61–70 of 279 posts
This is the true power of generative AI, enabling new functionality for the user with simple UX while doing all the heavy lifting in the background. Prompting as a UX should be abstracted away from the user.
This probably isn't backed by an LLM but instead some kind of geometric shape model.
I find that Adobe is really pulling away from open source software with all this AI stuff. A few years ago it could be argued that GIMP, Inkscape, and Darktable could do almost everything that Photoshop, Illustrator, and Lightroom could, albeit with a jankier user interface. But now none of the open source software can compete with AI generative fill, AI denoising, and now AI rotation.
Most of the ai image generation stuff I've seen from adobe feels late to party in terms of what you can do with open source tools. Where they do compete however is with tight integration, and I guess that's what matters the most to users in the end.
There are plugins for gimp that let you do image generation, inpainting and other things.
As far as what the post shows, it looks very much like current models that generate novel viewpoints of an object, but for illustrations. It might be doable to fine tune this for illustrations and simply vectorise the new viewpoint again. Though this will destroy any structure previously held in the object.
All I'm saying is that we have the tech to do even more than what adobe is doing, we just haven't put it nicely together yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They'll probably be better able to compete once Adobe ups prices to reflect the actual cost of all that processing.
Photoshop is £30 a month. NASDAQ.com reports their net profit to be 40% and elsewhere they're reported to gross $20B revenue. I think they can afford the ML based content generation costs without increasing prices.
The source (Adobe MAX) 'demoes' full range of incredible scenarios.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfct0aH2COw
The video is much better than the linked page. The video shows the dynamic multi-angle character rotation and other object rotations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=63
I find that Adobe is really pulling away from open source software with all this AI stuff. A few years ago it could be argued that GIMP, Inkscape, and Darktable could do almost everything that Photoshop, Illustrator, and Lightroom could, albeit with a jankier user interface. But now none of the open source software can compete with AI generative fill, AI denoising, and now AI rotation.
> A few years ago it could be argued that GIMP, Inkscape, and Darktable To a Linux user, yes. To a professional, it was always a cruel joke, it was never close, even a few years ago. It's like saying Notepad++ is a functional IDE, or Kdenlive is a functional replacement for DaVinci Resolve. I cannot stress this enough: Actual professionals do not think GIMP is a viable replacement, in any way, and never have.
Some would say that GIMP, Inkscape, and Darktable aren't really competitive yet because they haven't had enough investment. If we invested in them enough, and managed them well, they could be like Blender.
GIMP has been in development since 1995. Photopea was initially released in 2013, has been solely developed by one person, and is a far-and-away better Photoshop competitor. The projects themselves are mismanaged. GIMP should (frankly) be abandoned and completely reset, in my opinion, as being a failed attempt at salvaging old code forever. Wisdom is knowing when to keep pushing - and when to give up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is certainly a great immediately useful tool but also a relatively small ROI, both the return and the investment. Big tech is aiming for a much bigger return on a clearly bigger investment. That’s going to potentially look like a lot of useless stuff in the meantime. Also, if it wasn’t for big tech and big investments, there wouldn’t even be these tools / models at this level of sophistication for others to be u…
While the press lumps it all together as "AI", you have to differentiate LLMs (driven by big tech and big money) from unrelated image/video types of generative models and approaches like diffusion, NeRF, Gaussian splatting, etc, which have their roots in academia.
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 Some…
What's wrong with trying out 100 different AI features across your product suite, and then seeing which ones "stick"? You figure out the 10 that users find really valuable, another 10 that will be super-valuable with improvement, and eventually drop the other 80.
Especially when if Microsoft tries something and Google doesn't, that suddenly gives Microsoft a huge lead in a particular product, and Google is left behind because they didn't experiment enough. Because you're right -- Google investors wouldn't like that, and would be totally justified.
The fact is, it's often hard to tell which features users will find valuable in advance. And when being 6 or 12 months late to the party can be the difference between your product maintaining its competitive lead vs. going the way of WordPerfect or Lotus 123 -- then the smart, rational, strategic thing to do is to build as many features as possible around the technology, and then see what works.
I would suggest that if Adobe is being slower with rolling out AI features, it might be more because of their extreme monopoly position in a lot of their products, thanks to the stickiness of their file formats. That they simply don't need to compete as much, which is bad.