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

691–700 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#691

Post by TeMPOraL »

skissane wrote: post #242
TeMPOraL wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moral growth and learning from history?

There’s a big risk that you end up creating a scheme to compensate for technological disruption in one industry and then fail to do so in another, based on the political clout / mindshare / media attention each has - and then there are many people in even worse personal situations (through no fault of their own) who would also miss out. Wouldn’t a better alternative be to work on improving social safety nets for ever…

> Wouldn’t a better alternative be to work on improving social safety nets for everybody, as opposed to providing a bespoke one for a single industry?

Yes, but:

1) It's not really an exclusive choice; different people can pursue different angles, including all of them - one can both seek immediate support/compensation for the specific case they're the victim of and seek longer-term solution for everyone who'd face the same problem in the future.

2) A bespoke solution is much more likely to be achievable than a general one.

3) I don't believe it would be good for society for artists to succeed in curtailing generative AI! But, should they succeed, I imagine the consequences will encourage people to seek the more general solution that mitigates occupational damage of GenAI while preserving its availability, instead of having to deal with a series of bespoke stopgaps that also kills GenAI entirely.

4) Not that banning GenAI has any chance of succeeding - the most we'd get is it being unavailable in some countries, who'd then be at a disadvantage in competition with countries that embraced it.

Again, I'm not in favor of banning GenAI - on the contrary, I'm in favor of giving a blanket exception from copyright laws for purposes of training generative models. However, I recognize the plight of artists and other people who are feeling the negative economic impact on their jobs right now (and hell, my own line of work - software development - is still one of the most at risk in the near to mid-term, too); I wish for a solution that will help them (and others about to be in this situation), but in the meantime, I don't begrudge them for trying to fight it - I think they have full right to. I only have problems with people who oppose AI because they feel that Big AI is depriving them of opportunity to seek rent from society for the value AI models are creating.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#692

Post by simonw »

hammock wrote: post #687
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 don’t disagree, but what are they supposed to post otherwise?

Post something interesting!

A profile of an up and coming artist doing cool stuff with Adobe software.

A video interview with an interesting team lead at Adobe.

Or just stick to product announcements like various other brand accounts to.

Pretty much anything that doesn't come across as fake engagement bait would probably have been fine.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#693

Post by anoldperson »

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.

Takes two seconds to call somebody a wanker.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#694

Post by willcipriano »

nrb wrote: post #615
jrockway wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collections rarely does anything. I mean they will nag you, but you ask them to only contact you in writing, and it basically goes away. The collection agency could sue you, but it's rare. It involves putting together a realistic case (we are sure this person signed this contract and owes us $X) and that is expensive. The billing your credit card 50% is a "well we tried" type thing. They're happy if it works out, but…

In the US, a collection on your credit report can tank your FICO score by more than 100 points, affecting your ability to borrow at the best rate, rent a home, or get certain jobs. This would be a very risky move if the purchase was made in such a way that you are personally liable.

I've never heard of someone without your social security number having the ability to do anything to your credit.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#695

Post by myself248 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #551
myself248 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can force-post right past Privacy.com's veil, NYTimes did it to me. Here's what Privacy's support rep had to say about it: > Hi, Firstname > I've been reviewing your dispute and wanted to touch base with you to explain what happened. > It appears that the disputed charge is a "force post" by the merchant. This happens when a merchant cannot collect funds for a transaction after repeated attempts and completes th…

How does the force post get to you though? Surely that involves privacy.com participating.

This is my speculation, but I think privacy.com isn't actually in the middle as thoroughly as we think they are. They're just making up a new card number that still corresponds to my same old account, and they're responding to verification queries saying "yup, that's the right name and address, verifies just fine!", which provides the privacy they claim to.

Note, their name isn't SpendingLimit.com.

