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

281–290 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#281

Post by subjectsigma »

bolognafairy wrote: post #261
skissane wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, w…

> 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.

Link even a single example of someone explicitly saying this and I would be astounded

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#282

Post by jillyboel »

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…

It's unauthorized commercial use. Which part of that is confusing to you?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#284

Post by CamperBob2 »

skissane wrote: post #216
TeMPOraL wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right, but "distaste" isn't grounds for trying to ban something. It isn't, but it doesn't stop people from trying and hoping for a miracle. That's pretty much all there is to the arguments of image models, as well as LLMs , being trained in violation of copyright - it's distaste and greed[0], with a slice of basic legalese on top to confuse people into believing the law says what it doesn't (at least yet) on top. >…

> they have a legitimate argument that this is an unexpected, undeserved, unfair calamity for them, threatening to derail their lives, and lives of their dependents, across the entire sector - and therefore that laws should be changed to shield them, or compensate them for the loss. After all, that's what laws are for. Lots of people have had their lives disrupted by technological and economic changes before - entire…

Given society provided little or no compensation for prior such cases of disruption

That's going to be hard for you to justify in the long run, I think. Virtually everybody who ever lost a job to technology ended up better off for it.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#285

Post by sneak »

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…

Subscriptionware is cancer. They deserve all the hate they get.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#287

Post by rglullis »

RugnirViking wrote: post #270
Workaccount2 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, b…

> Such places still exist, and are good.

Oh, yes, that artisanal internet. So nice, too bad it serves only a minuscule fraction of the people of the internet.

Everyone else just goes to Reddit and Discord.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#289

Post by Riverheart »

tpmoney wrote: post #254
Riverheart wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wo…

I’m saying that retaining information is a natural, accepted part of being human and operating in society. Don’t know why it needed to be turned into an Orwell sequel.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#290

Post by rchaud »

scarab92 wrote: post #278
rchaud wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

Platforms which drive away normal users with unwarranted hate become increasingly concentrated with toxic people over time. If bluesky don’t find a way to escape this spiral of driving away normal people and attracting toxic people it’s going to become a sort of left-wing 4chan.

Have a peek at the Facebook comments on Adobe's account. The sentiment is the same. We live in an economy where customers have no outlet to have their concerns heard, while companies set up shop on communal forums to blast their bullhorn. Why should communication be one way?

It's interesting that you see this as a moderation issue for Bluesky rather than an opportunity for a billion dollar brand to rethink the way they communicate online.

Post reply on HN