4 ms·

I have only a sneaking suspicion they wrote this in specifically for training ai models with files stored on adobe cloud.

daemin 2y ago
Not only for training their models on any content opened by Adobe products, but it would also cover any content generated by their models, since the models would implicitly have a licence to use the content they were trained with.
montjoy 2y ago
That was my first thought too. I looked at the Firefly product and it seemed to say they don’t use your personal data. They have other “AI” products through like GenStudio that’s “coming soon” and I don’t see any “ethical ai” section in its description. I bet this is a “test the waters” EULA and we’ll see them pull it back in the next few days if not hours. If they do pull it back I wonder if they get to keep all of the content of the people who clicked yes within the time window of the onerous EULA?
surfingdino 2y ago
It's for this already present feature that they want to expand to other products and that's why they need even more content to repurpose https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshop/generative-fill.html https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshop/generative-fill.... You are literally paying them to steal your work and the content of your clients.
- flycaliguy 2y ago
  Here is my sort of contrarian take looking at this as a freelance designer who pays the bills with Adobe tools. Im happy to prosper from the work of other commercial artists while feeding the pool. I’ve used a combination of Bing Image Generator and Adobe’s tools to streamline a bunch of work flows and a lot of the pain points in my day have been smoothed over and made delightful. For me these AI tools are like an ergonomic upgrade, literally saving my eye sight. Regarding sensitive files, I don’t have any hardcore NDA clients but I guess I’d wait for their legal team to care and carry on. Isn’t Windows itself compromised this much?
  - surfingdino 2y ago
    It's not for you or Adobe to assume the right to use other people's property without explicit permission. Adobe forces users to give it a blanket permission and profit from the properties that aren't even theirs. We might dispense with the rule of law at this point.

daemin 2y ago

Not only for training their models on any content opened by Adobe products, but it would also cover any content generated by their models, since the models would implicitly have a licence to use the content they were trained with.

montjoy 2y ago

That was my first thought too. I looked at the Firefly product and it seemed to say they don’t use your personal data. They have other “AI” products through like GenStudio that’s “coming soon” and I don’t see any “ethical ai” section in its description. I bet this is a “test the waters” EULA and we’ll see them pull it back in the next few days if not hours. If they do pull it back I wonder if they get to keep all of the content of the people who clicked yes within the time window of the onerous EULA?

surfingdino 2y ago

It's for this already present feature that they want to expand to other products and that's why they need even more content to repurpose https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshop/generative-fill.html https://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshop/generative-fill.... You are literally paying them to steal your work and the content of your clients.

flycaliguy 2y ago
Here is my sort of contrarian take looking at this as a freelance designer who pays the bills with Adobe tools. Im happy to prosper from the work of other commercial artists while feeding the pool. I’ve used a combination of Bing Image Generator and Adobe’s tools to streamline a bunch of work flows and a lot of the pain points in my day have been smoothed over and made delightful. For me these AI tools are like an ergonomic upgrade, literally saving my eye sight. Regarding sensitive files, I don’t have any hardcore NDA clients but I guess I’d wait for their legal team to care and carry on. Isn’t Windows itself compromised this much?
- surfingdino 2y ago
  It's not for you or Adobe to assume the right to use other people's property without explicit permission. Adobe forces users to give it a blanket permission and profit from the properties that aren't even theirs. We might dispense with the rule of law at this point.