AI...

[roboxstudios]

Like many others, I'm disappointed to see Adobe's adoption of generative AI. I had hoped more nuance and thought would have gone into how the company would incorporate it, but it's just more of the same. AI is trendy and its adoption is a good narrative for business and stock prices, no matter the cost to artists. AI is recycled trash trained off the work of existing artists without credit or compensation. It's self-evident how these AI "tools" will be used by companies to cut costs and/or under-pay and under-utilize skilled artists and designers. Professionals will ultimately be reduced to AI prompters / editors, replacing full art teams with a handful of data entry employees. It's a shame to see Adobe jump on the AI bandwagon without thought and to betray the very people, the artists, that made your company so successful.

[TheDigitalDog]

That's fine; don't use it. 

Like many others, I'm happy to see Adobe's generative AI in some use cases. 

The good thing about Photoshop and all the tools is you don't have to use them if you don't like them. 

Or upgrade/update! 

[roboxstudios]

I was speaking a bit more broadly than using or not using a specific AI feature. There are tools that empower artists and technologies (especially with the advent of AI) that will replace them. I do think there are some great use cases but we'll see how image generation is used and its impact on working artists. I guess we'll find out...

[gener7]

I'm not well versed in the fine points of the AI debate so I won't go back and forth, and Adobe has nothing to do with other AI entities using copyrighted material.

I think Adobe is being ethical and legal here and the point is provide the artist with a tool, not to replace them.

They are not sampling images without permission or compensation if I read correctly.

"Given that Firefly was trained on the photos available in Adobe Stock (as well as other commercially safe images), it’s maybe no surprise that it does especially well with landscapes."

More about it here:

https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/23/adobe-brings-fireflys-generative-ai-to-photoshop/?guccounter=1&guc...

[ProDesignTools · Accepted solution]

"

• Designed to be commercially safe: You can create confidently, knowing that Generative Fill is powered by Adobe Firefly, the new family of creative, generative AI models designed to be commercially safe — ensuring you can push the bounds of your creativity confidently. Firefly is trained on Adobe Stock’s hundreds of millions of professional-grade, licensed, high-resolution images that are among the highest quality in the market. This helps ensure Firefly won’t generate content based on other people’s work, brands, or intellectual property.
  
  
• Setting the standard for responsibility: Through efforts like the Content Authenticity Initiative and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity, Adobe stands up for accountability, responsibility, and transparency in generative AI. We’re working toward a universal “Do Not Train” Content Credentials tag that will remain associated with a piece of content wherever it’s used, published, or stored.

"

https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/generative-fill.html

[davescm]

'Professionals will ultimately be reduced to AI prompters / editors, replacing full art teams with a handful of data entry employees.'

So what professionals need to ask themselves is what do they bring to the party that AI cannot do? At present AI is far from perfect, although no doubt its output will get better as time goes on. But just as photography did not bring an end to artists and illustrators, AI will not bring an end to the best artists and designers. Life may get tougher, with some outlets reduced, but really talented and skilled people will always be needed for their originality and creativity.

Dave

[D Fosse]

There's a lot of things that scare me with AI - but as for replacing creators I'm not so sure. As a photographer, one thing I can say is this: Since people starting using phones to flood every available corner of the internet with photos, demand for my particular set of skills has exploded. I'm not kidding. It would seem like a paradox, but I think I have an explanation.

It's that everyone now expects that there exist photographs of absolutely everything. Whatever it is, a photo is required. It has just seeped into the fabric of society. And in a lot of contexts, high quality and craftsmanship is still appreciated and valued. So they come to me.

So I worry about a lot of things, but not that.

[daniellei4510]

I'm jumping in on this thread a bit late, but AI designers themselves should feel threatened by AI. After all, it's so "easy" that anyone can do it.

But it's not. And they won't. Start ups can create their own web sites with the tools available online. But they don't want to bother with it. They still hire professionals to do it for them (and those same professionals probably use the tools available on line to get started). 

Yes, if you're creating robots or aneme or large chested women without concern if irises are perfectly around and pupils are centered in those irises and one eye is slightly higher than the other or one ear is larger than the other or misshapen, then AI is easy. But to fix those issues is extremely difficult, assuming they even get noticed to begin with. And don't get me started on what it takes to upscale results to the point of being useful commercially.

In any case, it's happening and there's no stopping it. We'll have to wait out and see what happens as things move forward.

[Alex_R84]

Agreed.

[Stuartr414]

I find it amusing that this issue is "solved" and that there is a "correct answer". I wonder how many of the photographers who shot stock for Adobe were ok with their images being used for AI? Having your image used for stock is a very different thing than having your style mimiced to train your own replacement. If I could, I would certainly opt out of AI being a part of Creative Cloud. I respect TheDigitalDog's contributions to the sector, but it is a disingenuous answer. It is not possible to "not update", as we are no longer given the option of perpetual licenses, and for people who are actively engaged in the field, updates are essential to continue to use the software with new camera models, to ensure they continue to work with the operating system that you have to use for your computer and so on. Photoshop used to be a digital equivalent of going into an art store and buying brushes and canvasses. Now the equivalent is showing up to building, agreeing to rent supplies, but having no agency to have input on which supplies they are, or whether they continue to be provided, and if you decide you are not satisfied, they pocket your money and kick you out the back and allow you to look at your work through a window. This is of course dramatic, but it does get at the feeling of impotency of being a creator in the world we are living in.

[Alex_R84]

It is true. All our tools are now rented, putting us at the whim of very powerful companies we dont really have a say in.

[daniellei4510]

SPAM.