6 ms·
Adobe Lightroom's AI Remove feature added a Bitcoin to bird in flight photo
- sandspar 2y agoAny reason why "AI made a flub" is still newsworthy? We know it does this.
- ggm 2y agoBecause of people posting on the singularity and AGI prospects: we need to keep the feed of counter examples active. After all, this is training data too.
- TZubiri 2y agoMaybe AI is using bitcoin to transact in the black market and this is evidence of it
- ggm 2y agoYou only had to put "with drones" and you had the trifecta. No wait: quantum drones.
- undersuit 2y agoGotta find out the vulnerabilities of the paperclip maximizer, disguising ourselves as a crypto currency could be our only hope.
- asdf6969 2y agoIt causes a lot of emotions which is good for attention online. 1. It makes people feel good because bad AI can’t take jobs away 2. It makes people feel bad because it’s further enshittification of experiences that are already getting worse
- uoaei 2y agoBecause many don't know how fallible and useless these unnecessary products are!
- rsynnott 2y agoBecause this is Adobe Lightroom, which is meant to be, like, a real product that is used for real things.
- 486sx33 2y agoSo HN, any theories on how this happened ?
- jsheard 2y agoThey used a circular mask and the model overfitted on Bitcoins as likely examples of circles? Adobe's models are only trained on their stock image library and they have a whopping 646,136 Bitcoin images. https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=Bitcoin https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=Bitcoin
- mouse_ 2y agothat seems like too many
- jsheard 2y agoCorrection, they have nearly a million Bitcoin images once you unfilter the ones tagged as AI generated, which are hidden by default. I assume they don't train their models on those though.
- stefan_ 2y agoAll of them AI slop of course. They train on this? I guess it's garbage in, garbage out.
- Gigachad 2y agoSeems like they used some AI tool to remove speckles from an image. The tool has to generate a likely replacement. And one of the speckles looked a bit like a coin.
- lucb1e 2y agoThat's the bit that puzzles me the most though: you want that bit gone, so why would it fill in what that shimmer looks like? If there's an airplane in the sky that you want gone from a medieval movie frame, so you select the airplane and select "remove", surely it doesn't fill in an airplane because that's the closest match for what's being selected? I must be missing something obvious but I don't see it mentioned in the submission or comments, or perhaps I'm not making the connection
- jdoliner 2y agoIt's telling you what it's mining in the background with those extra gpu cycles.
- ttoinou 2y agoI dont see where in the picture it is zoomed from to see the bitcoin
- ripped_britches 2y ago“Large company ships half baked product” has gotta be the least interesting story to read
- slg 2y agoSure, if you view this as an isolated incident. But I think of it more as the latest example of the larger trend of how the industry has gone mad actively making their products worse with half-baked AI features. That is a more interesting story.
- thegeomaster 2y agoIs it actively worse, though? My impression is that all of the other, classical-based in-painting methods are still alive and well in Adobe products. And I think their in-painting works well, when it does work. To me, this honestly sounds like an improvement, especially in a creative tool like Lightroom or Photoshop --- the artist has more options to achieve their vision; it's usually understood to be up to the artist to use the tools appropriately.
- ryandrake 2y agoI'm not an artist or an Adobe customer, but when I see products adding half-baked or defective features, it tarnishes their brand and would definitely make me re-consider trusting their product. Especially for professional use, and regardless of whether the rest of the product still works fine. It's a general indicator of carelessness and tolerance of quality problems.
- DrewADesign 2y agoUnfortunately, the Adobe ecosystem on a whole is like OS-level complex, and they're pretty much ignoring anything that isn't directly related to generative AI, and that stuff is only consistently good for the lowest-level use cases. Miles more useful than Comfy, etc. for most artists and designers, but not close for people that need to do more skillful work. The value of Adobe as an ecosystem was their constant upgrading and keeping up with the times, and now, if it's not some cockamamie generative AI feature, it's going nowhere. They're even worse with bug fixes than they were before.
- Culonavirus 2y agoIf you zoom in and squint your eyes, it does look like some kind of shiny coin. What I'd like to know though... is how is the model so bad that when you tell it to "remove this artifact" ... instead of it looking at the surroundings and painting over with some DoF-ed out ocean... it slaps an even more distinct artifact in there? Makes no sense.
- samsartor 2y agoA lot of current inpainting models have quite a lot of "signal leak". They're more for covering stuff vs removing it entirely. Ironically, some older SD1/2-era models work a lot better for complete removal.
- Auracle 2y agoI mean, this is notable because it screwed up. It usually does a pretty good job. Usually. In this case there are better tools for the job anyways. Generative fill shines when it’s over something that’d be hard to paint back in - out of focus water isn’t that.
- geuis 2y agoOk I'm getting tired of this habit of deep linking to apps. The apps either override existing web pages featuring the same content, or there's a web redirect to an app I might have installed but am not signed into. So in multiple cases, it's difficult to just read whatever the information is. Web pages are universally accessible. Everyone has a browser on their device of choice. The web is 35 years old. Access to information is a solved problem. Guess I'm just complaining. There are just so many links being submitted to HN these days that require accounts or specific apps installed. Feels like there should be a rule around this.
