5 ms·

I would have said the same thing about CAD simulations, but then Autodesk decided to move backwards and remove an existing feature just so they could charge for

I would have said the same thing about CAD simulations, but then Autodesk decided to move backwards and remove an existing feature just so they could charge for per-simulation credits: https://hackaday.com/2022/08/12/local-simulation-feature-to-be-removed-from-all-autodesk-fusion-360-versions/ https://hackaday.com/2022/08/12/local-simulation-feature-to-... Whether Adobe ever decides to let their model run locally or lock it forever into the cloud is a choice they will have to make. A lot of people trust Adobe products, so it's entirely conceivable that some people will always choose to pay for a pay-per-use generative solution from Adobe rather than try to run competing solutions locally. The question is probably whether it generates more revenue than negativity for Adobe. If most Adobe users are running their own models locally and avoiding the feature, then I think Adobe will be more likely to follow suit and move away from the pay-per-use cloud approach.

flangola7 3y ago
Long term they may offer both, with the local model consuming fewer credits per request. The new GPUs all have secure enclave remote attestation architecture, so Adobe would be able to offer this without the risk of someone jailbreaking the model and running it for free.
- fragmede 3y ago
  Assuming that their secure enclave is, in fact, unhackable, that is.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    The Xbox One has not been hacked in the 10 years since its release. Apple already uses the same kind of tech to protect the various AI models in iPhones and MacBooks, for tasks like OCR search of stored image files and to auto-cutout people in photos. Enclaves are rarely broken and the people that can are selling it to the CIA, not leaking it on the pirate bay.
- tavavex 3y ago
  What would the explanation for charging money here be though? The user is already paying for the license and they're using their own hardware and power to do so. It'd be like charging per use of any other advanced features in locally-run Adobe software.
  - taneq 3y ago
    Yeah, that’d be as crazy as charging car owners a subscription fee to use their heated seats.
  - flangola7 3y ago
    > What would the explanation for charging money here be though? The user is already paying for the license and they're using their own hardware and power to do so. To pay for the privilege of using a very advanced AI model. That's more reasonable than paying to unlock a game character skin that's already on your SSD, and that happens millions of times a day. > It'd be like charging per use of any other advanced features in locally-run Adobe software. I don't see anything stopping this.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >It'd be like charging per use of any other advanced features in locally-run Adobe software. Software companies already do that. There are all kinds of locally-run advanced features that are only enabled with a more expensive subscription tier even though you already have the code and assets for them. Sure, most are merely subscription based, but there are others that are per use.
xmprt 3y ago
> A lot of people trust Adobe products I would have said the consumer sentiment amongst Adobe users is the exact opposite - that people don't trust Adobe products but they use them because they either have to or because they're currently the best products available.
gmerc 3y ago
This hinges on having a quasi monopoly.

flangola7 3y ago

Long term they may offer both, with the local model consuming fewer credits per request. The new GPUs all have secure enclave remote attestation architecture, so Adobe would be able to offer this without the risk of someone jailbreaking the model and running it for free.

fragmede 3y ago
Assuming that their secure enclave is, in fact, unhackable, that is.
- flangola7 3y ago
  The Xbox One has not been hacked in the 10 years since its release. Apple already uses the same kind of tech to protect the various AI models in iPhones and MacBooks, for tasks like OCR search of stored image files and to auto-cutout people in photos. Enclaves are rarely broken and the people that can are selling it to the CIA, not leaking it on the pirate bay.
tavavex 3y ago
What would the explanation for charging money here be though? The user is already paying for the license and they're using their own hardware and power to do so. It'd be like charging per use of any other advanced features in locally-run Adobe software.
- taneq 3y ago
  Yeah, that’d be as crazy as charging car owners a subscription fee to use their heated seats.
- flangola7 3y ago
  > What would the explanation for charging money here be though? The user is already paying for the license and they're using their own hardware and power to do so. To pay for the privilege of using a very advanced AI model. That's more reasonable than paying to unlock a game character skin that's already on your SSD, and that happens millions of times a day. > It'd be like charging per use of any other advanced features in locally-run Adobe software. I don't see anything stopping this.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >It'd be like charging per use of any other advanced features in locally-run Adobe software. Software companies already do that. There are all kinds of locally-run advanced features that are only enabled with a more expensive subscription tier even though you already have the code and assets for them. Sure, most are merely subscription based, but there are others that are per use.

xmprt 3y ago

> A lot of people trust Adobe products I would have said the consumer sentiment amongst Adobe users is the exact opposite - that people don't trust Adobe products but they use them because they either have to or because they're currently the best products available.

gmerc 3y ago

This hinges on having a quasi monopoly.