9 ms·

Any artist jumping on this now Adobe provides this tech, tech that has been around for months now, for free. Deserves what's coming for them. I PROMISE you onc

Any artist jumping on this now Adobe provides this tech, tech that has been around for months now, for free. Deserves what's coming for them. I PROMISE you once Adobe has market saturation on this and people have embedded it in their workflows and work without it feels painful they're going to be slapping a $40-$100 (It replaces literal days of work and literal team members, they can charge what they want) a month price tag on it on top of Creative Cloud. Artists once again, never learning from the past and handing over their future to an abusive company that seeks rent on their ability to earn. All you had to do is install any of the countless Stable Diffusion UIs and you'd have this tech free forever, some of them even integrate into Photoshop. No sympathy for anyone who chooses this path when we finally had an opening to harm the Adobe monopoly.

cloudking 3y ago
Yep it's easy... just download a wrapper app from GitHub, download the models, set up the configuration, realize you're missing libraries, install a specific version of each etc Your average user doesn't understand how to set up and leverage open source software because it's too complicated to get going. They want to open Photoshop and use the feature in the tool the already use, without setting up anything. Quite frankly, Adobe nailed the UX here.
- 2devnull 3y ago
  No offense but you sort of prove the parent’s point. People who work on computers professionally but don’t use open source because “it’s too complicated to get going” are making an error. Adobe’s UX being addictive is the point.
  - swexbe 3y ago
    How many work hours would it take for the average professional artist to get to this level of technical proficiency? Given the opportunity cost I'm sure you could argue it would be a net loss for the employer.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Employers don't need their graphic artists to be able to use git and navigate Python dependencies. That's why they have IT. The mistake companies make is in not fully embracing this. Alright, once you get it running the UI for generative fill can be used by a graphic artist, and now you're several months ahead of your competitors, but still the UI is a little rough. But it's open source, so you have your techs make it a little better. Now your company needs to make it easy to submit a pull request, or you're suddenly maintaining your own fork, which you're going to want out of as soon as you have an alternative, and soon your company is paying $$$$ to Adobe again.
  - cloudking 3y ago
    No offense taken, I'm simply pointing out that the user experience of setting up and leveraging open source is a challenge to wider adoption. I expect most of us (hackers) have tried these tools, but not your average user. When I see comments like OP, it's coming from the hacker perspective imo. The user is not making an error, the error is assuming everyone should be a hacker.
    - csomar 3y ago
      The user is definitively making an error here. Especially when the user is actually not a user but a producer (supposedly artists). As an artist you should strive to have a certain level of ownership and independence. It gets worse, there was a thread a couple weeks ago about Envato (ex ThemeForest) asking all their authors for "free/unlimited" rights for anything they have to be used to train AI models for NO compensation. It was eye opening how many "artists" and "producers" accepts the status quo as is, and think it's still a good idea to collect whatever this company throw on their way. It's really hard to feel sorry for these people...
  - Arcanum-XIII 3y ago
    I work with a lot of people that don’t care. They have a job with deadline, for which they already gained a lot of knowledge, and need to keep it updated. So no, the supplementary friction is not acceptable, even for « good » reason.
  - sirsinsalot 3y ago
    Isn't any UX that is the best available "addictive"? Isn't the point of your UX to be the best available? Implying malicious intent to designing good software is a bit weird, whatever Adobe might be doing in terms of delivery and pricing.
  - exeldapp 3y ago
    Many products have been successful not because they bring new features to the market but because they make existing features trivial to use. UX is everything.
    - samtho 3y ago