- isatty 2y agoWhat is being deeplinked? I was able to read the page and click on the pictures all in my browser (iOS safari).
- hombre_fatal 2y agoThey mean how the phone lets apps handle browser urls instead of just opening the url in the browser.
- ludwik 2y agoThat’s not deep linking (i.e., something set up by the person posting the link). It’s simply the specific device being configured to handle regular web links differently.
- dcreater 2y agoAI is starting to backmask. Even it recognizes Bitcoin as the way forward
- jdiff 2y agoOr AI is falling into the same hype event horizon.
- gedy 2y agoHeaven forbid your picture has a woman in it somewhere though, Adobe's AI will refuse to fill half the time.. I've taken to censoring out blocks of image with black squares of it has any body parts showing (still clothed), fill, copy, then undo the censoring. It's pretty ridiculous for a paid subscription.
- kyriakos 2y agoFor a paid product even if the content explicitly contained nudity or depicted sexual activity it should had still been allowed as they are valid cases that Lightroom and Photoshop could be used. The censorship in AI is stupid, babysitting users should not be part of the tool's responsibility. Its like banning kitchen knives to keep people from using them for violence.
- jsheard 2y agoApparently this isn't an isolated incident: https://www.reddit.com/r/photoshop/comments/1e5nyt7/generative_ai_suggesting_bitcoin/ https://www.reddit.com/r/photoshop/comments/1e5nyt7/generati...
- missing-acumen 2y agoQuestion to people knowing adobe lightroom, could this feature be compromised? Is this just doing API calls to some remote thing?
- wmf 2y agoI'm not sure what you mean by compromised but I'm pretty sure Adobe Firefly AI features are server-based. These features are too good to be done locally.
- jsheard 2y agoPlus even if it could be done locally, doing it server-side has the side benefit (for Adobe) of making it trivial to prevent pirates from ever being able to use those features.
- missing-acumen 2y agoBy compromised I mean something like someone having access to adobe's servers where this is running and uploading troll models or toying with the model's responses
- nshireman 2y agoLightroom has a local Heal/Remove feature, and at least with LR Classic you have to tick a box for the AI remove, which processes it on Adobe servers. As for whether it can be compromised... Probably? It sends all or some of your photo to a remove server, so that can certainly be taken.
- missing-acumen 2y agoI mean, having the model behave this way looks too easy and I guess that adobe does qc on the features it releases, so I'm not sure to see an alternative explanation - or adobe's qc is poor/inexistent.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoI have to say that I think the photo without the Ligthroom processing actually looks better. The second one hasn't just added a bitcoin, it has also added the "AI shimmer" that seems to be a part of a lot of generated images. I can't put my finger on exactly what the characteristic is, but my first instinct (separate from the bitcoin, which was hard to find) is "that's an AI picture." Someone should just spend some time in the blur tool if they don't like those glints.
- samsartor 2y agoThat could be the VAE? The "latent" part of latent diffusion models is surprisingly lossy. And however much the image is getting inpainted, the entire thing gets encoded and decoded. Edit: I'll note some new models (SD3 and Flux) have a wider latent dim and seem to suffer from this problem less. AI generated images are also biased strongly towards medium lightness. The photographer's adjusting of the tone curve may simply give it that "look".
- Auracle 2y agoYou absolutely do not need to encode and decode the whole image, even in ComfyUI. All you need to do is composite the changed areas back in the original photo. There are nodes for that and I’m sure that’s what Adobe does as well, if they even encode in the first place. These tools don’t really work quite like inpainting. There’s no denoise value - it’s all or nothing. I’ve used Photoshop’s generative fill many times on singular images and there’s no loss on the ungenerated parts.
- serviceberry 2y agoI don't think there's any AI-fication going on in that photo. The modified version has a more compressed tone curve to bring out more detail, along with jacked up saturation (especially evident for water). This is similar to what most cell phones do by default to make photos look more pleasing. I do agree that the original looks better, but the author of the post clearly prefers the modified version.
- 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Zinkay 2y ago[dead]
- labster 2y agoI read through Google News without logging in, and ever since that thing happened in November, it’s been flooded with crypto stories decorated with AI art. It totally makes sense to me that BTC would appear in this photo, since crypto bros seem to be the ones using AI images the most.
- benoau 2y agoThey'll just add a disclaimer somewhere.
- IAmGraydon 2y agoIt’s almost like integrating a poorly understood black box with your software is a bad idea.
- rendaw 2y agoSorry, tangent, but does anyone remember the AI zoom in some old phone camera that was hallucinating a celebrity's face? It was much before the moon zoom hallucinations.
- cfreksen 2y agoI think you are referring to this: https://petapixel.com/2020/08/17/gigapixel-ai-accidentally-added-ryan-goslings-face-to-this-photo/ https://petapixel.com/2020/08/17/gigapixel-ai-accidentally-a... Discussed 4 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24196650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24196650
- rendaw 2y agoYes! That was it! Thanks! I looked for hours...
- throwaway81523 2y agoI had to look up "butlerian jihad" (from one of the bsky comments) and now I want one too. Yow.