391–400 of 784 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hollywood was right all along then about hackers being outlaws, then. Hacker News must be the very heart of the Dark Web (where “dark” is short for late-stage capitalism).
> hackers being outlaws That gives them too much credit. "Outlaws" are folk heroes. Robin Hood was an outlaw, Bonnie and Clyde were outlaws. Luigi is an outlaw. Nobody's going to be telling fables about the exploits of Sam Altman.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
They really didn’t think this one through.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless you want to follow Adobe, who were just driven out by a mob of angry people
Our deepest condolences. Losing a marketing bullhorn is always difficult.
My comment wasn't just about Adobe
Maybe shouldn't have listened to asshat MBAs and overpaid management consultants that infiltrate your boardroom with their "haha number go up" bullshit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/...
We all have access to chatgpt. If we want hallucination ridden bullshit, we'll find it ourselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's exactly the moral argument Adobe is taking away from them, and the same argument has minimal economic relevance because it's so rare that a customer requires a specific individual artist's style.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe a better question is whether we even need a global town square. I've had Twitter and Bluesky and the difference between them and a real town square is that you're always performing publically to an audience you can't possibly know. I've found far more rewarding relationships posting on niche forums and even subreddits because you get a sense of the people who use and administrate them, and you're safe in the kn…
I agree, it's just that the town square will exist regardless because of the billions of people and the propensity of most of them to gravitate to the most mainstream option. It feels ideal that that's quarantined on Twitter so the more niche spaces stay high quality.
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.…
> 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? The rights artists have over their work are economic rights. The most important fair use factor is how the use affects the market for the original work. If Disney is lobbying for copyright term extensions and you want to make art showing Mickey Mouse in a cage…
You could take that further and say that "substantially the same thing" happens if the AI is trained on music instead. It's just another kind of artwork, right? Somebody who was going to have an illustration by [illustrator with distinctive style] might choose to have music instead, so the music is in competition, so all that illustrator's art might as well be in the training data, and that doesn't matter because the artist would get competed with either way. Says you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Adobe isn't trying to be ethical, they are trying to be more legally compliant Is the implication of this statement that using AI for image editing and creation is inherently unethical? Is that really how people feel?
For creation, yes, because of the provenance of the training data that got us here. It was acquired unethically in the overwhelming majority of cases. Using models derived from that training is laundering and anonymizing the existing creativity of other humans and then still staking the claim "I made this", like the stick figure comic. It's ghoulish.