      It really is. Arguably the most famous example among HN readers was BrandonM’s comment[0] on Dropbox’s launch thread. Was he correct that you can built it trivially using 2007 software? Sure, if you had the correct mix of specialized knowledge of the software and networking. Dropbox was not a novel idea, but that’s now where it value was; the value proposition relied 100% on its UX. If MSFT and Apple each shipped a Dropbox competitor that was highly integrated, available, and pushed flagship software suits to adopt it as well within a year, would Dropbox had become as large as it did? I would guess not. It would likely be a downgrade from what Dropbox offered (the separate ecosystems staying bifurcated comes to mind), but a zero install solution would be the only thing that could make it easier. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
    - tayo42 3y ago
      This is like the whole reason we use slack everywhere lol
  - beezlewax 3y ago
    This is not true most people don't have the techinical skills to do what you are saying. Most designers work entirely within software like photoshop or figma that are auto installed or cloud based.
  - jackdawipper 3y ago
    its not addictive, its cutting edge and has a price tag for that. open source will follow up with the cheap entry point for the nerds. If you dont like that, then you need to throw proper money at your favourite github accounts because that is fundamental difference. Adobe is funding high end tech solutions by selling a product. if you have another way to to achieve that, do tell. too many college canteen marxists in this place is my thinking.
  - irrational 3y ago
    What type of "work on computers professionally" are we talking about? Working on a computer as a professional artist or writer is much different than working on a computer as a programmer/hacker professionally. For the first, the computer is just a tool like a pencil or a paintbrush. I wouldn't expect them to know how to figure out how to use things unless it has a very very simple UX.
- innagadadavida 3y ago
  From an economic standpoint, this makes sense. If an artist is bringing in 4k a month, then spending 40 a month for software maintenance and updates is rounding error. This also opens up the third part market to sell plugins if open source doesn’t work for them. All in all this is win win for everyone and more options equates to more freedom.
- whywhywhywhy 3y ago
  I'm not saying it's easy, it's Python so its utter hell at times but I'm saying it's worth the effort to have something free forever and easier UIs to it are coming.
  - irrational 3y ago
    Why aren’t the easier UIs here already? Adobe was able to already roll out an easier UI.
  - cloudking 3y ago
    Agree with you there, if these tools become 1 click install and go they could get wider adoption. However in the B2B space, they also need parity with commercial tools like Photoshop, Figma etc. It's an uphill battle for an open source project with no profits going up against a profit driven big tech company.
- throwawaymaths 3y ago
  > Adobe nailed the UX That is such a strange thing to read. I'm not contradicting that it's true in this case, but Basically every artist complains about how much of a clusterfuck the UI/UX is while being entirely happy that the UI is horrible enough that intimate knowledge of it keeps them with a job
  - beezlewax 3y ago
    Photoshop has insane ux but once you know it you know it. Its much more capable than the alternatives I've tried. But the learning curve is steep.
    - throwawaymaths 3y ago
      Yes, that is exactly what I said.
- msla 3y ago
  Pointing and laughing at the "Freetards" only works when the proprietary software isn't actively enshittifying itself.
simontheowl 3y ago
100$ /month is nothing for someone who makes a living doing this. And tbh, the value-add is arguably a lot more than that.
1123581321 3y ago
Creative Cloud is less specialized now, not more. They were able to defend their margins because designers were used to specific workflows. As the interfaces become more general, that advantage will erode. Adobe is working on sophisticated chain of custody for DAM which won’t matter to the bill of CC users, even in enterprise. The productivity gains are becoming permission-to-play. The money saved will go into hiring different kinds of people which will continue to pressure the software budget. It’s true CC is seen as necessary, but it’s still resented and there are always employees whose access to a subscription is marginal, providing some elasticity.
jackdawipper 3y ago
this is the "anarchist" hacker mindset; fear of "the man". open source is always going to lag behind the huge, well funded corporate option because they have teams of highly paid tech working on being first out the traps. open source and corporate dont really compete except in the minds of "anarchist" hackers who don't like capitalism. Yet both worlds can exist, and do. Adobe have produced a mind blowing product. Open source versions wont be far behind. Both pathways exist in parallel. Open Source wont be funding the top of the range stuff ever.
