6 ms·

Adobe Swears It's Not Training Its A.I. On Your Photoshops

53 points by brie22 2y ago

gnabgib 2y ago
Previously Adobe users are outraged over vague new policy's AI implications [1] (49 points, 1 day ago 21 comments) Adobe responds to vocal uproar over new Terms of Service language [0] (24 points, 3 days ago) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40605203 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40605203 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40619329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40619329
clipsy 2y ago
Then they should update their ToS to clearly state that.
- bhhaskin 2y ago
  This. Actions speak louder than words and right now the actions are a free license to do whatever they want with your work.
  - jiveturkey 2y ago
    actually those are the words. the actions are they haven't done that. that said, they are completely untrustworthy.
    - atoav 2y ago
      No, they claim they haven't done that. Also the ToS words are legally binding, some "promise" they made as part of a PR reaction is not.
      - jstummbillig 2y ago
        That's not how it works. A company can not just claim things (as part of PR reaction or otherwise) and have it mean nothing legally, just because it isn't part of their ToS.
        close04 2y ago
        > A company can no just claim things and have it mean nothing legally They can because that statement isn't binding and it's very interpretable. > Adobe does NOT train any GenAI models on customer’s content Today? Right as the tweet was being posted? That he knows of? They train non-GenAI models? Opinions are his own? He's not an authoritative source? It's not "customer content" if you gave them full rights on it? We have evidence of tweets not counting much in a court, particularly if there are deep pockets behind them. So no, unless it's a legally binding document (and even then I have my doubts, deep pockets run deep) it's literally just words.
        jstummbillig 2y ago
        > They can because that statement isn't binding[...] What do you mean? In the EU and the US, there is no law that allows you to say things, and then do other things, and be protected from having the difference mean something in court of law. A court can very well decide that what you provably said/wrote/claimed is legally pertinent, without it being part of any ToS. Which I assume you understand, hence I am very confused about the confusion here. If what you really mean is "nobody would care enough to take them to court", that's a different and somewhat ironic point, because if nobody takes legal action, it would not matter anyway where the violation occurs. Any statement can be deemed legally binding by a court, which is the authority concerned with questions of legality. If you think in this specific case this would not apply, it is at least completely unclear, why.
        benterix 2y ago
        They definitely can and they do, the only question is whether they will get caught or not. Folks at Volkswagen, Enron, Theranos, etc. probably thought they would never get caught.
        jstummbillig 2y ago
        They can not do it, and have it mean nothing legally, by their discretion, just because it's not part of their ToS, is my statement in spirit. Violation of ToS is not a requirement for violating the law.
    - benterix 2y ago
      > the actions are they haven't done that Are you able to prove or at least provide a convincing reason for that statement?
- recursivecaveat 2y ago
  1. Update ToS to give yourself expansive new capabilities 2. Publically state that you're not abusing those capabilities (in the present tense of course) to bury the story 3. In a year quietly turn it on in the backend with no public fuss. Preferably in a confusing incremental way so no one step feels too far and nobody with less than superhuman patience can keep track Microsoft has gone through their version of the path before and will do it again with Recall. In a decade you will technically be able to disable cloud-recall, only on business windows versions, by editing a registry key every 24h.
  - mu53 2y ago
    this is the way of modern public relations that can precisely measure outrage to each story by monitoring social media. If enough people/reputation backlash, rollback, otherwise push forward quietly towards maximum profits
yieldcrv 2y ago
The default save location to creative cloud is very sus
- t0bia_s 2y ago
  Fact, that you cannot use their software legally offline is enough for me to not trust them.
- mikae1 2y ago
  Drove me crazy that the option to save locally kept resetting back to cloud.
  - nicce 2y ago
    Tell me that something is malicous without telling me.
  - timeon 2y ago
    This and all the CC bloatware is why I switched to Affinity.
vsnf 2y ago
What does it matter what they say. There are no consequences to lying, so the only correct move is to assume they are.
