701–710 of 784 posts
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.
Or that generative AI is ethical at all
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The general mood on Bluesky is very opposed to AI, especially AI art. Since Adobe now has AI integrated into their products, people on Bluesky hate them.
There is an off-putting sort of attitude on BlueSky ("sneering mockery", I guess?). Same attitude was present on Twitter during the pre-Musk era and seems to have migrated over.
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.
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?
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…
It’s so bland I don’t understand why it elicited any response at all.
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…
Meh. Adobe is a large corp. You'd want want them to masquerade as something they are not? Why would that be better? I am so over pile-ons by people who see themselves as being SO important. Also: it feels really weird to defend Adobe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“In the US, entirely deterministic works are not considered derrivative works as they aren't considered new creative works (if anything they are considered the same as the original)” Okay, so if the inputs to the model are my artwork to replicate my style, is the output copyrightable by you? You just said deterministic works aren’t derivative, they’re considered the same as the original. That’s not anything I’ve hear…
Are anime artists all in copyright violation of each other?
Fair Use 4th Factor: This factor considers whether the use could harm the copyright holders market for the original work.
If the use is research it’s fine. If the use is providing a public non-commercial model then it is somewhat harmful as their work is devalued. If the goal is to compete with them it is very harmful. Therefore, since we’re talking about the last two use cases, I argue fair use does not apply. Others maintain it does as maybe you do.
If it’s not fair use then it would be infringing on that particular copyright holder.
As you know, anime art is a spectrum with “How to Draw Manga for Kids” at the bottom and studio quality at the top. People pick and choose the art to train on not just because of the style but also the quality and consistency of their work. That’s why you might choose a specific artist to base a model on even though their style is just “anime”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty left leaning and I don't like Bluesky. For me, it's too hostile and too much of an angry echo chamber. X is scattered wildly but I with muting I have been able to shape to get a more reasonable feed.
This is a weird argument because Bluesky doesn't have a "feed"... by default you see only the people you follow unless you subscribe to specific other feeds. So you followed a bunch of people you didn't like? That says more about you than the platform...
YouTube did this for a while, up until a few months ago if you weren't logged in you'd literally just get an empty page and a search bar at the top as it wouldn't recommend any videos at all. That was temporary for a reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People hate AI images, cut and dry. People hate bad AI images, because they hate bad images , period. They don't hate good AI images, and when they see great AI images, they don't even realize they are made by AI. It's true, there's a deluge of bad art now, and it's almost entirely AI art. But it's not because AI models exist or how they're trained - it's because marketers[0] don't give a fuck about how people feel…
> They don't hate good AI images, and when they see great AI images, they don't even realize they are made by AI. There's a decent size group of people who have a knee-jerk negative response toward AI regardless of quality. They'd see that image, like it, and then when told it's AI, turn on it and decide it was obviously flawed from the beginning. Is there a version of "sour grapes" where the fox did eat the grapes,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Adobe 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.
Out of curiosity I went to their website to understand how they sell it, because it wasn't clear... https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/plans.html I am not sure why this should face FTC or any similar mechanism to prevent "deception". It's written right there: US$22.99/mo Annual, billed monthly And if you slightly scroll down the very first question is how much it costs: > There are several Creative Cloud plans…