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

301–310 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#301

Post by grayhatter »

rglullis wrote: post #287
RugnirViking wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some might call that a feature.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#302

Post by Sir_Twist »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #238
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 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…

I'd say that is a bit of an ungenerous characterization. Is it possible that it could be both? That while artists maybe do feel under attack in terms of competition, that there is a genuine ethical dilemma at hand?

If I were an artist, and I made a painting and published it to a site which was then used to train an LLM, I would feel as though the AI company treated me disingenuously, regardless of competition or not. Intellectual property laws aside, I think there is a social contract being broken when a publicly shared work is then used without the artist's direct, explicit permission.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#303

Post by zarathustreal »

magicmicah85 wrote: post #58
simonw wrote: post #36

Yeah, they posted this: > Hey, we're Adobe! We're here to connect with the artists, designers, and storytellers who bring ideas to life. What's fueling your creativity right now? > Drop a reply, tag a creator, or share your latest work—we'd love to see what inspires you! That's such a bland, corporate message. It feels totally inauthentic. Do Adobe (a corporation) really "love to see what inspires you" or do they jus…

They want engagement for their new account, it's what anyone who posts on social media wants.

[flagged]

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#304

Post by unethical_ban »

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.

He's arguing that artists are so scared of Adobe and AI that they actually want Adobe to be more evil so artists have more to complain about.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#305

Post by tpmoney »

Riverheart wrote: post #289
tpmoney wrote: post #254

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. 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.

I had assumed when you said that a human retaining information was "unavoidable" and a machine retaining it was "avoidable" that the implication was we wouldn't tolerate humans retaining information if it was also "avoidable". Otherwise I'm unclear what the intent of distinguishing between "avoidable" and "unavoidable" was, and I'm unclear what it has to do with whether or not an AI model that was trained with "unlicensed" content is or isn't copyright infringing on its own.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#306

Post by [deleted] »

magicmicah85 wrote: post #58
simonw wrote: post #36

Yeah, they posted this: > Hey, we're Adobe! We're here to connect with the artists, designers, and storytellers who bring ideas to life. What's fueling your creativity right now? > Drop a reply, tag a creator, or share your latest work—we'd love to see what inspires you! That's such a bland, corporate message. It feels totally inauthentic. Do Adobe (a corporation) really "love to see what inspires you" or do they jus…

They want engagement for their new account, it's what anyone who posts on social media wants.

[deleted]

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#307

Post by jghn »

jacobgkau wrote: post #275
jghn wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the content creators This is IMO the problem. I don't use these sites to follow "content creators". For the most part I'm following normal people who happen to say things I find interesting.

I don't think they were saying it's a problem for people following content creators. It's more a problem for content creators, because they usually want the greatest reach possible, so they want to be on platforms that people use, which requires them to put up with the emotional swingings of the platforms' userbases. If you want to say you don't care about having content creators on your platform, that's at least a c…

That is indeed what I'm saying. I treat social media more like I treated Usenet back in the day. To me that's a superior model than the influencer model.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#308

Post by rcxdude »

adzm wrote: post #52
jmclnx wrote: post #7

Charging a subscription fee is crazy for a product that is very expensive. I do not know why they are still around.

I pay $20 a month for the educational discount and my kids get access to every Adobe product. It is an amazing deal. When you are an adult not in school you probably don't need "all apps" and it is relatively inexpensive to get just the product you use. Anyway, they are still around because they still have some of the best set of features, and are industry standards, though this may change in the future and in some a…

>though this may change in the future and in some areas is already in progress (and I welcome that! They need competition to push them)

A big part of how they keep their relevance is people using those 'educational discounts' so that they are the tools that everyone learns to use in school, building up a moat against any alternative.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#310

Post by maxerickson »

rchaud wrote: post #309
jmclnx wrote: post #7

Charging a subscription fee is crazy for a product that is very expensive. I do not know why they are still around.

Enterprise-level budgets.

An annual subscription to the whole suite is less than a weeks pay for someone that would be using it in the US, so no need for the Enterprise-level.
Post reply on HN