←back to thread

Adobe's new image rotation tool is one of the most impressive AI tools seen

(www.creativebloq.com)
721 points ralusek | 2 comments | 17 Oct 24 14:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
ryandrake ◴[17 Oct 24 14:51 UTC] No.41870217[source]▶
I'm making some big assumptions about Adobe's product ideation process, but: This seems like the "right" way to approach developing AI products: Find a user need that can't easily be solved with traditional methods and algorithms, decide that AI is appropriate for that thing, and then build an AI system to solve it.

Rather than what many BigTech companies are currently doing: "Wall Street says we need to 'Use AI Somehow'. Let's invest in AI and Find Things To Do with AI. Later, we'll worry about somehow matching these things with user needs."

replies(15): >>41870304 #>>41870341 #>>41870369 #>>41870422 #>>41870672 #>>41870780 #>>41870851 #>>41870929 #>>41871322 #>>41871724 #>>41871915 #>>41871961 #>>41872523 #>>41872850 #>>41873162 #
emmanueloga_ ◴[17 Oct 24 15:48 UTC] No.41870780[source]▶
I think you're being a bit too generous with Adobe here :-). I shared this before, but it's worth resharing [1]. It covers the experience of a professional artist using Adobe tools.

The gist is that once a company has a captive audience with no alternatives, investors come first. Flashy (no pun intended :-p), cool features to impress investors become more important than the everyday user experience—and this feature does look super cool!

--

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lthVYUB8JLs

replies(4): >>41871004 #>>41871320 #>>41871487 #>>41874004 #
latexr ◴[17 Oct 24 16:48 UTC] No.41871320[source]▶
I don’t think those ideas are mutually exclusive. I heavily dislike Adobe and think they’re a rotten company with predatory practices. I also think “AI art” can be harmful to artists and more often than not produces uninteresting flawed garbage at an unacceptable energy cost.

Still, when I first heard of Adobe Firefly, my initial reaction was “smart business move, by exclusively using images they have the rights to”. Now seeing Turntable my reaction is “interesting tool which could be truly useful to many illustrators”.

Adobe can be a bad and opportunistic company in general but still do genuinely interesting things. As much as they deserve the criticism, the way in which they’re using AI does seem to be thought out and meant to address real user needs while minimising harm to artists.¹ I see Apple’s approach with Apple Intelligence a bit in the same vein, starting with the user experience and working backwards to the technology, as it should be.²

Worth noting that I fortunately have distanced myself from Adobe for many years now, so my view may be outdated.

¹ Which I don’t believe for a second is out of the goodness of their hearts, it just makes business sense.

² However, in that case the results seem to be subpar and I don’t think I’d use it even if I could.

replies(4): >>41871489 #>>41871675 #>>41871775 #>>41875255 #
HappMacDonald[dead post] ◴[17 Oct 24 17:07 UTC] No.41871489[source]▶
[flagged]
latexr ◴[17 Oct 24 17:15 UTC] No.41871562[source]▶
What’s the goal of your comment? You’re making a straw man argument which in no way relates to my point and ridicules the opinions of people not on this thread. That makes for uninteresting and needlessly divisive conversation.

The HN guidelines rightfully urge us to make substantive comments that advance the discussion and avoid shallow dismissals.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

replies(1): >>41871674 #
bee_rider ◴[17 Oct 24 17:27 UTC] No.41871674[source]▶
I think they are actually agreeing with you. Just, in a somewhat unpleasant and sarcastic manner. They aren’t strawmanning your argument, right? They are strawmanning the argument against it.
replies(1): >>41871772 #
latexr ◴[17 Oct 24 17:36 UTC] No.41871772[source]▶
> They aren’t strawmanning your argument, right? They are strawmanning the argument against it.

Yes, that’s the impression I got out of it too. I disapprove either way. I’d sooner defend a good argument against my point than a bad argument in favour of it.

I come to HN for reasoned, thoughtful, curious discussion.

replies(3): >>41872044 #>>41872284 #>>41874698 #
1. bee_rider ◴[17 Oct 24 18:26 UTC] No.41872284[source]▶
I think what has happened (and I’ve been hit by this in the past, it is very annoying) is: You included the bit in the beginning about being generally skeptical of AI art in some forms to signal that you are somebody with a nuanced opinion, who believes that the thing can be bad at times. Then, you go on to describe that this isn’t one of those times.

Unfortunately, this gets you some comments that want to disagree with that less specific, initial aside. I’m not sure if people just read the first paragraph and respond entirely based on that, without realizing that it is not the main point of the rest of the post. Or if they just don’t want to give up the ground that you did in the beginning, at all, so they knowingly ignore the rest of the post.

I don’t really know what to do about this sort of thing. It seems like… generally nice to be able to start a post with something that says basically: look I’ve thought about this and it isn’t an uninformed reflexive take. But I’m trying to give up on that sort of thing. It isn’t really logically part of the argument, and it ends with people arguing in a direction that I’m not really interested in defending against in this context.

But it does seem a shame, because, while it isn’t logically part of the argument, it is nice to know beforehand how firm somebody’s stance is.

replies(1): >>41873301 #
2. latexr ◴[17 Oct 24 20:14 UTC] No.41873301[source]▶
I think this is a great comment and that you absolutely nailed it. It’s a shame that it’s now buried under a flagged response, but still I wanted to make sure you knew (since it was directed at me) that I read it and appreciated it.