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 sad that it's funny that you think Adobe is motivated by ethical consideration.
A strawman argument so you can condescendingly and snarkily lecture someone? I can see you were among those mouthing off at Adobe on Bluesky.
Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
381–390 of 784 posts
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#382Adobe runs what must be one of the largest deceptive rebills. The vast majority of users signing up for a monthly plan do not realize that it is actually an "annual plan, billed monthly" and thus that if they cancel after one month (for example) they'll be billed for the remaining 11 immediately. I honestly don't know how they haven't faced FTC action for this, as it's been their primary model for 5-10 years now.
I fell for it once. But I’m in India so I just cancelled my debit card and that was that. Good luck to them to chase me through legal means in India. It was still bit of a hassle though.
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#383Earlier 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.…
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#384Earlier 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.
This is such an amazingly toxic, selfish attitude that you have. Is this how you really live your life? It wasn't "their customers" that brigaded. It is the clowns who have decided that Bluesky is their own. They are the ones that will keep it from hitting mainstream, and hopefully the service crushes their obnoxious activism.
This is a silly idea. Who else would care enough or know about it?
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don't see why this is a point against Adobe. When you select a plan, they very clearly give you 3 options. Monthly, Annual billed monthly, and Annual prepaid. The Annual billed monthly is just flat-out better for end users over prepaid. Why do people want to get rid of it? Because some people FAFO when trying to get an annual price while still being able to cancel any time? I do not like Adobe in the slightes…
Signing a contract where, even if you stop using the company's service or having anything to do with the company, you still have to keep paying them nevertheless... sounds like one of those types of deals† that we invented the concept of "inalienable rights" to prevent companies from offering. † I.e. the type of deal where the individual is being asked to trade away something they cannot reasonably evaluate the net p…
My natural instinct was to be ropable. But then I realised that I had actually been paying an annual insurance policy, monthly. I wasn't paying a monthly insurance policy.
Presumably when we signed up, there was a monthly option. Presumably it cost more. And so I can hardly be annoyed that they're essentially making up that difference now that I've chosen to terminate that contract early.
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#386 > has left Adobe’s standing with many photographers in shambles
What does this mean? Do normie photographers have any realistic choice except Adobe products? Are their sales falling? I doubt it. This quote reads like sour grapes.Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
Signing a contract where, even if you stop using the company's service or having anything to do with the company, you still have to keep paying them nevertheless... sounds like one of those types of deals† that we invented the concept of "inalienable rights" to prevent companies from offering. † I.e. the type of deal where the individual is being asked to trade away something they cannot reasonably evaluate the net p…
You're not buying a monthly plan for their Annual billed Monthly option. You're literally buying a year's worth, but paying it off in 12 installments over time. If someone were to buy the monthly plan, cancel it, and still get billed for it, yes you would have a point.
That being said, maybe we're talking past one-another here.
Where I come from (Canada), even if you prepay for a service that charges annually (no "annual charged monthly" language needed), as long as that service can be common-sense-construed as delivering value on a finer granularity (by the month, by the second, etc), then if you only use that service for some fraction of the plan length, and then cancel it — you are then legally obligated to a pro-rated refund of the remaining plan length. So if you cancel an annual-billed service after a month? You get 11/12ths of your payment back. If you subscribe to a monthly-billed service on January 1 and cancel on January 2? You get 30/31ths of your payment back. Etc.
Under such a legal doctrine, there is no difference in the total amount owed between "billed monthly" when subscribed for one month, vs "billed annually" when subscribed for one month and then cancelled, vs "annual, billed monthly" when subscribed for one month and then cancelled.
If you're curious about the set of countries where this doctrine applies, here's a page from the Microsoft Store support outlining the set of countries where they will give out pro-rated refunds for subscriptions: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/account-billing/countrie...
(And if it isn't sickening to you that in general, corporations will write logic into their billing systems to support this, and then only activate that logic for countries where they're legally obligated to do so, while — now with intentionality — continuing to squeeze everyone else for services they've knowingly already cut off... then I don't know what to tell you.)
---
And yes, if you're wondering, there are a few exceptions to this pro-rated refund doctrine.
One is real-estate leasing — because chancery courts are weird and make their own rules; but also because a lot of the "work" of being a landlord is up-front/annual. (Though, admittedly, we also have laws here that force real-estate annual leasing contracts to revert to month-to-month after a low set number of years — usually 1 or 2 — with the month-to-month lease rate carried over from the "annual, paid monthly" rate.)
The other is for commercial leasing of assets like vehicles, construction equipment, servers, etc. This is because corporations have much more predictable optionality, sure — but it's also because corporations don't "deserve" protections in the same way individuals do. (Same reason investment banks don't get the protections of savings banks.)
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#388Earlier 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…
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Virtually everybody who ever lost a job to technology ended up better off for it. this feels like a much stronger claim than is typically made about the benefits of technological progress
Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't there some action around this like a year ago? Can't find it now, but I thought it was investigated at some point.
It seems you're right. I can't find how big the fine was. ChatGPT says it is still ongoing. Not sure if that's right. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/06/...