This shook me plenty and I no longer use them for anything I actually need a spending limit on. They're still good for their namesake privacy, with a very limited scope (i.e. scummy merchants), but it's a very thin veil and easy to pierce.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#696

Post by fc417fc802 »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #689
fc417fc802 wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's piracy, not theft. Those aren't the same thing but they are both against the law and the court will assess damages for both. The person you replied to derailed the conversation by misconstruing an analogy. > what's happening is objectively wrong. Doesn't seem like a defensible claim to me. Clearly plenty of people don't feel that way, myself included. Aside, you appear to be banned. Just in case you aren't aware…

> The person you replied to derailed the conversation by misconstruing an analogy. Curious why you say this. They seem to have made the copyright infringement analogous to theft and I addressed that directly in the comment.

It was an analogy, ie a comparison of the differences between pairs. The relevant bit then is the damages suffered by the party stolen from. If you fail to pursue when the damages are small or nonexistent (image classifiers, employee stealing a single apple, individual reproduction for personal use) why should that undermine a case you bring when the damages become noticeable (generative models, employee stealing 500 lbs of apples, bulk reproduction for commercial sale)?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#697

Post by fc417fc802 »

gruez wrote: post #685
fc417fc802 wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't grasping at straws because confusing or misleading people is literally how dark patterns work. > Do you think "$500 biweekly" car ads, or "$2000/month" apartment rentals are the same? The rentals make it very clear what the contract period is and what the penalty for breaking early is. Those terms are also tightly regulated in most jurisdictions for exactly the reason that they are prone to abuse. > I'd expe…

>The rentals make it very clear what the contract period is and what the penalty for breaking early is. On the billboard or in the multi-page rental agreement that they send for you to sign? How is this different from than the ToS/fine print on adobe's site? >Given that the text fails to provide details about the fee is this even a valid contract to begin with? It's probably buried in the fine print somewhere, which…

I can only speak for myself here but I have never had an interaction with a new (to me) landlord where I was later surprised to discover what the rental period or early termination penalty was. Every one of them has gone out of their way to verbally specify the length of the term in addition to requiring me to initial it on the contract.

I have had plenty of other issues with borderline dishonest landlords but mutually understanding what was being agreed to up front was never one of them. The issues generally came later when they tried to get out of or add additional things without my consent.

> It's probably buried in the fine print somewhere, which courts have generally held to be enforceable.

People elsewhere in this comment section reported that they checked and claimed that it is not found anywhere directly linked from the sales page. You generally have to specify the terms of a contract up front, before it is signed.

> No, the legal standard is "reasonable person"

It isn't conclusive, but I think it makes for a strong case. The more people who are confused by it the stronger your argument that it is confusing to a "reasonable person" becomes.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#698

Post by mesh »

sdrothrock wrote: post #361
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 I was actually contacted by someone at Adobe for a chat about disability representation and sensitivity in Japan because they were doing research to gauge the atmosphere here and ensure that people with disabilities were represented, and how those representations would be appropriate for Japanese culture. It really blew my mind.

This is something that the teams within Adobe take really seriously. More info here:

https://adobe.design/stories/leading-design/reducing-biased-...

(I work for Adobe)

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#699

Post by int_19h »

card_zero wrote: post #663
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you type "street art" as part of an image generation prompt, the results are quite similar to typing "in the style of Banksy". They're direct substitutes for each other, neither of them is actually going to produce Banksy-quality output and it's not even obvious which one will produce better results for a given prompt. You still get images in a particular style by specifying the name of the style instead of the na…

This hinges on denying that artists have distinctive personal styles. Instead your theory seems to be that styles are genres, and that the AI only needs to be trained on the genre, not the specific artist's output, in order to produce that artist's style. Which under this theory is equivalent to the generic style. My counter-argument is "no". Ideally I'd elaborate on that. So ummm ... no, that's not the way things ar…

The argument here isn't so much that individual artists don't have their specific styles, but rather whether AI actually tracks that, or whether using "in the style of ..." is effectively a substitute for identifying the more general style category to which this artist belongs.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#700

Post by int_19h »

skissane wrote: post #216
TeMPOraL wrote: post #136

Earlier 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…

It depends on who was harmed. When countries were banning slavery (or serfdom in places where it was functionally equivalent, like Russia), slave owners made this very argument that depriving them of legitimately acquired workpower was an undeserved and unfair calamity for them, and were generally compensated.
Post reply on HN