10 ms·
> 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,
by 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 agoHere'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 agoThat 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.