htrp 3y ago
>I PROMISE you once Adobe has market saturation on this and people have embedded it in their workflows and work without it feels painful they're going to be slapping a $40-$100 (It replaces literal days of work and literal team members, they can charge what they want) a month price tag on it on top of Creative Cloud. I think 100 a month is a low price for this.... if it saves literally man-days of work. The equivalent value addition is something in the ballpark of 3k per project (assume 100 an hour over 3 8 hour days). Add in the fact that your velocity has increased significantly, they could probably get away with at 5k a month at the "Pro Tier"
wwweston 3y ago
> All you had to do is install any of the countless Stable Diffusion UIs and you'd have this tech free forever, some of them even integrate into Photoshop. Do you have any specific suggestions you favor?
TwoFactor 3y ago
The alternative is more likely - it becomes commoditized and many programs are offering it, so it would be strange for Adobe charge a premium for a baseline feature
- abwizz 3y ago
  image editing software is a commodity for decades now, is it free?
  - argiopetech 3y ago
    Gimp has been free for decades, same with Inkscape (edit: Inkscape is actually only 19). Probably not what most pros are using, but perfectly acceptable tools.
    - lofaszvanitt 3y ago
      Gimp is a gimp. Just plain horrible UI-UX. Not intuitive at all, at best a terrible monstroisity.
    - abwizz 3y ago
      true. but as you said, most aren't which is the counterpoint to op's claim that stuff get's free because of commodification.
  - rchaud 3y ago
    Adobe's UX is far better than Gimp and Inkscape. It is the "it just works" equivalent of design tools.
    - abwizz 3y ago
      [flagged]
    - Retric 3y ago
      Adobe’s UI is also terrible, but it’s terrible in a way most digital artists are familiar with. Starting from scratch Gimp, Inkscape, and Adobe have reasonably similar learning curves. The main advantage Adobe UI has is many people assume they’re stuck learning it at some point. But it’s definitely a waste of time and money if you’re happy as a hobbyist.
rpastuszak 3y ago
> Artists once again, never learning from the past and handing over their future to an abusive company that seeks rent on their ability to earn. I think this is a little bit unfair and trivialises the problem. I know many artists who have to/had to use CC for their work because their clients or (mostly) employers consider it the industry standard. I agree with the sentiment, fuck Adobe and decades of their parasitic practices, but the reality is not that black and white.
helsinkiandrew 3y ago
If you're a professional artist who's invested years of effort in learning photoshop and it replaces "literal days of work" or you run company and it replaces "literal team members" $40-$100 a month is cheap. If not you can use something cheaper - or use one of the 3rd party plugins. If the workflows become popular, the 3rd party plugins will get better.
- kryogen1c 3y ago
  > If you're a professional artist who's invested years of effort in learning photoshop and it replaces "literal days of work" or you run company and it replaces "literal team members" $40-$100 a month is cheap. No kidding. I have only negative things to say about Adobe, but that is a terrible argument. $100 a month to replace multiple $100k/year employees? That's basically the definition of technological advancement freeing labor to be more productive elsewhere.
  - jackdawipper 3y ago
    the definition of progress. In IT we should be used to this. AI has been telegraphing its arrival for a long time. There should be no surprises to see jobs being lost in the name of tech advancement. Its been going on since forever. It is literally what computers do.
rchaud 3y ago
If you already pay for Adobe CC as many designers do, there's an opportunity cost to learning an entirely new system and workflow. Those are hours that can't be billed. The opportunity cost of switching would make sense if Adobe was charging 5x more for these features, but they're not. At the end of the day, not everyone will need to "make" generative art. There will be plenty of it on Adobe Stock that clients will be fine with, especially once they see the hourly billing rates for custom generative art that requires multiple prompts to get right.
- AJ007 3y ago
