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

151–160 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#151

Post by Workaccount2 »

Riverheart wrote: post #125
f33d5173 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

“A legal reality where you can only train AI on content you've licensed would be the worst for everybody bar massive companies, legacy artists included.” Care to elaborate? Also, saying artists only concern themselves with the legality of art used in AI because of distaste when there are legal cases where their art has been appropriated seems like a bold position to take. It’s a practice founded on scooping everythin…

There is no "scooping up", the models aren't massive archives of copied art. People either don't understand how these models work or they purposely misrepresent it (or purposely refuse to understand it).

Showing the model an picture doesn't create a copy of that picture in it's "brain". It moves a bunch of vectors around that captures an "essence" of what the image is. The next image shown from a totally different artist with a totally different style may well move around many of those same vectors again. But suffice to say, there is no copy of the picture anywhere inside of it.

This also why these models hallucinate so much, they are not drawing from a bank of copies, they are working off of a fuzzy memory.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#152

Post by Workaccount2 »

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.

The platforms should be paid then.

Its a fools errand to go on a "free" platform and complain about corporate presence. If you are not paying, then those corporate bodies are.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#153

Post by TeMPOraL »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #151
Riverheart wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“A legal reality where you can only train AI on content you've licensed would be the worst for everybody bar massive companies, legacy artists included.” Care to elaborate? Also, saying artists only concern themselves with the legality of art used in AI because of distaste when there are legal cases where their art has been appropriated seems like a bold position to take. It’s a practice founded on scooping everythin…

There is no "scooping up", the models aren't massive archives of copied art. People either don't understand how these models work or they purposely misrepresent it (or purposely refuse to understand it). Showing the model an picture doesn't create a copy of that picture in it's "brain". It moves a bunch of vectors around that captures an "essence" of what the image is. The next image shown from a totally different ar…

> People either don't understand how these models work or they purposely misrepresent it (or purposely refuse to understand it).

Not only that, they also assume or pretend that this is obviously violating copyright, when in fact this is a) not clear, and b) pending determination by courts and legislators around the world.

FWIW, I agree with your perspective on training, but I also accept that artists have legitimate moral grounds to complain and try to fight it - so I don't really like to argue about this with them; my pet peeve is on the LLM side of things, where the loudest arguments come from people who are envious and feel entitled, even though they have no personal stake in this.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#154

Post by jghn »

maw wrote: post #148
jghn wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people struggle with either site. Follow only people you want to see. Both sites allow you to only see posts from those accounts. Problem solved.

And what about the people who sometimes post interesting things and sometimes post distilled insanity? They're incentivized to do so.

Do you want to follow them or not? Up to you. No one is incentivized to do anything other than post what they want and follow who they want.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#156

Post by Riverheart »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #151
Riverheart wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“A legal reality where you can only train AI on content you've licensed would be the worst for everybody bar massive companies, legacy artists included.” Care to elaborate? Also, saying artists only concern themselves with the legality of art used in AI because of distaste when there are legal cases where their art has been appropriated seems like a bold position to take. It’s a practice founded on scooping everythin…

There is no "scooping up", the models aren't massive archives of copied art. People either don't understand how these models work or they purposely misrepresent it (or purposely refuse to understand it). Showing the model an picture doesn't create a copy of that picture in it's "brain". It moves a bunch of vectors around that captures an "essence" of what the image is. The next image shown from a totally different ar…

The collection of the training data is the “scooping up” I mentioned. I assume you acknowledge the training data doesn’t spontaneously burst out of the aether?

As for the model, it’s still creating deterministic, derivative works based off its inputs and the only thing that makes it random is the seed so it being a database of vectors is irrelevant.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#157

Post by 98codes »

maw wrote: post #148
jghn wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people struggle with either site. Follow only people you want to see. Both sites allow you to only see posts from those accounts. Problem solved.

And what about the people who sometimes post interesting things and sometimes post distilled insanity? They're incentivized to do so.

Then you decide if the positives outweigh the negatives and unfollow them or not.

This particular situation is why the only thing I miss from Twitter at this point is the ability to mute an account's reposts rather than the full account.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#158

Post by Riverheart »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #153
Workaccount2 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "scooping up", the models aren't massive archives of copied art. People either don't understand how these models work or they purposely misrepresent it (or purposely refuse to understand it). Showing the model an picture doesn't create a copy of that picture in it's "brain". It moves a bunch of vectors around that captures an "essence" of what the image is. The next image shown from a totally different ar…

> People either don't understand how these models work or they purposely misrepresent it (or purposely refuse to understand it). Not only that, they also assume or pretend that this is obviously violating copyright, when in fact this is a) not clear, and b) pending determination by courts and legislators around the world. FWIW, I agree with your perspective on training, but I also accept that artists have legitimate…

“Not only that, they also assume or pretend that this is obviously violating copyright, when in fact this is a) not clear, and b) pending determination by courts and legislators around the world.”

Uh huh, so much worse than the people that assume or pretend that it’s obviously not infringing and legal. Fortunately I don’t need to wait for a lawyer to form an opinion and neither do those in favor of AI as you might’ve noticed.

You see any of them backing down and waiting for answer from a higher authority?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#160

Post by ToucanLoucan »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #151
Riverheart wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“A legal reality where you can only train AI on content you've licensed would be the worst for everybody bar massive companies, legacy artists included.” Care to elaborate? Also, saying artists only concern themselves with the legality of art used in AI because of distaste when there are legal cases where their art has been appropriated seems like a bold position to take. It’s a practice founded on scooping everythin…

There is no "scooping up", the models aren't massive archives of copied art. People either don't understand how these models work or they purposely misrepresent it (or purposely refuse to understand it). Showing the model an picture doesn't create a copy of that picture in it's "brain". It moves a bunch of vectors around that captures an "essence" of what the image is. The next image shown from a totally different ar…

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 Indiana Jones so much. Disintegrating IP into trillions of pieces and then responding to an instruction to create it with something so close to the IP as to barely be distinguishable is still infringement.

The flip-side to that is the truly "original" images where no overt references are present all look kinda similar. If you run vague enough prompts to get something new that won't land you in hot water, you end up with a sort of stock-photo adjacent looking image where the lighting doesn't make sense and is completely unmotivated, the framing is strange, and everything has this over-smoothed, over-tuned "magazine copy editor doesn't understand the concept of restraint" look.

Post reply on HN