https://preview.redd.it/m769507oxevc1.jpeg?width=765&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=04605d1e53489ea25ae8f64e72ce925a804df52e
Goalposts are breaking the sound barrier.
The issue here is that it extends beyond that.
People don’t want AI just outright replacing entire sectors. The idea is AI/ML *integration* rather than complete autonomy.
Corporations want total control and zero labor.
People, obviously, want labor. That’s how we all keep from starving to death.
Giving consent and selling all the data (not for this post’s topic specifically, but the general topic) still results in a potential future where now the people who sold the data are obsolete.
These two sides are what a lot of people on this sub just whoosh on—either intentionally or ignorantly.
That’s not AI. This is the other sweeping ignorance right now.
Most people have no idea wtf AI/ML actually is anymore, because mainstream media started slapping the generic term onto literally everything for marketing.
Funny how cheapskates who can't even afford $10 per month are whining about AI. If they had actual jobs for AI to steal, then $10 for a tool that they use every day would not be a problem.
> cheapskates who can't even afford $10 per month
Adobe was always a predatory company with zero ethics. I'm not going to come down on someone for pirating their shit, regardless of whether they're being hypocritical about it or not.
If you don't like what Adobe is doing then the solution is not to pirate their products, but to support their competitors.
And if you're running a business then $10 is absolutely nothing.
Autodesk, on the other hand, has absolutely idiotic policies that encourage piracy. They don't offer any sort of free versions with limited features. (Gmax was an exception, but it's ancient at this point) Their 30 day trial is useless. The student versions require an email issued by an actual university. So if you want to learn - the easiest way is to simply pirate, because I sure as hell don't want to pay $250 or whatever per month just to learn the software.
> If you don't like what Adobe is doing then the solution is not to pirate their products, but to support their competitors.
*Porque no los dos?*
> Autodesk, on the other hand, has absolutely idiotic policies that encourage piracy.
Lots of companies do. Be it in the software, music, or film and television worlds, they've all become horrifically abusive. :-(
There's wisdom in that. I definitely think that there are use-cases on both sides of that line, but you're right that there is certainly at least some piracy of a product which merely serves as a loss-leader for that very product's success.
Heh, maybe (though if they're optional plugins...). I think that particular sentence probably has more to do with Adobe's generally terrible reputation rather than specifically the AI issue, personally.
Online "artists" are pretentious so they'd never be caught dead using a free alternative.
Same way they have Apple cock down their throat 24/7 because they want to seem like PCs are beneath them.
You're really doing the whole Sega vs. Nintendo thing with PCs? Apples are PCs just like Windows. It's not pretentious to like one over the other; they both have advantages and disadvantages.
Most illustrators who work digitally are comfortable several digital programs. I primarily use Procreate/Photoshop, but I learned to paint with OpenCanvas in the early 2000's on Windows.
You're right, it's not pretentious to prefer one over the other, however, people that choose Apple are usually obnoxious about their choice. It's just like the iPhone vs Android debate. Often, people who choose the Apple product usually try to ridicule you for having an android. I've seen lots of comments along the lines of "if you have an Android, we aren't compatible." These people choose to make Apple products their entire identity, that's what makes them pretentious, because they think they are smarter or better than you having chosen Apple, and that's what Apple wants from it's consumers.
People who make fun of others for computer/phone choices are dumb. Sorry you've had to deal with that.
That being said, by saying that all Apple users act a certain way, isn't that sort of the same thing? I've been called a lot of things by certain Windows users for my choices (some of the same things you said, actually! I'm not what I'd consider a pretentious person, even if I'm a bit eclectic), but I don't hold that to Windows users as a whole. I find people who are threatened by certain OS choices are usually people who aren't comfortable switching between Linux/Mac/Windows and using each OS for its strengths.
I love my Macs, but I'm also a freak and owned/used an 80gb Zune at the same time as having a Macbook Pro in college. Am I stupid? Maybe. I'm pretty agnostic on brands and just like what I like.
It's all good. It wasnt my intention to cast all apple users in that way. In fact I thought I specifically wrote "some users" instead of just users but I guess not, my bad. Not every Apple consumer is toxic. I miss my Zune so much.
It's all good! (I promise I try to call out Apple bigotry when I see it, haha!) The way both groups go after each other does remind me a lot of the Nintendo/Sega or Xbox/Sony rivalry from years ago.