  Adobe has been doing enough to break and slowdown workflows that it's worth learning new workflows you do have control of.
jasonlotito 3y ago
> All you had to do is install any of the countless Stable Diffusion UIs and you'd have this tech free forever, some of them even integrate into Photoshop. You mean the ones trained off the artists art without permission, unlike Adobe's offering? I know a lot of graphic designers that looked at that and hated it because of the fact that they took stuff without permission. I don't know a single artist who was happy with that. The AI generation wasn't the issue. It was the training source. I'm not an artist, and I'm also aware of the many failings of Adobe, but you really missed what the issue was.
mrtksn 3y ago
The problem with the AI generated images is that it's abundant and anything abundant doesn't have a market value. So, if an artist's work makes 100$ per work an AI system which can generate the same quality work but 1,000,000 pieces a day this won't end up the AI system generating 100 million dollars a day. It will simply rise the bar for artists instead. Which is a good thing for the society as a whole because the baseline will be very good and the work of the talented artists will be highly valued. Adobe can eat the market of mediocre artists if they are the only one with this technology so they can control the output rate and create artificial scarcity. They are not the only one with this technology.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Either AI created graphics arrived to late for the NFT craze, or they arrived in time to give them a second spring. Being serious so, human art is what it is because it requires effort. AI art doesn't require nearly as much, is generic and abundant. In short, boring.
  - web007 3y ago
    Effort is not a measure of quality or value in art. Remember: Duct tape + banana + wall + 3 minutes = incredibly valuable and controversial art. Me taking a year to paint a detailed depiction of a bowl of fruit = worthless, terrible art. Results are what people care about, not effort.
    - waboremo 3y ago
      Your examples contradict your ending statement. If results are what people care about, neither of those would have value.
      - ljf 3y ago
        People cared a lot: https://www.gq.com/story/suddenly-the-koons-is-this-100k-banana https://www.gq.com/story/suddenly-the-koons-is-this-100k-ban...
adzm 3y ago
> All you had to do is install any of the countless Stable Diffusion UIs and you'd have this tech free forever, some of them even integrate into Photoshop. But Photoshop's generative fill is trained on Adobe's own stock photos, which removes an entire class of potential future litigation issues.
- whywhywhywhy 3y ago
  The more we perpetuate free and open models the less possible it will be to litigate against them. They can't sue us all. If we move to this lie that Adobes models are "ethical" it gives them a moat to make free models illegal so Adobe becomes the only option. Artists should be realizing the goal is to stop Adobe becoming the only option, if they do become the only legal way to do this then expect AutoCAD level pricing.
- AJ007 3y ago
  Presuming that new laws aren't written that restrict generative models.
random3 3y ago
So the fundamental problem and “promise” is that a company charges for the products it builds, or that professionals “deserve” to be paying for the tools that enable their craft? The alternative is to not pay for things, or?
- freeone3000 3y ago
  You don’t have to pay for things! The models are just there! The code is just there! The images to train on are just there! The absurdity that you have some rights over some data is the only thing that could possibly cause you to pay money for a thing.
  - random3 3y ago
    There's no free lunch. There's a reason the first law of thermodynamics is first. Atoms are just there for grabs too. Yet, you pay for someone organizing them in some order. At least that's how the world currently works. You can walk for "free" or take the bus for a "fee". So nothing is actually "free", although the assumption that Adobe took some off the shelf models and off the shelf pictures and threw them in Photoshop, didn't take much effor either.
    - dist-epoch 3y ago
      You're confusing the first law with the second law. First law: energy can neither be created nor destroyed Second law: entropy always increases > There's a reason the first law of thermodynamics is first The first law of thermodynamics is not the first. That would be the zeroth law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroth_law_of_thermodynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroth_law_of_thermodynamics

