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

741–750 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#741

Post by Juliate »

jhbadger wrote: post #738
Juliate wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the same thing again. That comparison would be fair if the generative AI you use is trained exclusively on your own (rightfully acquired) data and work. Existing generative AIs are feeding on the work of millions of people who did not consent. That’s a violation of their work and of their rights. And that should also alert those that expect to use/benefit of their own production out of these generators: why would…

As people have mentioned, people are still against legally-sourced generative AI systems like Adobe's, so concern over IP rights isn't the only, or I suspect, major, objection to generative AI that people have.

It's not the only objection, but it's one of the major and blocking ones, because how do you _prove_ that you do not have unconsented copyrighted contents in your training set?

The other objections, in the economic range (replacing/displacing artists work for financial gain, from the producers point of view) are totally valid too, but don't rely on the same argument.

And my point above is not really an objection, it's a reminder: of what are AI generators, and what they are not (and that AI generators promoters pretend they are, without any piece of evidence or real argument).

Of what their output is (a rough, industrial barely specified and mastered product), and what it is not (art).

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#742

Post by Juliate »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #513
lancebeet wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not entirely convinced by the artists' argument, but this argument is also unconvincing to me. If someone steals from you, but it's a negligible amount, or you don't even notice it, does that make it not stealing? If the thief then starts selling the things they stole from you, directly competing with you, are your grievances less valid now since you didn't complain about the theft before?

Nothing was stolen from the artists but instead used without their permission. The thing being used is an idea, not anything the artist loses access to when someone else has it. What is there to complain about? Why should others listen to the complaints (disregarding copyright law because that is circular reasoning)?

> Nothing was stolen from the artists but instead used without their permission.

Which is equally illegal.

> disregarding copyright law because that is circular reasoning

This is not circular, copyright is non-negotiable.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#743

Post by Juliate »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #688
ChrisPToast wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many problems with your reasoning. "Nothing was stolen from the artists but instead used without their permission" Yes and no. Sure, the artist didn't loose anything physical, but neither did music or movie producers when people downloaded and shared MP3s and videos. They still won in court based on the profits they determined the "theft" cost them, and the settlements were absurdly high. How is this different? An…

I dunno, man. Re-read your comment but change one assumption: > They still won in court based on the profits they determined the "theft" cost them, and the settlements were absurdly high. Such court determinations are wrong. At least hopefully you can see how perhaps there is not so much wrong with the reasoning, even if you ultimately disagree. > They're training them on the actual images artists create with skills…

> This is very similar to a human...

A machine, software, hardware, whatever, as much as a corporation, _is not a human person_.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#744

Post by gs17 »

numpad0 wrote: post #712
gs17 wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

> and then when told it's AI, turn on it and decide it was obviously flawed from the beginning. Have you seen any experimental results from researches in which participants were _falsely_ told something was AI-made, to prove and gauge that "moral superiority" effect? I'm not aware of any. There has to be many, because it has to be easy. No?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45202-3 is pretty similar to that, they randomized AI/human-made labels and participants considered the exact same piece less valuable and less creative when labeled as AI-made. It's not measuring "moral superiority", but it shows a "negative response toward AI regardless of quality". It's definitely an irrational response.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#745

Post by gs17 »

hammock wrote: post #716
simonw wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’ve seen the words “fake” and “inauthentic” used here but based on what you’re saying it more accurately boils down to “taking” vs “giving.”

I think they're not orthogonal. Meaningful "giving" will likely be "authentic" as well.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#746

Post by gs17 »

WalterBright wrote: post #609

> there would be no respite if I paid annually, nor could I receive one of those special invitations for a 35% discount Offering a discount to new customers while no discounts for existing, loyal customers always seemed backwards to me. Back in the Zortech days, we'd offer upgrades to existing customers at a steep discount.

> we'd offer upgrades

That's part of the difference. With a subscription model, you don't need customers to want to buy your upgrades (they're forced to pay for them), you benefit the most from locking them into your ecosystem as best you can. Adobe doesn't want to make existing customers happy, they want to make it difficult for unhappy ones to stop paying every month. At that point, discounts to new customers makes sense, since it traps new people into paying you.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#747

Post by squigz »

Juliate wrote: post #741
jhbadger wrote: post #738

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As people have mentioned, people are still against legally-sourced generative AI systems like Adobe's, so concern over IP rights isn't the only, or I suspect, major, objection to generative AI that people have.

It's not the only objection, but it's one of the major and blocking ones, because how do you _prove_ that you do not have unconsented copyrighted contents in your training set? The other objections, in the economic range (replacing/displacing artists work for financial gain, from the producers point of view) are totally valid too, but don't rely on the same argument. And my point above is not really an objection, it'…

> how do you _prove_ that you do not have unconsented copyrighted contents in your training set?

And this is why I've stopped arguing with people from this crowd. Beyond the classic gatekeeping of what art is, I'm sick of the constant moving of the goalposts. Even if a company provides proof, I'm sure you'd find another issue with them

Underlying all of it is a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI tools are used for art, and a subtle implication that it's really the amount of effort that defines what "art" really is.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#748

Post by nektro »

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…

because customers don't want generative AI in their products, ethical or not

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#749

Post by dlivingston »

int_19h wrote: post #702
dlivingston wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's plenty of that on Mastodon, as well. I think it's the format itself that encourages this kind of "community".

I think it's the format combined with some particular type of demographic (I'm not entirely sure what that demographic is).

X, for example, doesn't have much of that. It has its own flavor of toxicity, which is in many ways worse, but not that particular flavor of toxic.

I also see it on Reddit in certain subreddits but not in others.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#750

Post by arthurtully »

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…

Step 1. Make a stock photos library for everyone to upload. Step 2. Use that stock photo library to train your AI without letting users opt out. You couldn't remove photos without accepting the licence. Step 3. Allow users to use AI generated art on said stock library, even further ignoring artists by regurgitating art from other models. Step 4. Force new licences to users that use any file as potential training data. Step 5. Act shocked when everyone is mad.
Post reply on HN