←back to thread

Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

(petapixel.com)
553 points bookofjoe | 2 comments | 11 Apr 25 14:01 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
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 #
1. unethical_ban ◴[12 Apr 25 01:28 UTC] No.43660494{3}[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 #
2. 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?