cloudking 3y ago

Yep it's easy... just download a wrapper app from GitHub, download the models, set up the configuration, realize you're missing libraries, install a specific version of each etc Your average user doesn't understand how to set up and leverage open source software because it's too complicated to get going. They want to open Photoshop and use the feature in the tool the already use, without setting up anything. Quite frankly, Adobe nailed the UX here.

2devnull 3y ago
No offense but you sort of prove the parent’s point. People who work on computers professionally but don’t use open source because “it’s too complicated to get going” are making an error. Adobe’s UX being addictive is the point.
- swexbe 3y ago
  How many work hours would it take for the average professional artist to get to this level of technical proficiency? Given the opportunity cost I'm sure you could argue it would be a net loss for the employer.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Employers don't need their graphic artists to be able to use git and navigate Python dependencies. That's why they have IT. The mistake companies make is in not fully embracing this. Alright, once you get it running the UI for generative fill can be used by a graphic artist, and now you're several months ahead of your competitors, but still the UI is a little rough. But it's open source, so you have your techs make it a little better. Now your company needs to make it easy to submit a pull request, or you're suddenly maintaining your own fork, which you're going to want out of as soon as you have an alternative, and soon your company is paying $$$$ to Adobe again.
- cloudking 3y ago
  No offense taken, I'm simply pointing out that the user experience of setting up and leveraging open source is a challenge to wider adoption. I expect most of us (hackers) have tried these tools, but not your average user. When I see comments like OP, it's coming from the hacker perspective imo. The user is not making an error, the error is assuming everyone should be a hacker.
  - csomar 3y ago
    The user is definitively making an error here. Especially when the user is actually not a user but a producer (supposedly artists). As an artist you should strive to have a certain level of ownership and independence. It gets worse, there was a thread a couple weeks ago about Envato (ex ThemeForest) asking all their authors for "free/unlimited" rights for anything they have to be used to train AI models for NO compensation. It was eye opening how many "artists" and "producers" accepts the status quo as is, and think it's still a good idea to collect whatever this company throw on their way. It's really hard to feel sorry for these people...
- Arcanum-XIII 3y ago
  I work with a lot of people that don’t care. They have a job with deadline, for which they already gained a lot of knowledge, and need to keep it updated. So no, the supplementary friction is not acceptable, even for « good » reason.
- sirsinsalot 3y ago
  Isn't any UX that is the best available "addictive"? Isn't the point of your UX to be the best available? Implying malicious intent to designing good software is a bit weird, whatever Adobe might be doing in terms of delivery and pricing.
- exeldapp 3y ago
  Many products have been successful not because they bring new features to the market but because they make existing features trivial to use. UX is everything.
  - samtho 3y ago
    It really is. Arguably the most famous example among HN readers was BrandonM’s comment[0] on Dropbox’s launch thread. Was he correct that you can built it trivially using 2007 software? Sure, if you had the correct mix of specialized knowledge of the software and networking. Dropbox was not a novel idea, but that’s now where it value was; the value proposition relied 100% on its UX. If MSFT and Apple each shipped a Dropbox competitor that was highly integrated, available, and pushed flagship software suits to adopt it as well within a year, would Dropbox had become as large as it did? I would guess not. It would likely be a downgrade from what Dropbox offered (the separate ecosystems staying bifurcated comes to mind), but a zero install solution would be the only thing that could make it easier. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
  - tayo42 3y ago
    This is like the whole reason we use slack everywhere lol
- beezlewax 3y ago
  This is not true most people don't have the techinical skills to do what you are saying. Most designers work entirely within software like photoshop or figma that are auto installed or cloud based.
- jackdawipper 3y ago
  its not addictive, its cutting edge and has a price tag for that. open source will follow up with the cheap entry point for the nerds. If you dont like that, then you need to throw proper money at your favourite github accounts because that is fundamental difference. Adobe is funding high end tech solutions by selling a product. if you have another way to to achieve that, do tell. too many college canteen marxists in this place is my thinking.
- irrational 3y ago
  What type of "work on computers professionally" are we talking about? Working on a computer as a professional artist or writer is much different than working on a computer as a programmer/hacker professionally. For the first, the computer is just a tool like a pencil or a paintbrush. I wouldn't expect them to know how to figure out how to use things unless it has a very very simple UX.
innagadadavida 3y ago
From an economic standpoint, this makes sense. If an artist is bringing in 4k a month, then spending 40 a month for software maintenance and updates is rounding error. This also opens up the third part market to sell plugins if open source doesn’t work for them. All in all this is win win for everyone and more options equates to more freedom.
whywhywhywhy 3y ago
I'm not saying it's easy, it's Python so its utter hell at times but I'm saying it's worth the effort to have something free forever and easier UIs to it are coming.
- irrational 3y ago
  Why aren’t the easier UIs here already? Adobe was able to already roll out an easier UI.
- cloudking 3y ago
  Agree with you there, if these tools become 1 click install and go they could get wider adoption. However in the B2B space, they also need parity with commercial tools like Photoshop, Figma etc. It's an uphill battle for an open source project with no profits going up against a profit driven big tech company.
throwawaymaths 3y ago
> Adobe nailed the UX That is such a strange thing to read. I'm not contradicting that it's true in this case, but Basically every artist complains about how much of a clusterfuck the UI/UX is while being entirely happy that the UI is horrible enough that intimate knowledge of it keeps them with a job
- beezlewax 3y ago
  Photoshop has insane ux but once you know it you know it. Its much more capable than the alternatives I've tried. But the learning curve is steep.
  - throwawaymaths 3y ago
    Yes, that is exactly what I said.
msla 3y ago
Pointing and laughing at the "Freetards" only works when the proprietary software isn't actively enshittifying itself.

simontheowl 3y ago

100$ /month is nothing for someone who makes a living doing this. And tbh, the value-add is arguably a lot more than that.

