Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#231

Post by doctorpangloss »

adzm wrote: post #28

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 p…

There’s no evidence that their generative tools are more ethical.

Even if you believe everything they say, they are lying by omission. For example, for their text to image technology, they never specify what their text language model is trained on - it’s almost certainly CLIP or T5, which is trained on plenty of not-expressly-licensed data. If they trained such a model from scratch - they don’t have enough image bureau data to make their own CLIP, even at 400m images, CLIP only performs well at the 4-7b image-caption pair scale - where’s the paper? It’s smoke and mirrors dude.

There’s a certain personality type that is getting co-opted on social media like Hacker News to “mook” for Adobe. Something on the intersection of a certain obsessive personality and Dunning Kruger.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#232

Post by Riverheart »

tpmoney wrote: post #199
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Training data at scale unavoidably taints models with vast amounts of references to the same widespread ideas that appear repeatedly in said data, so because the model has "seen" probably millions of photos of Indiana Jones, if you ask for an image of an archeologist who wears a hat and uses a whip, it's weighted averages are going to lead it to create something extremely similar to Indiana Jones because it has seen…

> if you ask for an image of an archeologist who wears a hat and uses a whip, it's weighted averages are going to lead it to create something extremely similar to Indiana Jones because it has seen Indiana Jones so much. If you ask a human artist for an image of "an archeologist who wears a hat and uses a whip" you're also going to get something extremely similar to Indiana Jones unless you explicitly ask for somethin…

You know why we put up with copyrighted info in the human brain right? Because those are human beings, it’s unavoidable. This? Avoidable.

Also, the model isn’t a human brain. Nobody has invented a human brain.

And the model might not infringe if its inputs are licensed but that doesn’t seem to be the case for most and it’s not clearly transparent they don’t. If the inputs are bad, the intent of the user is meaningless. I can ask for a generic super hero and not mean to get superman but if I do I can’t blame that on myself, I had no role in it, heck even the model doesn’t know what it’s doing, it’s just a function. If I Xerox Superman my intent is clear.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#234

Post by Barrin92 »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #6

This was fascinating to see unfold. What if there was a social network that had taste and rejected things that suck? Is it a failure of Bluesky to never become the global town square, if it means being a place where a brand can't find it a safe space to promote itself? Can a social network thread the needle of having enough traffic to be worthwhile but not so much as to attract the Eternal September?

>Is it a failure of Bluesky to never become the global town square,

No, because that's an oxymoron. There is no such thing because a precondition for a town square (which in reality is a community of people, not a place) is that there exists shared set of values, context and conduct between its members. The state of nature on a global platform, just like in a megacity is to be an anonymous, atomized individual who ideas or products can be sold to.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#235

Post by pembrook »

TremendousJudge wrote: post #186
_ea1k wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I'm surprised by how many here are responding with weird Adobe rants. They posted fairly innocuous stuff, were attacked, and ultimately chose to abandon the platform as a result. This sounds like a bigger indictment of the platform than anything to do with Adobe.

Maybe the people on the platform don't want it to get filled by bland corporate accounts like twitter did

Twitter/X doesn’t have a problem with corporate accounts. They murdered reach on brand accounts in the algorithm loooong ago (mid 2010s), you basically will never see company tweets in the feed even if you follow them.

I think it’s more the fact that bluesky’s core demographic are angry political obsessives (who are angry enough about politics to join a new social network over said politics). I can’t think of a worse way to create a community of people than filtering by “I’m angry about political stuff.”

Turns out the old social norm of “don’t talk politics with neighbors” was an example of a good Chestertons fence.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#236

Post by mattskr »

pessimizer wrote: post #123
mattskr wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol, I started my career during the housing market crash. Even though I had decent credit, especially for my age, my credit cards were reduced due to "market volatility" to $20 above what my balance was. Taking out a loan to start a career? I guess I was born to the wrong parents lol. Not everyone starts out on great footing in their careers. To this day, I still don't buy "new" computer parts to upgrade my computer.…

> If they bumped up the price to $100 bucks a month and obliterated the "I'm just a quirky creative home user who likes to dabble" pandering, GOOD. I'd keep my subscription. Instead, I'm actively building up my experience in alternative tools so I can get away from Adobe. You're telling them they'll lose you, but if they did what you recommend, they'd have lost both you and the "quirky creative home user who likes to…

Adobe is losing more market share to Canva than anyone else. The amount of companies who send me "canva files" makes me want to summon the great solar flare that'll emp us back to the stone age, tomorrow. Most in house graphic design dabblers, typically admins or secretaries who have a slight creative flair, don't have Adobe subs anymore. They used to and would have the jankiest files ever... but they were psds, ai, and ind files. Now, it's all canva cloud with extra layers of vomit and headache.

Hobbyists can and should use pro tools, of course. There should always be a good opening as many next gen professionals come from that route, and bring outside, lateral knowledge to grow that tool in novel ways.

When you focus on lobotomizing a pro tool, that's when you actively lose market share. Affinity or someone else, just needs one or two banger spotlights and then Adobe will start seeing real problems. Right now, the lose is minor, but it's a crack in the wall. Remember Skype? I sure as fuck don't. They played the same fucky fuck game. One situation is all it took.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#238

Post by AnthonyMouse »

adzm wrote: post #28

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 p…

> 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.

Post reply on HN