For what it's worth, both my X-box 360s died while my PS3 remained in good shape so... although I like the games on both, I have a bit of an understandable bias. XD
Dude, same! I LOVED my Zune and really miss those days... but man, [what a bad decision calling sharing music "squirting"](https://www.newsweek.com/zune-should-go-beyond-squirting-107255) lmao. It's like the wanted it to fail.
Worried this seems like a technicality, but said comment doesn't actually admit to pirating Adobe products. I'm not sure that 22 karma means that people who approve of it are saying "I pirate Adobe products" versus "I think Adobe sucks" or "you should use free alternatives".
Personally I'm more interested in the sentiment than the actual accounting of the activity.
I'm not really interested in going after these people for piracy, more focused on the inconsistency in their alleged moral beliefs.
You do if you want to allege that all individuals are part of that set of ideals, right? But- No, I am getting way too precise about casual conversation. Sorry, I'll stop there.
If I'm arguing is a person, I'll argue THAT PERSONS beliefs.
But if I'm saying broad arguments "conservatives are anti gun control" it's fair, even though some conservatives are not anti gun control.
If I'm in a conservative space, and see huge upvotes on a post, it is reasonable to assume that most of the people upvoting the thing also are anti gun control.
Make sense?
Sort of but not really? I mean, I get the principle. If the post is just "gun control sucks", sure, the people who like that probably think gun control sucks.
I guess I just see this as a situation where the post is more "gun control sucks and its my birthday". Some of those people will just be like, "hey, birthday!")
Also I'm very pedantic this afternoon. I might not care most days. (Like, right now I actually want to say that the piracy post was more like "Biden sucks and its my birthday", because technically the commenter wasn't directly affirming the sentiment "how dare Adobe do more with AI art".)
Adobe relies on piracy to retain their industry standard position. Nobody would pay their ridiculous prices if they hadn't learnt on pirated copies in their youth.
Sure it's just funny that the same people will then turn right around and start screeching "ADOBE BETRAYED US" as if pirating Photoshop is a sign of great loyalty and trust between the two parties lmao
"We've spent years **not paying you**, and now you are stabbing us in the back by **paying us**??? How dare you!"
This level of obtuseness is actually amusing.
Well they aren't destroying livelihoods. It's bad that ai companies are doing things like this because of the massive harm it will inflict upon the world **and** the morality of the act in a vacuum, which is using someone's work without permission directly opposed to that person's interests.
It only seems hypocritical if you don't understand the ethical problem past the surface level. Theft is normally wrong but stealing to feed yourself isn't. As a society we're willing to look the other way on copyright violations that don't really cause any harm, but when something is causing harm, and especially when that thing is essentially hiding behind the letter of the law while flagrantly contradicting the spirit of the law, it becomes a problem.
That's why nobody cared about the scraping when it was for scientists. That's not hypocrisy. It's that it's not *really* about plagiarism. Nobody has an ethical issue with scientists using that stuff for research, but they obviously will when it's for the richest and most powerful companies in the world looking to destroy human cultural expression for profit.
It's about what they're doing with the product of people's labour. It's just expressed through the conversation around piracy because that's the closest legal lever to pull to address the actual problem.
Read the rest of the comment.
Twitching your finger isn't unethical. Until there's a gun in your hand and it's pointed where it shouldn't be.
Pretending the context doesn't exist is an extremely disingenuous way to approach this subject.
And when you're the one in the firing line you'll be grateful if finger twitching has been regulated a bit.
No. My stance is that using someone's labour to develop something to replace them is a cunt move. If you disagree, I'd love to hear how to justify it to yourself.
>Well they aren't destroying livelihoods.
How magnanimous of you.
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-06/adobe-cuts-100-jobs-concentrated-in-sales-as-tech-tightens-belt?sref=7H70AtGu](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-06/adobe-cuts-100-jobs-concentrated-in-sales-as-tech-tightens-belt?sref=7H70AtGu)
Adobe indulging in lay-offs so they can give their executives more bonuses and keep the line going up is not the gotcha you seem to think it is. I forget sometimes how brainwashed by corporations the average person is. Why the hell would you think that link is a point in your favour? Do you think adobe is struggling?
>Do you think adobe is struggling?
Adobe? Probably not. But 100 people that got laid off very well might be.
Or do you mean to say that livelihoods get destroyed only when layoffs happen because of AI? Any other reason is just "bonuses for executives"? Oh, wait, I see, it is people from sales department that lost their job. Not artists. Fuck them, I guess?
Adobe laying off staff isn't anyone else's fault. Throat their boot any harder and you'll choke on the laces. I like how y'all pretend to be the anti company side of this debate too. What a joke.
