule could have done it faster, but I'd have used this service if it had been around.
Almost nobody is paying $100 or more for a custom 5-page coloring book.
This service isn’t taking work from human artists.
The intention and cost of something like that is not at all comparable to what is being offered here.
Sure, not now. Not tomorrow. But less than 1000 years from now? Definitely, imo.
And by all I mean the AI companies owe a huge debt to all humans who wrote or designed or drew anything. The vast majority of the benefit of this technology relies on volume: the billions of pages and lines of code we wrote for other humans, but have now been repurposed. This technology relies on bulk, which was mainly unprofessional or freely given content, by those who intended it for other humans. It was not 100% built only on the output of the few who charge for their exquisite words or designs, even if their output is higher quality.
Alternatively, let the AI companies go for it but everyone who uses any kind of AI should understand that they’re standing on the shoulders of the millions of developers and nonprofessional writers whose work has now been repurposed. Not the few artists and journalists. So those artists and journalists should both refuse to contribute to, and use, AI.
* I’ve written very little of this useful content, but would be happy to pay my share to those that have built what we have. I also turn off training on my content, but I pay a lot for models. Feel free to help me think through this with comments of your own.
Cool idea. I can see keeping colored pages of these by my kids up on the fridge a lot longer than what’s on there now!
I'm a furry, I commission a decent bit of art and furry artists (unless they're super popular) tend to actually be much cheaper than normies.
Commissioning a comic is >$100 for a page, from a popular artist at least several hundred.
And that's also for personal use with no commercial rights whatsoever - it's actually an impasse because they technically still own the art, you technically own the character in the art, so it's in licensing purgatory, which is fine for conbadges, smut, icons and whatnot.
I used to work at an agency that shared a floor with an art studio, commercial rights for art, especially something as complex as a comic page can easily run into $1-10k or more.
Don't get me wrong, artists deserve the money they get, but as with everything that gets automated, there's a financial incentive to do so. Inb4 someone drops all the etsy links of sellers doing AI art as well or (as has been done for a loooong time) using a non-ml based filter to achieve the same thing.
There are definitely cheap-er options available from Brazil, China, Venezuela etc (same as fursuit commissions) but that's also another interesting topic in relation to ai; we already outsource heavily.
Dead Comment
Some of these replies seem rather dismissive to the artists’ plight.
You can see where this is going, right? In the end, humanity and even artists will be fine overall, even if the world changes.
Artists have been around and existed in more repressive societies throughout time. The best art is usually produced from the greatest struggle. Artists will engage and create art in this new world. The cost of not providing a new surface for artists to explore is what kills art.
Everyone and their mother are trying to hop on the band wagon of AI and make a half assed service just because it may sell just due to the "ai" tag attached to it - this is different!
Chapeau bas! It's simple but brilliant. It's a great example of what a good idea is - with minimal effort he made an epic product focusing not an AI, but what AI can bring to the table and executing it flawlessly. Hats off!