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

261–270 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#261

Post by bolognafairy »

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

They are training using licensed images! That’s the thing! There’s some sort of ridiculous brainworm infecting certain online groups that has them believing that stealing content is inherent in using generative AI.

I watch this all quite closely, and It’s chronically online, anime / fursona profile picture, artists.

Exact same thing happened when that ‘open’ trust and safety platform was announced a few months ago, which used “AI” in its marketing material. This exact same group of people—not even remotely the target audience for this B2B T&S product—absolutely lost it on Bluesky. “We don’t want AI everywhere!” “You’re taking the humanity out of everything!” “This is so unethical!” When you tell them that machine learning has been used in content moderation for decades, they won’t have a bar of it. Nor when you explain that T&S AI isn’t generative and almost certainly isn’t using “stolen” data. I had countless people legitimately say that having humans have to sift through gore and CSAM is a Good Thing because it gives them jobs, which AI is taking away.

It’s all the same sort of online presence. Anime profile picture, Ko-fi in bio, “minors dni”, talking about not getting “commissions” anymore. It genuinely feels like a psy-op / false flag operation or something.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#262

Post by rchaud »

spiderice wrote: post #142
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.

Unless you want to follow Adobe, who were just driven out by a mob of angry people

Our deepest condolences. Losing a marketing bullhorn is always difficult.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#264

Post by ambicapter »

djeastm wrote: post #255
jfengel wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The great thing about loudly painting Adobe with the brush of "ethical AI training" (regardless of why they're doing it) is that the backlash will exponentially bigger if/when they do something that betrays that label. Potentially big enough to make them reverse course. It's not much, but it's something.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#266

Post by 9x39 »

vunderba wrote: post #119
Apreche wrote: post #41

I’m always the first one to criticize companies for exploitative and evil business practices. Adobe is far from innocent. However, I will argue their subscription model itself is actually better than the previous model. The reality is that Adobe has a large team of engineers to create and maintain several high end professional digital art creation tools. They also frequently add new and excellent features to those to…

There are plenty of successful subscription based models that allow you to fallback on a perpetual license for the last annual version that you paid for, e.g. the Jetbrains model. As a "professional" I have zero interest in renting the tools of my trade.

You wouldn't ever rent kit like a body or lens or lights? You'd just always buy something outright?

While time goes on, any software toolchain needs maintenance, too. What's the ideal model for sustaining that?

Is renting a problem in principle or financially or something else?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#267

Post by whimsicalism »

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.

frankly in some ways the audience for bluesky is more similar to HN, but in like a bad way.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#269

Post by Alupis »

doright wrote: post #120
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.

So after the honeymoon with Bluesky ends, what will be the next friendlier social media platform? And after that one? Will this just keep repeating?

People will just go back to Twitter/X, again, because despite all the falling-sky predictions it remains the single most important social media platform of our day. Governments around the world announce actual world-changing news on it - kind of all you need to know.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#270

Post by RugnirViking »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #152
teraflop wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

this is just not true?

I have (and I imagine most people over 25 have) used plenty of forums, wikis, and other social medias that are free as in beer, hosted by some guy with a computer in his garage, with technology from decades ago

The better ones of them asked you to pay if you wanted to be able to post video/large images. In most of those spaces, corporate was nowhere to be seen. Sometimes they used banner ads, but often, nothing at all but a single person's internet bill was the entire cost of the site. Such places still exist, and are good.

The internet is getting worse by the day. It's been getting worse for so long, that people are starting to wax lyrical about how it can't possibly work any other way, this is just the natural state of things.

Of course, if you absolutely must mindlessly go to the dopamine trough and get your fix of algorithmic profit engagement, then yes, you will end up in places that relentlessly seek profit via one form of another. But if you filter even a little bit for quality, you'll end up somewhere else.

Post reply on HN