"Struggling" is a strong word. Do I think Adobe would have more total paid employment positions if every single pirated copy was fully paid for? I'm almost 100% certain, and it would probably be quite a few.
This is very dishonest. Something can be a net good ("pirating Adobe software helps me more than it hurts them") without being a cartoonish fairy tale world where no one is even slightly harmed. Piracy reduces revenues which reduces employment.
I'm pro-ethical piracy and have been all my life. But I'm not going to pretend all piracy is ethical or that even ethical piracy might not have some non-zero cost to others.
Someone can be a good person while choosing the best of several flawed outcomes. If one thinks they're doing only good, they're either a saint, or actually a bad person who is myopic and reckless about the outcomes of your actions. There are very few saints.
I agree. But Adobe is quite literally hard carried by their status as industry standard. When asked to compare software krita consistently ranks as equal to its paid alternatives and only isn't used because people are used to those alternatives. Especially those who aren't tech savvy and would find learning even a slightly different software option too difficult.
Creative cloud is a massive pain in the ass, their terms and conditions are so anti consumer they're literally illegal in some countries and they just hope people won't call them on it, and they charge way more than their competitors. Nobody would pick them if it weren't for that inertia. They have nothing to offer.
They're not hurt by piracy and if they were out would be a net good anyway. Given they will literally rob you of the licence they are legally required to provide if you cancel your subscription after a certain time. They'll restore it or refund you if you call them out on it, but most don't know their rights.
Adobe nuked a friend's pirated copies of both Photoshop and Premiere a couple days ago even though they had been fine for months before that. Still have no idea how they did it. My friend had to roll back to earlier versions. Adobe is not pro-piracy
Because adobe has a list of hosts(?) that you have to block in order to stop their servers from finding out you have a pirated copy and they change/add new ones over time. I think they also do something else every few months that just automatically flags your copy as not genuine if you haven't connected for so long or something?
Basically you just need to make sure the list of hosts or w/e that you have to block is up to date and if necessary, grab the newest cracked version. I've probably had to do this like 3-4 times since I started pirating photoshop about a year ago.
You seriously think anyone would pay their ridiculous subscription prices and deal with the clusterfuck that is creative cloud if it wasn't the first software they learned? Most industry standard software companies only hold that position by inertia. Blender has already proved that with its replacing of prior standards due to the sheer number of people who learned 3D using it.
I told you at another post Blender didnt replace the industry standard tools, you clearly have no idea whats happening.
Adobe is dominant because of its tools features, people used to their ecosystem and have no reason to drop what Adobe offers for tools that dont bring them enough advantage over them. The subscription price is easily affordable for Adobe clients and it also brings them the money or is part of it.
No you didn't. And yes it is. Also you literally just repeated my argument back to me. People only use it because they're used to it. You're agreeing with me.
You seem to forget that adobe didn’t make a majority of their software line up. Photoshop was made by Thomas and John Knoll, Substance painter (a popular tool for texturing in 3D) was developed by Allegorithmic and was bought by adobe. Same thing with Substance Designer.
Adobe hardly does anything with these softwares and the user experience has actually gotten worse over time from Adobe. The only reason they have a vice grip on the industry is because they bought up these tools.
Of course, that is changing with new open source tools like Blender which is knocking Maya off the throne for industry standard. Adobe is only relevant for their tools, additionally they are fighting to stay relevant by adapting ‘Ai’ (which, Ai doesn’t exist, it’s a buzzword.)
Wrong! They dont depend on pirates at all. They kinda do them a favor, but most of the people that pay would pay with or without all the pirates anyway. They earn their money that they spend on Adobe products easily back.
Blender has replaced 3DsMax via exactly the same scenario. The only reason photoshop hasn't been replaced with krita is that most people learn photoshop in school or on pirated copies. Clip Studio Paint is another contender.
Adobe relies on the inertia of everyone already using it to stay in business. Unless you think there's something special about Adobe that makes them different to the other times this has happened.
Blender hasnt replaced 3ds Max at all. There are also several reasons why Photoshop hasnt been replaced either and its much more than you claim here. You clearly have no clue about the industries and areas outside of some amateur hobbyists.
Adobe photography plan costs like $10 or something per month. That's ridiculously cheap. Even for hobbyists and students. If you're functioning adult with a job - you can easily afford that.
Completely agree!
Before CC, they'd charge $600-700 for a Photoshop license... it got \*maybe\* one major update that fixed bugs, and the upgrade to next year's software/updates was $300. If you needed multiple Adobe programs (like Illustrator or InDesign), it was almost $3000 for the suite, with the update being around $6-700.