- winternewt 2y ago
  Also, you can't claim you didn't violate your customer's NDA because Adobe said something in a blog post. It's the legal agreement that matters most in court.
floppiplopp 2y ago
Sure, buddy corpo, we can trust you.
threeseed 2y ago
And I believe them. Because whenever there is an uproar it makes sense to wait for things to settle down and then start training on your images.
uwagar 2y ago
what is the proof?
- b3lvedere 2y ago
  How does one prove they did NOT do something?
  - Bombthecat 2y ago
    External audits?
  - qarl 2y ago
    They could very easily modify the agreement to say something like "your content will never be used to train AI." I'm sure they'll add that quickly to end the uproar. (No they won't.)
  - latexr 2y ago
    The problem is more what they will do rather than what they have done¹. So to rephrase your question: “How does one prove they WILL NOT do something?” The answer is that we can never be sure, but Adobe could increase trust in their statements by making them binding in some way. E.g. By making a legally-binding promise, one opens themselves to legal repercussions when breaking that promise, thus they are less likely do to so². ¹ Yes, Adobe is a shady company with a history of bad behaviour, but the context for the current outrage is the new terms of service. ² Yes, there’s nuance, but that’s not important for a hypothetical.
iamyemeth 2y ago
Wolf swears it's vegan
rlupi 2y ago
Adobe cannot be trusted. They force you to agree to the ToS even to stop using their apps! You cannot even uninstall Adobe CC apps without using the Creative Cloud app, and you can't use the CC app without agreeing to the ToS. I used CC mostly on my mac studio, but I had it also installed on a older windows machine. I have cancelled my subscription, then cancelled my account; I had to agree to the ToS to uninstall them on mac studio. I discovered now the old installation on windows and I want to get rid of it, but I don't have an account anymore. I am stuck unable to uninstall their apps on all my computers and the software they provide to do so doesn't work. On the one mac where I uninstalled it using their tools, it actually kept their software hidden on my machine and tried to reinstall it (found out via osquery). This is very shady behavior. Their installation software is basically a spyware.
- everforward 2y ago
  Adobe's shenanigans are bad, but I put a lot of the blame here on Windows and its persistent refusal to implement a decent way to uninstall programs without using a vendor-provided binary/script. It boggles my mind that Windows has no concept of "track what files and registry entries are from what apps, so we can uninstall apps even if the vendor is an asshole/malware distributor/etc", and the corollary "a page that shows what apps still have files or registry entries on the system". This is worsened by heavy use of the registry, which allows apps to spread files all over the filesystem in a way that is very difficult for users to follow. It's further worsened by the uselessness of Task Manager (it's nearly unfit for purpose, especially considering the bizarre number of strange processes running on even a clean Windows install). Then add in opaque things like svchost.exe and it's very, very hard to tell whether there are any processes left over from an install. Windows really needs to add better uninstall or cleanup tools for that kind of stuff. Maybe a way to audit what files and registry keys apps access, so users (or a tool) can cross-check them after an app is uninstalled. Maybe some kind of "this app has been running in the background but you haven't interacted with it in X months" info display. Maybe some kind of "you uninstalled app X but I found a folder named X in %appdata%" tools. It really gives Windows a bad name that no one can trust that uninstalls of apps actually work.
  - 2y ago
3lit3krew 2y ago
[flagged]
- uturingmachine 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - 3lit3krew 2y ago
    Graphics software was solved decades ago, if graphics professionals can't move as comfortably between these alternatives as easily as a construction worker can move between two nearly identical hammers, they have a skill issue. Adobe users have some of the worst Stockholm Syndrome in the tech world, and they should be scorned and mocked the same as MS and Apple users. You'll eat what you're served. What are you going to do, take your business elsewhere? It's time to move from coddling to tough love.
JohnFen 2y ago
Big Tech promises are without meaning.
mediumsmart 2y ago
They want to talk with me about my adblocker but I don’t have one. Orion is a zero telemetry browser. dear Slate. I swear that I closed the tab and did not read anything behind your weneedtotalkaboutyouradblocker popup, scout’s honor. And I am not going to read the comments either
rrgok 2y ago
Yeah? How about put it in writing with the CEO signature?

