3 ms·

Couldn't agree more. We are seeing gradual degradation of the term AI. LLMs have stolen attention of the media and the general population and I notice that peop

Couldn't agree more. We are seeing gradual degradation of the term AI. LLMs have stolen attention of the media and the general population and I notice that people equate ChatGPT with all of AI. It is not, but an average person doesn't know the difference. In a way, genAI is the worst thing that happened to AI. The ML part is amazing, it allows us to understand the world we live in, which is what we have evolved to seek and value, because there is an evolutionary benefit to it--survival; the generative side is not even a solution to any particular problem, it is a problem that we are forced to pay to make bigger. I wrote "forced", because companies like Adobe use their dominant position to override legal frameworks developed to protect intellectual property and client-creator contracts in order to grab content that is not theirs to train models they resell back to the people they stole content from and to subject ourselves to unsupervised, unaccountable policing of content.

barber_the_dope 2y ago
Very well written and thoughtful comment. Thank you.
lolinder 2y ago
> I wrote "forced", because companies like Adobe use their dominant position to override legal frameworks developed to protect intellectual property and client-creator contracts in order to grab content that is not theirs to train models they resell back to the people they stole content from and to subject ourselves to unsupervised, unaccountable policing of content. Adobe is an obnoxious company that does a lot of bad things, but it's weird to me seeing them cast in a negative light like this for their approach to model training copyright. As far as I know they were the first to have a genAI product that was trained exclusively on data that they had rights to under existing copyright law, rather than relying on a free use argument or just hoping the law would change around them. Out of all the companies who've built AI tooling they're the last one I'd expect to see dragged out as an example of copyright misbehavior.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  > Out of all the companies who've built AI tooling they're the* last one I'd expect to see dragged out as an example of copyright misbehavior. I was surprised, too: I thought Adobe's main problem was their abusive pricing, and I was actually a little impressed by their take on this hype wave. And yet. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40607442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40607442
  - surfingdino 2y ago
    Here's a good explanation of what they are doing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpbbschYKjE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpbbschYKjE
    - lolinder 2y ago
      That video is about privacy and csam scanning with a very brief reference at the end to the possibility that Adobe might be using customer photos to train the csam scanner. I can see how that checks the box of "policing", but you also made this claim: > in order to grab content that is not theirs to train models they resell back to the people they stole content from Did you not mean that to imply that Adobe is using images from customers to train generative AI? Because that's sure what it sounds like.

barber_the_dope 2y ago

Very well written and thoughtful comment. Thank you.

lolinder 2y ago

> I wrote "forced", because companies like Adobe use their dominant position to override legal frameworks developed to protect intellectual property and client-creator contracts in order to grab content that is not theirs to train models they resell back to the people they stole content from and to subject ourselves to unsupervised, unaccountable policing of content. Adobe is an obnoxious company that does a lot of bad things, but it's weird to me seeing them cast in a negative light like this for their approach to model training copyright. As far as I know they were the first to have a genAI product that was trained exclusively on data that they had rights to under existing copyright law, rather than relying on a free use argument or just hoping the law would change around them. Out of all the companies who've built AI tooling they're the last one I'd expect to see dragged out as an example of copyright misbehavior.

wizzwizz4 2y ago
> Out of all the companies who've built AI tooling they're the* last one I'd expect to see dragged out as an example of copyright misbehavior. I was surprised, too: I thought Adobe's main problem was their abusive pricing, and I was actually a little impressed by their take on this hype wave. And yet. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40607442 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40607442
- surfingdino 2y ago
  Here's a good explanation of what they are doing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpbbschYKjE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpbbschYKjE
  - lolinder 2y ago
    That video is about privacy and csam scanning with a very brief reference at the end to the possibility that Adobe might be using customer photos to train the csam scanner. I can see how that checks the box of "policing", but you also made this claim: > in order to grab content that is not theirs to train models they resell back to the people they stole content from Did you not mean that to imply that Adobe is using images from customers to train generative AI? Because that's sure what it sounds like.