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

341–350 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#341

Post by scheeseman486 »

Alupis wrote: post #272
scheeseman486 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they can't take the heat from their customers, that's their problem. And you can always subscribe to Adobe's email list.

I think we can safely assume 99% of the outraged posters have never once owned a legal copy of, nor subscribed to Adobe products. Outrage is a performance these days.

Just about everyone I know who works in graphic design doesn't have a high opinion of Adobe. Though in a sense you're right, many don't own a legal copy of Adobe products.

But that's because they've chosen something else for their personal use and only make Adobe part of their workflow when required to by their workplace.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#342

Post by cratermoon »

_bin_ wrote: post #106
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…

Right, but "distaste" isn't grounds for trying to ban something. There are all kinds of things people and companies do which I dislike but for which there's no just basis for regulating. If Adobe properly licenses all their training data artists don't have a right to say "well i think this is bad for creativity and puts my job at risk, ban it!!!" Or more precisely, they have a right to say that, but no moral justific…

> Right, but "distaste" isn't grounds for trying to ban something

I disagree. There are many laws on the books codifying social distastes. They keep your local vice squad busy.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#343

Post by Sir_Twist »

kmeisthax wrote: post #316
Sir_Twist wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed, and I agree that Adobe is in the wrong here. For an agreement between Adobe and an artist to be truly permissive, the artist should have the ability to not give their consent. Ethically, I think Adobe is in the same position as the other AI companies – if the artist doesn't directly (EULAs are not direct, in my opinion) agree to the terms, and if they don't have the option to decline, then it isn't an agreement, it is an method of coercion. If an artist, like you said, doesn't want to be paid micropennies, they shouldn't have to agree.

I believe it is completely reasonable for an artist to want to share their work publicly on the Internet without fear of it being appropriated, and I wish there was a pragmatic way they could achieve this.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#344

Post by Alupis »

scheeseman486 wrote: post #341
Alupis wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we can safely assume 99% of the outraged posters have never once owned a legal copy of, nor subscribed to Adobe products. Outrage is a performance these days.

Just about everyone I know who works in graphic design doesn't have a high opinion of Adobe. Though in a sense you're right, many don't own a legal copy of Adobe products. But that's because they've chosen something else for their personal use and only make Adobe part of their workflow when required to by their workplace.

Every single graphics professional I've worked with (many) have owned their own copy of Creative Suite (or subscribed). It's akin to their "IDE", and they really get to know it inside-and-out. It would be difficult to become skilled in the various Creative Suite products if one didn't spend a lot of time (their own and employers) in it.

The point I was raising here specifically was the people who are feigning outrage to Adobe's benign Bluesky post are unlikely to be Adobe customers, and unlikely even creative professionals at all.

Outrage and hate is a sport to these people.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#345

Post by throwme_123 »

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.

Yes, the elephant in the room is Bluesky itself. In my experience, it's way more toxic than Twitter/X.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#346

Post by furyofantares »

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.…

I've never seen anyone make the complaint about image classifiers or image segmentation. It's only for generative models and only once they got good enough to be useful.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#347

Post by thatnerdyguy »

jeffparsons wrote: post #181
doright wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If a new a Twitter/Bluesky replacement is to promote civil discourse, it will need to _restrict_ reach as a core feature. Which... seems antithetical to a social media platform. But as long as "enragement = engagement" holds true, each new social media platform will eventually devolve into the same kind of cesspool as its predecessors.

But...restricted reach is exactly how Bluesky works. People you follow show up in your feed, and only them. You can look at other feeds that are not as restricted, but you are making that choice.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#348

Post by jrflowers »

EasyMark wrote: post #311
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.

I’m pretty sure the amount of time and energy it took you to write this post is more or less equal to the amount of time and energy energy it took somebody else to write a post making fun of the Adobe account

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#349

Post by thatnerdyguy »

homefree wrote: post #177
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.

Bluesky is the worst of old Twitter concentrated into one place. It's some weird mixture of the hall monitors of Mastodon crossed with wannabe members of the weather underground. Like a leftwing Gab full of only Kara Swisher and Taylor Lorenz types. This sort of of faux outrage at adobe is par for the course - its awful over there. X is much more of an ideological mix.

My X experience was far more partisan than Bluesky. Not being able to get away from seeing the latest thoughts of user numero uno was also a turn off.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#350

Post by thatnerdyguy »

megaman821 wrote: post #260
mjmsmith wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "the anti direction" mean? It's mean to racists?

That it gives no-one pause to make disparaging remarks against white males, and violent allusions towards the outgroup are tolerated. That is not the vibe I want to see. I would hope that, starting fresh, there would be more cultural backlash against racial and gendered stereotypes and violence.

Then you block those people, and never see their stupid opinions again.
Post reply on HN