Krita Commitment to Empowering Human Artists (CEHA)

[Halla Rempt]

I found it quite well-written, actually, and a good starting point for thinking about AI. I especially like the focus on making clear that Krita is artists, not for art.

But before we do anything with AI we need to consider a number of points:

* Ethics. Obviously using models based on stolen data is a no-go. Adding AI slime that is already drowning the world is also a no-go: Krita should always focus on helping the artist do their work, not replace the artist.

* Usefulness. Do artists really want the features we're considering?

* Practicability. Is the effort needed to integrate i.e. automatic inking in Krita worth it? How much effort would it really be? What about extra dependencies.

* GPLv3. Is the inclusion of a blob that the user cannot replace, i.e. a model, not against our license. Krita's functionality needs to be changeable by the user, after all.

* Reputation. Like it or not, but the people who like AI most are not artists, but tech people, or people who use images casually next to their real work. Will there be a backlash if we spend time and money on AI?

* Future proofness. Is AI a fad, like NFT's were, or something with a future?


On vrijdag 16 februari 2024 05:36:45 CET Emmet O'Neill wrote:
> Hey all.
> 
> In light of this week's discussion about AI/ML in Krita, I want to share
> this meta MR about adding a statement of intent to the project's source
> tree which outlines a few basic commitments that I believe we should make
> in the interest of benefiting our users and fostering a culture of human
> art.
> 
> I've outlined what it is, what it isn't, and why I think we should commit
> to it in the body of the MR.
> 
> https://invent.kde.org/graphics/krita/-/merge_requests/2071
> 
> Emmet
>