1123581321 3y ago

Creative Cloud is less specialized now, not more. They were able to defend their margins because designers were used to specific workflows. As the interfaces become more general, that advantage will erode. Adobe is working on sophisticated chain of custody for DAM which won’t matter to the bill of CC users, even in enterprise. The productivity gains are becoming permission-to-play. The money saved will go into hiring different kinds of people which will continue to pressure the software budget. It’s true CC is seen as necessary, but it’s still resented and there are always employees whose access to a subscription is marginal, providing some elasticity.

jackdawipper 3y ago

this is the "anarchist" hacker mindset; fear of "the man". open source is always going to lag behind the huge, well funded corporate option because they have teams of highly paid tech working on being first out the traps. open source and corporate dont really compete except in the minds of "anarchist" hackers who don't like capitalism. Yet both worlds can exist, and do. Adobe have produced a mind blowing product. Open source versions wont be far behind. Both pathways exist in parallel. Open Source wont be funding the top of the range stuff ever.

htrp 3y ago

>I PROMISE you once Adobe has market saturation on this and people have embedded it in their workflows and work without it feels painful they're going to be slapping a $40-$100 (It replaces literal days of work and literal team members, they can charge what they want) a month price tag on it on top of Creative Cloud. I think 100 a month is a low price for this.... if it saves literally man-days of work. The equivalent value addition is something in the ballpark of 3k per project (assume 100 an hour over 3 8 hour days). Add in the fact that your velocity has increased significantly, they could probably get away with at 5k a month at the "Pro Tier"

wwweston 3y ago

> All you had to do is install any of the countless Stable Diffusion UIs and you'd have this tech free forever, some of them even integrate into Photoshop. Do you have any specific suggestions you favor?

TwoFactor 3y ago

The alternative is more likely - it becomes commoditized and many programs are offering it, so it would be strange for Adobe charge a premium for a baseline feature

abwizz 3y ago
image editing software is a commodity for decades now, is it free?
- argiopetech 3y ago
  Gimp has been free for decades, same with Inkscape (edit: Inkscape is actually only 19). Probably not what most pros are using, but perfectly acceptable tools.
  - lofaszvanitt 3y ago
    Gimp is a gimp. Just plain horrible UI-UX. Not intuitive at all, at best a terrible monstroisity.
  - abwizz 3y ago
    true. but as you said, most aren't which is the counterpoint to op's claim that stuff get's free because of commodification.
- rchaud 3y ago
  Adobe's UX is far better than Gimp and Inkscape. It is the "it just works" equivalent of design tools.
  - abwizz 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - Retric 3y ago
    Adobe’s UI is also terrible, but it’s terrible in a way most digital artists are familiar with. Starting from scratch Gimp, Inkscape, and Adobe have reasonably similar learning curves. The main advantage Adobe UI has is many people assume they’re stuck learning it at some point. But it’s definitely a waste of time and money if you’re happy as a hobbyist.

rpastuszak 3y ago

> Artists once again, never learning from the past and handing over their future to an abusive company that seeks rent on their ability to earn. I think this is a little bit unfair and trivialises the problem. I know many artists who have to/had to use CC for their work because their clients or (mostly) employers consider it the industry standard. I agree with the sentiment, fuck Adobe and decades of their parasitic practices, but the reality is not that black and white.

helsinkiandrew 3y ago

If you're a professional artist who's invested years of effort in learning photoshop and it replaces "literal days of work" or you run company and it replaces "literal team members" $40-$100 a month is cheap. If not you can use something cheaper - or use one of the 3rd party plugins. If the workflows become popular, the 3rd party plugins will get better.

kryogen1c 3y ago
> If you're a professional artist who's invested years of effort in learning photoshop and it replaces "literal days of work" or you run company and it replaces "literal team members" $40-$100 a month is cheap. No kidding. I have only negative things to say about Adobe, but that is a terrible argument. $100 a month to replace multiple $100k/year employees? That's basically the definition of technological advancement freeing labor to be more productive elsewhere.
- jackdawipper 3y ago
  the definition of progress. In IT we should be used to this. AI has been telegraphing its arrival for a long time. There should be no surprises to see jobs being lost in the name of tech advancement. Its been going on since forever. It is literally what computers do.

rchaud 3y ago

If you already pay for Adobe CC as many designers do, there's an opportunity cost to learning an entirely new system and workflow. Those are hours that can't be billed. The opportunity cost of switching would make sense if Adobe was charging 5x more for these features, but they're not. At the end of the day, not everyone will need to "make" generative art. There will be plenty of it on Adobe Stock that clients will be fine with, especially once they see the hourly billing rates for custom generative art that requires multiple prompts to get right.