53 points by brie22 2y ago

Previously Adobe users are outraged over vague new policy's AI implications [1] (49 points, 1 day ago 21 comments) Adobe responds to vocal uproar over new Terms of Service language [0] (24 points, 3 days ago) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40605203 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40605203 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40619329 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40619329

clipsy 2y ago

Then they should update their ToS to clearly state that.

bhhaskin 2y ago
This. Actions speak louder than words and right now the actions are a free license to do whatever they want with your work.
- jiveturkey 2y ago
  actually those are the words. the actions are they haven't done that. that said, they are completely untrustworthy.
  - atoav 2y ago
    No, they claim they haven't done that. Also the ToS words are legally binding, some "promise" they made as part of a PR reaction is not.
    - jstummbillig 2y ago
      That's not how it works. A company can not just claim things (as part of PR reaction or otherwise) and have it mean nothing legally, just because it isn't part of their ToS.
      - close04 2y ago
        > A company can no just claim things and have it mean nothing legally They can because that statement isn't binding and it's very interpretable. > Adobe does NOT train any GenAI models on customer’s content Today? Right as the tweet was being posted? That he knows of? They train non-GenAI models? Opinions are his own? He's not an authoritative source? It's not "customer content" if you gave them full rights on it? We have evidence of tweets not counting much in a court, particularly if there are deep pockets behind them. So no, unless it's a legally binding document (and even then I have my doubts, deep pockets run deep) it's literally just words.
        jstummbillig 2y ago
        > They can because that statement isn't binding[...] What do you mean? In the EU and the US, there is no law that allows you to say things, and then do other things, and be protected from having the difference mean something in court of law. A court can very well decide that what you provably said/wrote/claimed is legally pertinent, without it being part of any ToS. Which I assume you understand, hence I am very confused about the confusion here. If what you really mean is "nobody would care enough to take them to court", that's a different and somewhat ironic point, because if nobody takes legal action, it would not matter anyway where the violation occurs. Any statement can be deemed legally binding by a court, which is the authority concerned with questions of legality. If you think in this specific case this would not apply, it is at least completely unclear, why.
      - benterix 2y ago
        They definitely can and they do, the only question is whether they will get caught or not. Folks at Volkswagen, Enron, Theranos, etc. probably thought they would never get caught.
        jstummbillig 2y ago
        They can not do it, and have it mean nothing legally, by their discretion, just because it's not part of their ToS, is my statement in spirit. Violation of ToS is not a requirement for violating the law.
  - benterix 2y ago
    > the actions are they haven't done that Are you able to prove or at least provide a convincing reason for that statement?
recursivecaveat 2y ago
1. Update ToS to give yourself expansive new capabilities 2. Publically state that you're not abusing those capabilities (in the present tense of course) to bury the story 3. In a year quietly turn it on in the backend with no public fuss. Preferably in a confusing incremental way so no one step feels too far and nobody with less than superhuman patience can keep track Microsoft has gone through their version of the path before and will do it again with Recall. In a decade you will technically be able to disable cloud-recall, only on business windows versions, by editing a registry key every 24h.
- mu53 2y ago
  this is the way of modern public relations that can precisely measure outrage to each story by monitoring social media. If enough people/reputation backlash, rollback, otherwise push forward quietly towards maximum profits

yieldcrv 2y ago

The default save location to creative cloud is very sus

t0bia_s 2y ago
Fact, that you cannot use their software legally offline is enough for me to not trust them.
mikae1 2y ago
Drove me crazy that the option to save locally kept resetting back to cloud.
- nicce 2y ago
  Tell me that something is malicous without telling me.
- timeon 2y ago
  This and all the CC bloatware is why I switched to Affinity.

vsnf 2y ago

What does it matter what they say. There are no consequences to lying, so the only correct move is to assume they are.

winternewt 2y ago
Also, you can't claim you didn't violate your customer's NDA because Adobe said something in a blog post. It's the legal agreement that matters most in court.

