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

771–780 of 784 posts

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#771

Post by max51 »

jmclnx wrote: post #7

Charging a subscription fee is crazy for a product that is very expensive. I do not know why they are still around.

No, it's not crazy, all the companies making expensive software are moving to subscriptions and they love the result. It is a lot easier to sell and to get people to renew their licenses.

And 20$/m is not what I would call "very expensive" in the context of a professional product used by people and companies who make a profit from it. By comparison, Autocad and Revit are 350$/m each

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#772

Post by ben_w »

gs17 wrote: post #619
numpad0 wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen a single AI image that were good let alone great . To be completely honest, I can't always tell , but when I come across images that give me inexplicable gastric discomfort that I can't explain why, and then it was revealed that it had been AI generated, that explains it all(doesn't remove the discomfort, just explains it). I don't have reasons to believe that I have above-average eyes on art among HNe…

> I'm no Hayao "I sense insult to life itself" Miyazaki He was saying that in response to a computer-animated zombie that dragged itself along in a grotesque manner. It wasn't that it was animated by a computer, it was that he found it offensive in that it felt like it was making light of the struggles of people with disabilities. You definitely would also find it disgusting.

I do find the way things like this* get parroted to be mildly amusing, given the "stochastic parot" phrase existed.

* not only this contextually misleading quote, and I've also parotted things

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#773

Post by ben_w »

jcotton42 wrote: post #708
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,…

The issue with AI isn't quality, or at least isn't just quality. It's ethical (use of works for training without credit or compensation, potential to displace a large portion of the artistic market, etc.)

Both are issues, for different people.

Art as nice things, vs. art as a peacock's tail where the effort is the point.

Fast fashion vs. Ned Ludd.

Queen Elizabeth I saying to William Lee, "Thou aimest high, Master Lee. Consider thou what the invention could do to my poor subjects. It would assuredly bring to them ruin by depriving them of employment, thus making them beggars."

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#774

Post by Juliate »

squigz wrote: post #766
Juliate wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rape is fundamentally about power, control and the violation of consent. The casual dismissal of artists' fundamental rights to control their work and how they are used is a part of a larger cultural problem, where might would rule over law, power would rule over justice, lies over truth. That may seem a charged argument, and it is, because it hits right and it is particularly uncomfortable to acknowledge. The same t…

Do you maybe think using 'rape' in such a casual way takes away anything from actual rape victims?

1/ It does not take anything away. The use is not casual but deliberate and analytical. The concept of « rape culture » extends beyond sexual assault to other patterns of consent violation and power dynamics.

2/ it has been discussed for like, decades, in academic and social contexts, how attitudes in some domain reflects and reinforces them in others.

3/ Your « actual » makes an assumption about my experience that you have no basis for.

Point remains that non-consensual use of artists’ work reflects the same fundamental disregard for autonomy that characterizes other consent violations.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#775

Post by anonfordays »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #330
gdulli wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Cancel culture" is just a term we started using to cope with seeing people we're sympathetic to being judged for their words or actions.

That's not true at all. You should read The Canceling of the American Mind (though get it from the library, because it's not really good enough to own imo). The authors very clearly lay out the evidence that there has in fact been an increase in the sort of online lynch mobs we call "cancel culture". It comes from both the left and the right, and the increase has been noticeable if you look at the data. People have a…

Fantastic book, highly suggest HN readers pick that one up.

"Red scare" is just a term we started using to cope with seeing people we're sympathetic to being judged for their words or actions.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#776

Post by revicon »

willcipriano wrote: post #694
nrb wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A collection agency has no problem finding your SSN if they have your name.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#777

Post by nrb »

willcipriano wrote: post #694
nrb wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Straight from the credit reporting agency: https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/accounts-may-be-...

A rather famous example of this is when Columbia House sold off accounts from their scammy operation to a debt collection agency, with many folks unaware that the company claimed they owed money.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#778

Post by numpad0 »

becquerel wrote: post #407
numpad0 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What it implies is, it's not really about ethics per se, just like it's not really about 6th digits per se. People hate AI images, cut and dry. Law is agreeable hate, in a way. Things that gets enough hate will get regulated out, sooner or later.

If everyone hated AI images, nobody would be creating them.

There are few who don't realize it, they go lunatic.

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#779

Post by esseph »

gs17 wrote: post #621
Kye wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a whole mute list for this sort of person: https://bsky.app/profile/mackuba.eu/lists/3kp6zdqoscy2x You can also run Blockenheimer on likes and reposts for any especially toxic anti-AI takes to catch huge chunks of them: https://blockenheimer.click

The block lists presented as a solution are a part of why I didn't care to stick around on Bluesky. 99% of what I did was manually blocking/muting people who I wouldn't want to interact with. The site almost never presented me with people I would want to talk to, and outsourcing the blocking to some stranger doesn't really solve the real problem.

So what you're looking for is news, but not social media?

Re: Adobe deletes Bluesky posts after backlash

#780

Post by numpad0 »

gs17 wrote: post #744
numpad0 wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

yeah that's measuring effects of labeling, not discrepancies between human made and AI generated.
Post reply on HN