←back to thread

554 points bookofjoe | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.344s | 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 #
spoaceman7777 ◴[] No.43659203[source]
> Adobe isn't trying to be ethical, they are trying to be more legally compliant

Is the implication of this statement that using AI for image editing and creation is inherently unethical?

Is that really how people feel?

replies(1): >>43659347 #
mtndew4brkfst ◴[] No.43659347[source]
For creation, yes, because of the provenance of the training data that got us here. It was acquired unethically in the overwhelming majority of cases. Using models derived from that training is laundering and anonymizing the existing creativity of other humans and then still staking the claim "I made this", like the stick figure comic. It's ghoulish.
replies(2): >>43659656 #>>43661512 #
skissane ◴[] No.43659656[source]
There exist image generation models that were trained on purely licensed content, e.g. Getty’s. I don’t know about Adobe’s specifically-but if not, it seems like a problem Adobe could easily fix-either buy/license a stock image library for AI training (maybe they already have one), and use that to train their own model-or else license someone else’s model e.g. Getty’s
replies(2): >>43659970 #>>43660002 #
1. spookie ◴[] No.43659970[source]
Well they do license the art they use, but in... let's say... "interesting" ways through their ToS.