151–160 of 279 posts
Edit/ apparently I misunderstood it's only possible with vectors - getting close though to the reality mentioned!
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…
This is a testable claim: where were Adobe in previous hype cycles? Googles "Adobe Blockchain"...looks like they were all about blockchains in 2018 [0], then NFTs and "more sustainable blockchains" in 2022 [1].
[0] https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2018/09/27/blockchain-and-...
[1] https://www.ledgerinsights.com/adobe-moves-to-sustainable-bl...
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they are actually agreeing with you. Just, in a somewhat unpleasant and sarcastic manner. They aren’t strawmanning your argument, right? They are strawmanning the argument against it.
> They aren’t strawmanning your argument, right? They are strawmanning the argument against it. Yes, that’s the impression I got out of it too. I disapprove either way. I’d sooner defend a good argument against my point than a bad argument in favour of it. I come to HN for reasoned, thoughtful, curious discussion.
I think another, perhaps more relevant reference could be the replacement of hand-painted cells with computer-generated frames for animation. It replaced one kind of artist with another. Nobody got all that worked up about it, in the long run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's a Big Tech problem. Big Tech can come up with moronic ideas and be fine because they have unlimited cash. It's the smaller companies that need to count pennies who decide to flush the money down the AI Boondoggle Toilet. "But Google does it. If we do it, we will be like Google".
"But Google does it. If we do it, we will be like Google". Were you in my meeting about 40 minutes ago? Because that's almost exactly what was said. If the big tech companies wanted to be really evil, they could invent a nonsense tech that doesn't work, then watch as all the small upstart competitors bankrupt themselves to replicate it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The presence or absence of some subtle new magic wand icon that shows up in the toolbar is neither making nor breaking anyone's business. And even if it comes to be a compelling feature in my competitor's product, I've got plenty of time to update my product with something comparable. At least if I've done a good job building something useful for my customers in the first place. Generative ML technologies may dramati…
> The presence or absence of some subtle new magic wand icon that shows up in the toolbar is neither making nor breaking anyone's business. Sounds like famous last words to me. The corporate landscape is filled with the corpses of companies that thought they didn't need to rush to adapt to new technologies. That they'd have time to react if something really did take off in the end. Just think of how Kodak bided its t…
The discussion you started is about spamming features to see what sticks, as set against making deliberate, selective product decisions as you confidently observe your market.
It's possible that a company that ideologically sets itself against delivering any generative AI features ever might miss where the industry is going over the next 10 or 20 years. But we were never talking about that, were we?
Makes me think of https://lookingglassfactory.com/looking-glass-go-spatial-pho... which needs multiple views of your image from different angle and tries to make it up with AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they are actually agreeing with you. Just, in a somewhat unpleasant and sarcastic manner. They aren’t strawmanning your argument, right? They are strawmanning the argument against it.
> They aren’t strawmanning your argument, right? They are strawmanning the argument against it. Yes, that’s the impression I got out of it too. I disapprove either way. I’d sooner defend a good argument against my point than a bad argument in favour of it. I come to HN for reasoned, thoughtful, curious discussion.
Unfortunately, this gets you some comments that want to disagree with that less specific, initial aside. I’m not sure if people just read the first paragraph and respond entirely based on that, without realizing that it is not the main point of the rest of the post. Or if they just don’t want to give up the ground that you did in the beginning, at all, so they knowingly ignore the rest of the post.
I don’t really know what to do about this sort of thing. It seems like… generally nice to be able to start a post with something that says basically: look I’ve thought about this and it isn’t an uninformed reflexive take. But I’m trying to give up on that sort of thing. It isn’t really logically part of the argument, and it ends with people arguing in a direction that I’m not really interested in defending against in this context.
But it does seem a shame, because, while it isn’t logically part of the argument, it is nice to know beforehand how firm somebody’s stance is.
The source (Adobe MAX) 'demoes' full range of incredible scenarios.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfct0aH2COw
Not bad, but what's up with the audience? Is there an Adobe cult or something?
My wife's an artist and says they had a shitty version of this but this is crazy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think those ideas are mutually exclusive. I heavily dislike Adobe and think they’re a rotten company with predatory practices. I also think “AI art” can be harmful to artists and more often than not produces uninteresting flawed garbage at an unacceptable energy cost. Still, when I first heard of Adobe Firefly, my initial reaction was “smart business move, by exclusively using images they have the rights to”.…
[flagged]
I like this reasoning. If something is new then it must be the future of humanity. People scoffed at Concorde for being “wasteful” and “flawed” but look at the company today