Hi people. I hope you are having a great day!
I am having a neurodivergent meltdown of sorts. It's cool to be in one of my quirks and be aware, 'OHHHH this is AUTISM!"
I think this is the first time I have caught this one while it is operating me.
I find myself overly fixated on a new, "feature," in Adobe products called, "content credentials."
So already, hopefully you know being fixated is uncalled for.
Except to me and my brain, Adobe must be stopped before it is too late. I react to this minor manifestation of a dangerous principle as if it were already played out to the extreme (a type of fascist censorship).
There is an actual issue and I will explain it, it's just not as urgent as my entire nervous system and body is treating it.
My brain connects (some) things very very quickly AND finds connections in places many would not. The aspect of my brain that has relative pitch, can hear a song once and sing it (including singing you jingles and theme songs from the early 80s), that recognizes frequency, ALSO interprets just about everything as vibration. Concepts have a frequency, people's motivations have a frequency, attitudes have a frequency, artifacts, tools, foods, etc all have a frequency.
When there is a discordant sound, no matter how faint, I am likely to hear it. Someone's song not match their dance? A policy at a workplace violate workers' rights? Is a retail store playing a bait and switch?
Sometimes I hear the discordant sound and I am not able to clearly identify it. It can be especially frustrating when I can find the source but don't have the clarity to explain what is out of alignment.
My current issue with Adobe is not fully fleshed out, though I believe I have enough detail to paint the picture so you understand my concern. This is relevant to just about everyone whether you use Adobe products or not because it has to do with Private Big Tech anointing themselves with authority in your life.
Adobe has introduced a feature called, "Content Credentials."
This is metadata stored in image files that includes information such as the creator's name, contact info, what software was used, what tools in the software were used, what dates and times, etc.
This can be incredibly valuable and up until recently it was choose in/choose out. It can be entirely turned off in the settings.
When it is on, the option to include credentials is presented on the export screen. Note this is in addition to metadata that ever has been able to store much of that information should we choose to include it. For instance, I do not need the new content credentials feature to include my name and contact info in the metadata.
The main distinction of the new credential feature seems to be its ability to store a record of the editing process as well as keeping record of any other credentialed elements added to a work. So If I drop Suzy Sue's image into my work and blend it in, I won't be able to hide it. The use will be noted in my credentials and suzy will get her proper credit or have grounds for cease and desist etc.
It is all part of an ADOBE LED initiative to, 'Help determine authenticity,' in Art called the CAI, "Content Authenticity Initiative."
Yeah, Me thinks not. Unequivocally NOT a good idea to let Adobe in cahoots with the BBC and Microsoft be defining AUTHENTICITY for us. (Among many other things they have assigned themselves the authority to decide.)
Yesterday I finished a project I began last April. That's a sweet satisfaction. Completion. As I went to export my image, Adobe PS notified me that Content Credentials would be included in my art (despite me having the feature turned off) because it contained AI generated elements.
I stop here because that is the problem. Adobe has taken it upon themselves to watermark, scarlet letter, tag, out, pink triangle, my art.
Before you jump to, "well if AI, then.." make sure you flesh that out to the extreme to see clearly the spirit of such an assertion.
I'll also note that I see the importance of having a method to make the distinction between my brain telling a pencil what to make VS my brain telling a computer what to make, ie to be able to identify works created with generative AI. This may not remain as important as AI is further refined and adapted. For now though, the distinction can be of value if for nothing else than to help us clearly see how it is being used, how it is working, what it creates.
What we have currently is a private corporate club of Tech Giants and Publishers who have decided to be the Content Police and are now force branding people's works based on the private corporation's interpretation of Copyright law, content creation, moral and ethical considerations, oh and let's not forget, "bottom line." They have decided upon the definition of Authenticity and have already begun drawing a line to establish their arbitrary distinction that has been made without our considerations.
When, where, how has it EVER been okay to force a watermark or force anything into or onto another person's creation? Since when is it okay to mark up an artist's creation?
Even if "hidden" in metadata, they are altering my work to include elements I do not approve of. How about this; they are altering my work. 'nuf said.
They have placed a tag on my work that IS of CONSEQUENCE. With AI being so new, that tag could mean any number of things to every different person. Likely it will NOT communicate anything of significance that can be accurately discerned from its placement. INCLUDING whether or not the image you are seeing has elements generated by AI.. Because in my case, my art that Adobe put a pink triangle on is totally straight. I have NO generative AI in the image.
Now to be clear, the fact that there is no AI in my finished work is secondary to the fact that it was tagged and points to one reason it is a problem. Do you want an unaccountable major tech company deciding when you have access to your bank account? Do you want a big tech company to decide if you have been tested for covid recently enough or to label you, "unvaccinated," if you choose to not support Pfizer? What if someone accuses you of having harassed them 22 years ago? Should Google have the authority to cut you off from your bank accounts or blacklist you from x, y, z; EVER let alone before you've had your day in court? Then, how do you imagine you would feel to awake one day to find you have been branded with the scarlett letter for adultery but you have not gotten laid in 7+ years?
This is THAT slippery slope. What gives Adobe and The New York Times the authority to create an ART class system which labels some work with a brand or watermark etc that can and will be used against it in a discriminatory and prejudiced fashion then FORCE us to comply? They have every right to propose a system and invite our participation. Forcing it is gross and I argue it is a violation of my rights.
I hope I have thrown enough elements out such that someone reading, YOU reading are picking up what I'm putting down.
This isn't about AI or concerns about it enslaving us.
This is simply about a private club of tech giants deciding upon what is essentially a class system (Composites in the line on the left, AI generation on the right, Hand drawn takes the center line. Photographers have no wait at desk 4) and then determining they have the right to force information into the creations of content creators all around the world.
The fact that MOST people do not understand AI does not help. Tagging artist creations with an AI logo will lead to all sorts of confusion and frustrations among patrons and artists alike.
In my current case, I could give my work to the commissioner, they see the AI tag, think that means something other than what it means (what DOES it mean By the way) and refuse to pay me. Again, this is more egregious since there is NO generative AI in my image.
(So much for their assertion that this is to help people decide what is trustworthy. ADOBE is not Trustworthy. And they are going to police that for others?)
One more note. If I use the FREE version of Powerdirector video editor, they limit some tools AND they watermark the video. That's fair. They are paying for it, I'm getting a service, they get an advertiser. As soon as I subscribe, they no longer place the watermark.
Why? Because the tools we pay for have no business forcing us to create things. Sorry Adobe, you don't get to BOTH take my subscription payment AND watermark my work.
Issues triaged:
1) Private Tech Giant Club creating their own rules and ethical code without public discourse and forcing it upon the public INCLUDING granting themselves permission to alter the works of people who pay for their products.
2) Any company taking payment for a service, then believing they still have a right to alter the thing purchased. (There are exceptions where that IS the service.)
3) Doing any of the above except add to that, doing it WRONG by your own method.
I wouldn't have a problem with my art being errantly tagged as AI generated if Adobe would mind their own (profanity removed by moderator) business. Can't have errant tag if they don't force tag my work.
(Links removed by moderator)
1 Correct answer
32
Replies
Regarding Content Credentials being tamper proof, what if you grabbed screen shots and pasted them to a new document? Would the Content Credentials be transferred?
AdChoices
