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

251–260 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#251

Post by tbrownaw »

f33d5173 wrote: post #85
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 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 ev…

> Adobe isn't trying to be ethical, they are trying to be more legally compliant,

Ethics (as opposed to morals) is about codified rules.

The law is a set of codified rules.

So are these really that different (beyond how the law is a hodge-podge and usually a minimum requirement rather than an ideal to reach for)?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#252

Post by rchaud »

_ea1k wrote: post #108
megaman821 wrote: post #14

As a lurker on both Bluesky and Twitter, I find Bluesky is a much more hostile place. Twitter is much more absurd but there is not as much anger.

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.

Since when did a damn website have to be a "platform"? Did anyone ask to chat with Time Warner on the public AOL chatrooms of the 90s? Were Digg users interested in hearing from Blockbuster in the 2000s?

Adobe could try to offer virtual "office hours" with employees helping people learn to use the software, give something back to their users. Instead they immediately treated it like another marketing channel with a formulaic and lazy engagement bait question that I'm sure they thought would work the same way it does on Twitter and Instagram.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#253

Post by pndy »

jeffwask wrote: post #2

You don't get to play cute, fun, friend to creators and have the most odious licensing terms in the history of software.

All big companies do that for few years now - either with used language or graphics (namely Corporate Memphis and its various uncanny variants) or with both. It's enough to look at patch notes for mobile apps: these are exactly cutesy, fake friendly. 99% of the time you won't learn what was changed or fixed but instead you get these unrelated comments trying to show how cool company xyz is. It's unironic "hello fellow kids" meme approach.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#254

Post by tpmoney »

Riverheart wrote: post #232
tpmoney wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 meaningles…

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

I would hope we put up with it because "copyright" is only useful to us insofar as it advances good things that we want in our society. I certainly don't want to live in a world where if we could forcibly remove copyrighted information from human brains as soon as the "license" expired that we would do so. That seems like a dystopian hell worse than even the worst possible predictions of AI's detractors.

> 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.

And if you turn around and discard that output and ask for something else, then no harm has been caused. Just like when artists trace other artists work for practice, no harm is caused and while it might be copyright infringement in a "literal meaning of the words" it's also not something that as a society we consider meaningfully infringing. If on the other hand, said budding artist started selling copies of those traces, or making video games using assets scanned from those traces, then we do consider it infringement worth worrying about.

> If I Xerox Superman my intent is clear.

Is it? If you have a broken xerox machine and you think you have it fixed, grab the nearest papers you can find and as a result of testing the machine xerox Superman, what is your intent? I don't think it was to commit copyright infringement, even if again in the "literal meaning of the words" sense you absolutely did.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#255

Post by djeastm »

jfengel wrote: post #230
crest wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Adobe is the one major company trying to be ethical with its AI training data and no one seems to even care. It's sad that it's funny that you think Adobe is motivated by ethical consideration.

They don't have to be motivated by ethics. I'm fine with them grudgingly doing ethical things because their customer base is all artists, many of whom would look for an alternative product.

You are fine with it, of course, because you're reasonable. But OP's claim was that Adobe is "trying to be ethical with its AI training data and no one seems to even care" as if we're meant to give special consideration to a company for doing the only economically sensible thing when most of its customers are artists.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#256

Post by spookie »

skissane wrote: post #223
mtndew4brkfst wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Well they do license the art they use, but in... let's say... "interesting" ways through their ToS.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#257

Post by pndy »

teraflop wrote: post #9
shaky-carrousel wrote: post #4

What a great idea, scaring companies probing bluesky. That surely won't backfire and will cement bluesky as a Xitter alternative.

Maybe, just maybe, the platforms that we use to engage socially with other human beings don't also have to be organized around engaging commercially with brands.

Wish we could separate all that corporate entities on the internet in their own walled social network world. Where they could have all these weird marketing convos like, mcdonald being angry because pepsi "unhahaed" nestle post /s

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#258

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mjmsmith wrote: post #244
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 argu…

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.

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.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#259

Post by abhinavk »

mjmsmith wrote: post #248
megaman821 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bluesky has all that but just in the anti direction. I was hoping for a more absolute of not disparaging anyone based on their race, gender, or sexual preference.

What does "the anti direction" mean? It's mean to racists?

[flagged]

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#260

Post by megaman821 »

mjmsmith wrote: post #248
megaman821 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bluesky has all that but just in the anti direction. I was hoping for a more absolute of not disparaging anyone based on their race, gender, or sexual preference.

What does "the anti direction" mean? It's mean to racists?

That it gives no-one pause to make disparaging remarks against white males, and violent allusions towards the outgroup are tolerated. That is not the vibe I want to see. I would hope that, starting fresh, there would be more cultural backlash against racial and gendered stereotypes and violence.
Post reply on HN