←back to thread

Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

(petapixel.com)
553 points bookofjoe | 10 comments | 11 Apr 25 14:01 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
adzm ◴[11 Apr 25 15:22 UTC] 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 #
AnthonyMouse ◴[11 Apr 25 23:27 UTC] No.43659810[source]▶
> Adobe is the one major company trying to be ethical with its AI training data and no one seems to even care.

It's because nobody actually wants that.

Artists don't like AI image generators because they have to compete with them, not because of how they were trained. How they were trained is just the the most plausible claim they can make against them if they want to sue OpenAI et al over it, or to make a moral argument that some kind of misappropriation is occurring.

From the perspective of an artist, a corporation training an AI image generator in a way that isn't susceptible to moral or legal assault is worse, because then it exists and they have to compete with it and there is no visible path for them to make it go away.

replies(7): >>43659874 #>>43660487 #>>43662522 #>>43663679 #>>43668300 #>>43670381 #>>43683088 #
1. mjmsmith ◴[11 Apr 25 23:37 UTC] No.43659874[source]▶
Most artists would prefer not to compete with an AI image generator that has been trained on their own artwork without their permission, for obvious reasons.
replies(2): >>43659995 #>>43660494 #
2. AnthonyMouse ◴[11 Apr 25 23:53 UTC] No.43659995[source]▶
That's exactly the moral argument Adobe is taking away from them, and the same argument has minimal economic relevance because it's so rare that a customer requires a specific individual artist's style.
replies(2): >>43661174 #>>43661478 #
3. unethical_ban ◴[12 Apr 25 01:28 UTC] No.43660494[source]▶
He's arguing that artists are so scared of Adobe and AI that they actually want Adobe to be more evil so artists have more to complain about.
replies(1): >>43660739 #
4. AnthonyMouse ◴[12 Apr 25 02:20 UTC] No.43660739[source]▶
They want AI image generation to go away. That isn't likely to happen, but their best hope would be to make copyright claims or try to turn the public against AI companies with accusations of misappropriation. Adobe's "ethical" image generator would be immune to those claims while still doing nothing to address their primary concern, the economic consequences. It takes away their ammunition while leaving their target standing. Are they supposed to like a company doing that or does it just make them even more upset?
5. __loam ◴[12 Apr 25 03:48 UTC] No.43661174[source]▶
Artists don't hate Adobe just because they're making an AI art generator, they hate Adobe because it's a predatory, scummy corporation that is difficult to work with and is the gatekeeper for common industry tools. Also, Adobe didn't take away the moral arguments against AI art, they just used previously liscened imagery that existed before they started making AI art generators. There's still an argument that it's deceptive to grandfather in previously licensed work into a new technology, and there's still an argument that spending resources on automating cultural expression is a shitty thing to do.
replies(2): >>43662191 #>>43665850 #
6. mjmsmith ◴[12 Apr 25 04:56 UTC] No.43661478[source]▶
That must be why AI image prompts never reference an artist name.
replies(1): >>43665807 #
7. t0bia_s ◴[12 Apr 25 07:30 UTC] No.43662191{3}[source]▶
As an artist, mine major complain about Adobe is their spyware software design. Constant calls for adobe servers, unable to work offline in field with their product and no support for linux.

Also, I'm curious, when they start censoring exports from their software. They already do that for money scans.

I'm not worry about image generators. They'll never generate art by definition. AI tools are same as camera back then - a new tool that still require human skills and purpose to create specific tasks.

8. AnthonyMouse ◴[12 Apr 25 16:27 UTC] No.43665807{3}[source]▶
The vast majority of AI image prompts don't reference an artist name, and the ones that do are typically using it as a proxy for a given style and would generally get similar results by specifying the name of the style instead of the name of the artist.

The ones using the name of the artist/studio (e.g. Ghiblification) also seem more common than they are because they're the ones that garner negative attention. Then the media attention a) causes people perceive it as being more common than it is and b) causes people do it more for a short period of time, making it temporarily more common even though the long-term economic relevance is still negligible.

replies(1): >>43667389 #
9. dragonwriter ◴[12 Apr 25 16:31 UTC] No.43665850{3}[source]▶
> Artists don't hate Adobe just because they're making an AI art generator, they hate Adobe because it's a predatory, scummy corporation that is difficult to work with and is the gatekeeper for common industry tools.

From what I've seen from artists, they hate Adobe for both reasons, and the AI thing is often more of a dogmatic, uncompromising hate (and is not based on any of the various rationalizations used to persuade others to act in accord with it) and less of the kind of hate that is nevertheless willing to accept products for utility.

10. fc417fc802 ◴[12 Apr 25 19:43 UTC] No.43667389{4}[source]▶
The latter example (Ghibli) is also somewhat misleading. Other studios sometimes use very similar styles. They might not have the same budget for fine detail throughout the entire length of the animation, and they probably don't do every production with that single art style, but when comparing still frames (which is what these tools generate after all) the style isn't really unique to a single studio.