Skip to forum content
Alfred's Serif Users' Forums
An independent forum site for members of the Serif software community
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Active topics Unanswered topics
Tips and Announcements
Automated signup has been disabled for these forums. If you wish to register, please send an email to admin[at]punster[dot]me stating your preferred username.
Embedded images: Click on the 
Add image to post link below the message box. Your photo will be uploaded to the postimage website and then shared here via a thumbnail link. Click on the thumbnail for a larger view.
Private messages: There is no pop-up alert for new PMs on these forums, so you need to look out for the PM link (near the top right-hand corner of any forum page) becoming bold.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Search options (Page 7 of 9)
Topics by Ali User defined search
Posts found: 151 to 175 of 216
I prefer to have more control. When I stopped using WebPlus X8 almost a year ago, I switched to WYSIWYG Web Builder (which is now at version 20). It's a one-man outfit: support via the forum is fantastic. Bit of a learning curve, but it didn't take me long to get my website up and running.
On Excel Forum the download counter is very inaccurate - same issue. I don't take any notice of it any longer.
From the communication I received, I understood that it will be at 1700 GMT.
October 30 · 5pm GMT
Tune in to @Affinity ’s livestream for the reveal.
William wrote:
Please paint a landscape picture. Please use the file that I have uploaded as a guide to the layout of the composition. Replace the green rectangle with the hilltop town of San Gimigano in the far distance. Replace the blue triangle with Leonardo da Vinci's flying machine flying in the middle distance. Replace the red rectangle with a lady in the style of Botticelli's Primavera, in the foreground, looking towards the middle distance, viewing the flying machine admiringly.
Which triangle are you referring to?
Ah! Doh!!!
I only joined in December ... LOL!
Test:
Ah! The rogues' gallery, yes.
I particularly remember getting the envelope containing details for an upgrade (probably to PP2.0) with its teaser screenshots and looking at it every day until my upgrade arrived (probably on a couple of floppy disks). Back then, the anticipation was part of the joy of upgrading. Nowadays, having to wait seems to have the opposite effect on people, as demonstrated during the final days of the Affinity Forums).
Hehehe ... [red_devil_smilie]
By the way, whatever happened to your smilie code? There's no link to it above right, yet you are using some of the smilies here. I seem not to be able to find it.
On another, entirely different forum, I have over 40500 reps - I wish I could monetise those!!! 
As others have already said, it's not needed. There isn't a gap in the market to fill.
I can remember getting them through the post before that ...
Does any use whatsoever of AI on a copy of some art mean that the picture produced is not art? Even if that is done by the action of the artist of the orginal (sic) art?
The minute you hand it over to AI, it is using algorithms to search the Internet for content that matches your requirements and using that content (stolen pixels) to cobble together a result for you. When you give it your art as a prompt, all it's doing is rearranging your pixels, so it's not producing anything original, just a different version of your work. None of this is art. It is very clever, although not because the AI is clever, but because those who have developed it are.
We went to see Griff Rhys Jones yesterday evening and his introductory video was a series of AI-generated pictures of him and cats (the show being called The Cat's Pyjamas). Most of them were absolutely awful and barely resembled him, and many had the classic deformed hands that have become so common in AI-generated images. His PA had generated everything from prompts: no artist was involved in the process at all!
No - same reasons as I gave before. What difference do you perceive?
William wrote:So the test of whether some artwork is art is not a matter of its quality.
As I and others have said several times already, the resulting artwork is neither here nor there: it's the process. From conception to completion, all needs to have your input, even if you use tools such as Designer. Using AI to generate an image from a prompt takes the production of the image completely out of your hands. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
Yes, it is art - even though it is not good art, it was conceived and created by a human. You used your creativity to use the tools in front of you to realise an image that you had imagined.
I have 667 - outstanding. So what? Means nothing here.
He's been liking posts on Discord ... 
I don't get it, William. You asked a question and people have answered it - wouldn't you expect an acknowledgement if it were the other way around?
The comments about photography are equally relevant to any art.
In post #28 you have effectively asked the same question again: are you dissatisfied with the responses so far? Because it seems to me that your question has been answered and most people seem to agree that AI-generated artwork is not art.
You seem to be treating us as if we were AI bots: you seem to be asking the same question in a different way hoping to get a more favourable (to you) outcome. This doesn't therefore feel much like a discussion (since you aren't actually joining in with the discussion).
You seem to be asking the question until you get the answer you want, William. You have not responded to some very detailed responses to your question, possibly because you don't like them, or maybe because you cannot find a way to counter them. You had to be prompted to even acknowledge them (see your response in post #26). I find this quite rude.
Nothing that CoPilot produces is art. Please take a moment to read and respond properly to the very detailed responses above: people have given generously of their time to write them, and it feels as if you are choosing to ignore them.
Your threads do tend to be very one-sided: all you are ever really interested in is people agreeing with you.
I was just looking at renewing the Forms To Go licence and their website seems to have been compromised, so I think maybe give it a miss!
When I was using WebPlus, I used Forms To Go and found it brilliant.
https://formstogo.en.softonic.com/
I have now switched to WYSIWYG Web Builder 20, which has forms built in, but I am thinking of integrating Forms To Go again.
SrPx wrote:
But even more important than all this, it's the fact that Gen AI has needed (it is completely impossible to do it other way) to scrap (sic) without permission the art from millions of artists, and all what it does is form a mosaic of pixels based on a prediction system which basically plagiarizes styles and artwowrk from all these creators, just that it is capable to do it in a way that the laws have not yet been able to regulate properly (there has not been an opt-in system with which the artists could accept, deny or put conditions for the usage of their artwork to create a product that actually makes money to the AI developers, VC investors and many other parts of the chain who did not intervene at all in the creation of the paintings. This constitutes something plainly immoral, so, it is ethically wrong to even try to distract from this fact with redefinitions of art to make it fit someone's particular interests (often of a monetary nature).
This brings us nicely back to where this all started in another thread. Camera clubs have had to deal with the issue of AI-generated content for some time, and have had to redefine their rules where changes to reality are permitted in a competition. The consensus is that any change to reality must only be done using the photographer's own pixels, so the photographer may do a sky replacement as long as the sky is from their own work and not a stock image or generated by AI. For this reason, generative AI (which uses stolen pixels as you describe above) is not permitted. We can denoise images as long as we use a denoise tool that does not use generative AI, and so on.
I think you have explained the problem with AI-generated images being considered as art very well indeed, and why they cannot in all conscience be referred to as 'original'. Thank you!
JAmedia wrote:But do you have any reason not to trust them?
Where and when did I say that I did not trust Serif?
JAmedia wrote:Do you always look on the negative?
No, never. I have been completely positive about the future of Affinity, so much so that I received much criticism and much name-calling on the now read-only Affinity Forums. I'm a glass half full kinda gal!
JAmedia wrote:Judge not lest you be judged....
No problem - we all judge each other. We assess each other and decide to what extent we trust each other. When someone tells me they know something, but are not willing to show me any proof, I tend not to trust them. Nothing personal, just common sense.
On FB they are telling people using the trial to contact support - provision is being made for their trial periods to be extended.
sneil69 wrote:I am saying nothing until the 30th but trust me on this one!
I have no good reason to trust you, so no, I won't - sorry.
My best guess would be a hybrid approach to pricing - a mixed economy.
sneil69 wrote:Ali wrote:And there was me hoping that the pointless speculation wouldn't follow us here ... 
Ali this is neither pointless or speculation.
What evidence?
Serif/Canva are not revealing anything at this point, so all anyone can do is wait and see.
Posts found: 151 to 175 of 216