91–100 of 279 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs don't have their roots in academia?
Not anymore.
SIGGRAPH from over a decade ago has entered the chat... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oie1ZXWceqM It may not be AI, but this single video blew my mind back in *2013* and I find myself thinking about it often.
Perhaps you mean it doesn't use some of the techniques driving the current AI boom, like LLMs or diffusion models.
The source (Adobe MAX) 'demoes' full range of incredible scenarios.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfct0aH2COw
Not bad, but what's up with the audience? Is there an Adobe cult or something?
There are conferences for Adobe customers to teach them how to use Adobe tools. I think there was recently an Adobe Max conference in Los Angeles. It could have been filed there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This feels extremely ungenerous to the Big Tech companies. What's wrong with trying out 100 different AI features across your product suite, and then seeing which ones "stick"? You figure out the 10 that users find really valuable, another 10 that will be super-valuable with improvement, and eventually drop the other 80. Especially when if Microsoft tries something and Google doesn't, that suddenly gives Microsoft a…
> What's wrong with trying out 100 different AI features across your product suite, and then seeing which ones "stick"? For users ? Almost everything is wrong with that. There are no users looking for wild churn in their user interface, no users crossing their fingers that the feature that stuck for them gets pruned because it didn't hit adoption targets overall, no users hoping for popups and nags interrupting their…
And I haven't seen any "wild churn" at all -- like I said in another comment, a few informative popups and a magic wand icon in a toolbar? It's not exactly high on the list of disruptions. I can still continue to use my software the exact same way I have been -- it's not replacing workflows.
But it's way worse if the product you rely on gets discontinued.
I'm making some big assumptions about Adobe's product ideation process, but: This seems like the "right" way to approach developing AI products: Find a user need that can't easily be solved with traditional methods and algorithms, decide that AI is appropriate for that thing, and then build an AI system to solve it. Rather than what many BigTech companies are currently doing: "Wall Street says we need to 'Use AI Some…
This feels extremely ungenerous to the Big Tech companies. What's wrong with trying out 100 different AI features across your product suite, and then seeing which ones "stick"? You figure out the 10 that users find really valuable, another 10 that will be super-valuable with improvement, and eventually drop the other 80. Especially when if Microsoft tries something and Google doesn't, that suddenly gives Microsoft a…
Even the biggest tech companies have limited engineering bandwidth to allocate to projects. What's wrong with those 100 experiments is the opportunity cost: they suck all the oxygen out of the room and could be shifting the company's focus away from fixing real user problems. There are many other problems that don't require AI to solve, and companies are starving these problems in favor of AI experiments.
It would be better to sort each potential project by ROI, or customer need, or profit, or some other meaningful metric, and do the highest ranked ones. Instead, we're sorting first by "does it use AI" and focusing on those.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're being a bit too generous with Adobe here :-). I shared this before, but it's worth resharing [1]. It covers the experience of a professional artist using Adobe tools. The gist is that once a company has a captive audience with no alternatives, investors come first. Flashy (no pun intended :-p), cool features to impress investors become more important than the everyday user experience—and this feature d…
You can have both! Cool features that excite users (and that they ultimately end of using), and that get investors excited. (i.e. Adobe mentioned in the day 1 keynote that Generative Fill, released last year and powered by Adobe Firefly is not one of the top 5 used features in Photoshop). The features we make, and how we use gen ai is based on a lot of discussions and back and forth with the community (both public an…
I mean, is there any Photoshop feature that’s come to dominate people’s workflows so quickly?
People (e.g. photographers) who use Photoshop “in anger” for professional use-cases, and who already know how to fix a flaw in an image region without generative fill, aren’t necessarily going to adopt it right out of the gate. They’re going to tinker with it a bit, but time-box that tinkering, otherwise sticking with what they can guarantee from experience will get a “satisfactory” result, even if it takes longer and might not have as high a ceiling for how perfectly the image is altered.
And that’d just people who repair flaws in images. Which I’m guessing aren’t even the majority of Photoshop users. Is the clone brush even in the top 5 Photoshop features by usage?
I personally started programming, in part, to make simple animations like the ones you see in Scratch, and it’s incredible how accessible the tools are today for anyone looking to bring their ideas to life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My company has decided to update its hr page to use AI for reasons unknown. So instead of the old workflow: "visit HR page" → "click link that for whatever reason doesn't give you a permanent link you can bookmark for later" it's now: "visit HR page" → "do AI search for the same link which is suggested as the first option" → "wait 10-60 seconds for it to finally return something" → "click link that for whatever reaso…
"click link that for whatever reason doesn't give you a permanent link you can bookmark for later" Sounds like engagement hacking?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was going to write how this would be cool in a kids drawing app but the thought that they might never feel the need to draw something from a different angle. I wonder what other activities have been lost to time and technology.
Why might a kid not want to draw something from a different angle? In my introduction to drawing course I was asked to draw my non-dominant hand every day for a week, each time from a slightly different angle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My company has decided to update its hr page to use AI for reasons unknown. So instead of the old workflow: "visit HR page" → "click link that for whatever reason doesn't give you a permanent link you can bookmark for later" it's now: "visit HR page" → "do AI search for the same link which is suggested as the first option" → "wait 10-60 seconds for it to finally return something" → "click link that for whatever reaso…
"click link that for whatever reason doesn't give you a permanent link you can bookmark for later" Sounds like engagement hacking?