floppiplopp 2y ago

Sure, buddy corpo, we can trust you.

threeseed 2y ago

And I believe them. Because whenever there is an uproar it makes sense to wait for things to settle down and then start training on your images.

uwagar 2y ago

what is the proof?

b3lvedere 2y ago
How does one prove they did NOT do something?
- Bombthecat 2y ago
  External audits?
- qarl 2y ago
  They could very easily modify the agreement to say something like "your content will never be used to train AI." I'm sure they'll add that quickly to end the uproar. (No they won't.)
- latexr 2y ago
  The problem is more what they will do rather than what they have done¹. So to rephrase your question: “How does one prove they WILL NOT do something?” The answer is that we can never be sure, but Adobe could increase trust in their statements by making them binding in some way. E.g. By making a legally-binding promise, one opens themselves to legal repercussions when breaking that promise, thus they are less likely do to so². ¹ Yes, Adobe is a shady company with a history of bad behaviour, but the context for the current outrage is the new terms of service. ² Yes, there’s nuance, but that’s not important for a hypothetical.

iamyemeth 2y ago

Wolf swears it's vegan

rlupi 2y ago

Adobe cannot be trusted. They force you to agree to the ToS even to stop using their apps! You cannot even uninstall Adobe CC apps without using the Creative Cloud app, and you can't use the CC app without agreeing to the ToS. I used CC mostly on my mac studio, but I had it also installed on a older windows machine. I have cancelled my subscription, then cancelled my account; I had to agree to the ToS to uninstall them on mac studio. I discovered now the old installation on windows and I want to get rid of it, but I don't have an account anymore. I am stuck unable to uninstall their apps on all my computers and the software they provide to do so doesn't work. On the one mac where I uninstalled it using their tools, it actually kept their software hidden on my machine and tried to reinstall it (found out via osquery). This is very shady behavior. Their installation software is basically a spyware.

everforward 2y ago
Adobe's shenanigans are bad, but I put a lot of the blame here on Windows and its persistent refusal to implement a decent way to uninstall programs without using a vendor-provided binary/script. It boggles my mind that Windows has no concept of "track what files and registry entries are from what apps, so we can uninstall apps even if the vendor is an asshole/malware distributor/etc", and the corollary "a page that shows what apps still have files or registry entries on the system". This is worsened by heavy use of the registry, which allows apps to spread files all over the filesystem in a way that is very difficult for users to follow. It's further worsened by the uselessness of Task Manager (it's nearly unfit for purpose, especially considering the bizarre number of strange processes running on even a clean Windows install). Then add in opaque things like svchost.exe and it's very, very hard to tell whether there are any processes left over from an install. Windows really needs to add better uninstall or cleanup tools for that kind of stuff. Maybe a way to audit what files and registry keys apps access, so users (or a tool) can cross-check them after an app is uninstalled. Maybe some kind of "this app has been running in the background but you haven't interacted with it in X months" info display. Maybe some kind of "you uninstalled app X but I found a folder named X in %appdata%" tools. It really gives Windows a bad name that no one can trust that uninstalls of apps actually work.
- 2y ago

3lit3krew 2y ago

[flagged]

uturingmachine 2y ago
[flagged]
- 3lit3krew 2y ago
  Graphics software was solved decades ago, if graphics professionals can't move as comfortably between these alternatives as easily as a construction worker can move between two nearly identical hammers, they have a skill issue. Adobe users have some of the worst Stockholm Syndrome in the tech world, and they should be scorned and mocked the same as MS and Apple users. You'll eat what you're served. What are you going to do, take your business elsewhere? It's time to move from coddling to tough love.

JohnFen 2y ago

Big Tech promises are without meaning.

mediumsmart 2y ago

They want to talk with me about my adblocker but I don’t have one. Orion is a zero telemetry browser. dear Slate. I swear that I closed the tab and did not read anything behind your weneedtotalkaboutyouradblocker popup, scout’s honor. And I am not going to read the comments either

rrgok 2y ago

Yeah? How about put it in writing with the CEO signature?