←back to thread

553 points bookofjoe | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
adzm ◴[] No.43654878[source]
Adobe is the one major company trying to be ethical with its AI training data and no one seems to even care. The AI features in Photoshop are the best around in my experience and come in handy constantly for all sorts of touchup work.

Anyway I don't really think they deserve a lot of the hate they get, but I do hope this encourages development of viable alternatives to their products. Photoshop is still pretty much peerless. Illustrator has a ton of competitors catching up. After Effects and Premiere for video editing are getting overtaken by Davinci Resolve -- though for motion graphics it is still hard to beat After Effects. Though I do love that Adobe simply uses JavaScript for its expression and scripting language.

replies(36): >>43654900 #>>43655311 #>>43655626 #>>43655700 #>>43655747 #>>43655859 #>>43655907 #>>43657271 #>>43657436 #>>43658069 #>>43658095 #>>43658187 #>>43658412 #>>43658496 #>>43658624 #>>43659012 #>>43659378 #>>43659401 #>>43659469 #>>43659478 #>>43659507 #>>43659546 #>>43659648 #>>43659715 #>>43659810 #>>43660283 #>>43661100 #>>43661103 #>>43661122 #>>43661755 #>>43664378 #>>43664554 #>>43665148 #>>43667578 #>>43674357 #>>43674455 #
f33d5173 ◴[] No.43655907[source]
Adobe isn't trying to be ethical, they are trying to be more legally compliant, because they see that as a market opportunity. Otoh, artists complain about legal compliance of AIs not because that is what they care about, but because they see that as their only possible redress against a phenomenon they find distasteful. A legal reality where you can only train AI on content you've licensed would be the worst for everybody bar massive companies, legacy artists included.
replies(7): >>43658034 #>>43658253 #>>43659203 #>>43659245 #>>43659443 #>>43659929 #>>43661258 #
1. no_wizard ◴[] No.43659245[source]
> A legal reality where you can only train AI on content you've licensed would be the worst for everybody bar massive companies, legacy artists included.

Quite an assertion. Why exactly would this be true?

replies(1): >>43660420 #
2. drilbo ◴[] No.43660420[source]
who else has would ever have a significantly large store of licensed material?
replies(1): >>43667788 #
3. fc417fc802 ◴[] No.43667788[source]
Or alternatively, who else could afford the licensing costs?