AJ007 3y ago
Adobe has been doing enough to break and slowdown workflows that it's worth learning new workflows you do have control of.

jasonlotito 3y ago

> All you had to do is install any of the countless Stable Diffusion UIs and you'd have this tech free forever, some of them even integrate into Photoshop. You mean the ones trained off the artists art without permission, unlike Adobe's offering? I know a lot of graphic designers that looked at that and hated it because of the fact that they took stuff without permission. I don't know a single artist who was happy with that. The AI generation wasn't the issue. It was the training source. I'm not an artist, and I'm also aware of the many failings of Adobe, but you really missed what the issue was.

mrtksn 3y ago

The problem with the AI generated images is that it's abundant and anything abundant doesn't have a market value. So, if an artist's work makes 100$ per work an AI system which can generate the same quality work but 1,000,000 pieces a day this won't end up the AI system generating 100 million dollars a day. It will simply rise the bar for artists instead. Which is a good thing for the society as a whole because the baseline will be very good and the work of the talented artists will be highly valued. Adobe can eat the market of mediocre artists if they are the only one with this technology so they can control the output rate and create artificial scarcity. They are not the only one with this technology.

hef19898 3y ago
Either AI created graphics arrived to late for the NFT craze, or they arrived in time to give them a second spring. Being serious so, human art is what it is because it requires effort. AI art doesn't require nearly as much, is generic and abundant. In short, boring.
- web007 3y ago
  Effort is not a measure of quality or value in art. Remember: Duct tape + banana + wall + 3 minutes = incredibly valuable and controversial art. Me taking a year to paint a detailed depiction of a bowl of fruit = worthless, terrible art. Results are what people care about, not effort.
  - waboremo 3y ago
    Your examples contradict your ending statement. If results are what people care about, neither of those would have value.
    - ljf 3y ago
      People cared a lot: https://www.gq.com/story/suddenly-the-koons-is-this-100k-banana https://www.gq.com/story/suddenly-the-koons-is-this-100k-ban...

adzm 3y ago

> All you had to do is install any of the countless Stable Diffusion UIs and you'd have this tech free forever, some of them even integrate into Photoshop. But Photoshop's generative fill is trained on Adobe's own stock photos, which removes an entire class of potential future litigation issues.

whywhywhywhy 3y ago
The more we perpetuate free and open models the less possible it will be to litigate against them. They can't sue us all. If we move to this lie that Adobes models are "ethical" it gives them a moat to make free models illegal so Adobe becomes the only option. Artists should be realizing the goal is to stop Adobe becoming the only option, if they do become the only legal way to do this then expect AutoCAD level pricing.
AJ007 3y ago
Presuming that new laws aren't written that restrict generative models.

random3 3y ago

So the fundamental problem and “promise” is that a company charges for the products it builds, or that professionals “deserve” to be paying for the tools that enable their craft? The alternative is to not pay for things, or?

freeone3000 3y ago
You don’t have to pay for things! The models are just there! The code is just there! The images to train on are just there! The absurdity that you have some rights over some data is the only thing that could possibly cause you to pay money for a thing.
- random3 3y ago
  There's no free lunch. There's a reason the first law of thermodynamics is first. Atoms are just there for grabs too. Yet, you pay for someone organizing them in some order. At least that's how the world currently works. You can walk for "free" or take the bus for a "fee". So nothing is actually "free", although the assumption that Adobe took some off the shelf models and off the shelf pictures and threw them in Photoshop, didn't take much effor either.
  - dist-epoch 3y ago
    You're confusing the first law with the second law. First law: energy can neither be created nor destroyed Second law: entropy always increases > There's a reason the first law of thermodynamics is first The first law of thermodynamics is not the first. That would be the zeroth law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroth_law_of_thermodynamics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroth_law_of_thermodynamics