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

311–320 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#311

Post by EasyMark »

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…

I'm not surprised but disheartened that people have so little going on in their life they thing trying to boycott a bsky corporate account is a good use of their time.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#312

Post by geerlingguy »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #137
m463 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember pixelmator being a breath of fresh air.

I still use it, and might upgrade to their latest version. It's fine as a way of making shitposts, but I don't know if it's a professional-grade graphics editor - but I'm not a professional myself, so what do I know.

It's like 95% of the way there for me—there are a few little workflow niggles that keep me from fully switching over, like the inability to do a full export-close cycle without saving, without having to use my mouse (moving the hand to the trackpad/mouse is annoying when it's not necessary).

In Photoshop, likely because it's been used by pros for decades, little conveniences are all over the place, like the ability to press 'd' for 'Don't Save' in a save dialog box.

That said, the past few versions of Photoshop, which moved away from fully-native apps to some sort of web UI engine... they are getting worse and worse. On one of my Macs, every few weeks it gets stuck on the 'Hand' tool, no matter what (even surviving a preferences nuke + restart), until I reboot the entire computer.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#313

Post by geerlingguy »

genevra wrote: post #88
cosmotic wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of good photoshop alternatives. Most are better at individual use cases than photoshop. For example, nearly all the alternatives are better at designing website comps because they are object-based instead of layer-based.

There are "some" Photoshop wannabes. I still haven't found any program on Linux that can give me anywhere close to the same ease of use and powerful tools that Photoshop has. The example you provided sounds like you want to use Illustrator for your use case anyway.

Pixelmator Pro is very close... but Mac only, still. Image editing on Linux is rough.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#314

Post by dylan604 »

Lammy wrote: post #173
nonchalantsui wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For their pricing and subscription practices alone, they deserve far more backlash than they get.

I am so happy that my Win32 CS3 Master Collection still works fully-offline and will continue to do so for as long as I care to keep using it :)

Does it work on modern hardware running modern OS? Specifically, wondering if this was a Mac version. I could see WinX versions still running, but the Mac arch has changed significantly: 32bit -> 64bit, mactel -> AppleSI

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#315

Post by Brian_K_White »

multimoon wrote: post #92
Brian_K_White wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as "get as good as a human artist" unless it becomes an actual human that lived the human experience. Even bad art starts with something to express and a want to express it. Without that, it's only as good as a human artist in the way a picture of a work of art is. Actual AI art would first require an ai that wants to express something, and then it would have be trying to express something abou…

I’m not sure where we launched into the metaphysics of if an AI can produce an emotionally charged meaningful work, but that wasn’t part of the debate here, I recall my stance being that the AI will never get as good as the human. Since photoshop is a tool like any other, “good enough” refers to making the barrier of entry to make a given work (in this case some image) so low that anyone could buy a photoshop license…

The fact that you are a paying user who does not hate some thing that other users do, does not change the fact that they do, and that they are the final authority on what they hate and why they hate it.

It has nothing to do with you. You are free not to have the same priorities as them, but that's all that difference indicates, is that your priorities are different.

The "what is art?" stuff is saying why I think that "get as good as a human artist" is a fundamentally invalid concept.

Not that humans are the mostest bestest blessed by god chosen whatever. Just that it's a fundamentally meaningless sequence of words.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#316

Post by kmeisthax »

Sir_Twist wrote: post #302
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…

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.…

Artists do not want to get paid micropennies for use-of-training-data licenses for something that destroys the market for new art. And that's the only claim Adobe Firefly makes for being ethical. Adobe used a EULA Roofie to make all their Adobe Stock contributors consent to getting monthly payments for images trained on in Firefly.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#318

Post by rchaud »

broodbucket wrote: post #210
fortran77 wrote: post #129

BlueSky can be brutal! I wonder how it got a reputation of being the kinder, gentler alternative?

People interact with brands differently to how they interact with humans.

Indeed. Humans dont make you talk to a chatbot for help or have 'no-reply' in their email addresses.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#319

Post by crimony »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #190
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…

I'm curious why you think it would be worse for everybody? This argument seems to depend on the assumption that if something makes AI less viable then the situation for human beings is worse overall. I don't think many actual people would accept that premise.

It's worse only if AI turns out to be of high value.

In that case only large companies that can afford to license training data will be dominant.

Post reply on HN