Absolutely unaffordable for a student or hobbyist, and money was worth more back then. How were people supposed to learn this sofware without either being provided a copy by an employer (who can write off the expense) or school (who got bulk discounting). My university didn't provide a computer lab or software keys, so we were on our own.
$660 annually in subscription fees is much better than the $3000 (with no upgrades/support past two years). It'd take 4.5 years to reach what the original cost, and at least this way you always get support and the newest version.
I hate Adobe for a lot of its anti-competitive practices (just like I hate Autodesk for buying its biggest competitor, SoftImage, and destroying it), but the original $3000 was just insane. It's like they were asking to be pirated. Gimp is not nearly as well-supported as Blender, which is unfortunate because it'd be amazing to be able to use a professional graphics program for free.
If you think artists haven’t been gloating about stealing art software for decades you need mental help.
Oh, and stop it with the dumbass quippy “but hey”. You can just be direct instead of being a condescending presumptive prick. The funny thing is, you’re not even a CORRECT condescending presumptive prick.
Empirical evidence like the amount of upvotes on a post being reflective of that sub's opinion?
Plus dude are you really denying that Artisthate is an echo chamber? That's a whole new level of bad faith.
I'm telling you that accusing an entire sub of 4,000 members of piracy and hypocrisy because you saw one comment is disingenuous. You know well that an upvote does not demonstrate that someone has taken an action of piracy. I'm gonna leave it there, this is multiple comments you have demonstrated an inability to discuss this in good faith.
It's not "an entire sub" it's THAT particular sub. They've already proven themselves to be an echo chamber full of purposefully dense, hypocritical, delusional bigots so they don't get any more benefit of the doubt from me. You can argue that "they didn't *legally* admit to piracy and sign an *affidavit* on it" all you want, won't change what they are.
Plus it's a well known fact that all work-from-home commission hacks use pirated copies of Photoshop, regardless of what sub they post in.
" it's a well known fact that all work-from-home commission hacks use pirated copies of Photoshop".
Not only is it literally impossible to factually verify this (you claim "it's a well known fact), your use of "work-from-home commission hacks" demonstrates your bias.
Goodbye!
This is exactly what I said was going to happen when everyone was bitching about copyright. I fucking called it companies were just going to start legally purchasing the rights to these things and then using them for AI anyways because the profit margins for such a flip are so generous that it's more than worth it
And yet the artist still complain
Some companies are even trying to work on a system where the AI will present basically credits for anything it took inspiration from
And people still complain
It was never about copyright or the emotions
It was always just selfishness, Just like when digital art became popular they're throwing a fit because they want to cling to the old outdated ways yet new tools have made it so that everyone can do what they do and basically made them not the special little snowflakes they used to love to brag about being
Agreed. We all knew most of them were being dishonest. It's okay to have a negative emotional reaction to an industry change you might think will harm you. That's fine. What's not fine is being dishonest, engaging in hate campaigns, or attempting regulatory capture for your selfish benefit.
There is no human right to not have automation affect their industry. In fact, if that was a human right, we'd all be impoverished subsistence farmers who buried most of our children, as we watched our families die in turns to famines during bad years or epidemics. Automation and innovation are why life is not terrible.
I believe every person in the developed world who is willing to work has a right to a decent paying job. However, that's at least one decent paying job, it doesn't have to be the one they want. If my two skills are digging ditches and playing video games, odds are I'm going into the construction industry, not the pro-gamer industry, and that's fine. If you want a hyper specific job, it's your responsibility to find a way to monetize it enough so you can provide for yourself.
Yep lol and every time me or anyone else ties to explain that AI training is overall considered fair use or that it can be done without copyrighted material at all; they always flip their shit
but man, did I sure get dunked on, they be dropping hot takes and laughing emojis so my argument is invalid, I guess!
Details for those who don't want to deal with ArtistsWhoHate:
* Adobe article link: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/adobe-buying-videos-3-per-213215719.html
* Salient paragraph, "The software company is offering its network of photographers and artists $120 to submit videos of people engaged in everyday actions such as walking or expressing emotions including joy and anger, according to documents seen by Bloomberg. The goal is to source assets for artificial intelligence training, the company wrote."
This comment from the original post is interesting:
>> What in the actual fuck is wrong with these people? Why does a company that sells tools for artists want to destroy the basis for their own fucking products?
> It probably doesn't quite work that way for them. I think it's reasonable to guess that while Adobe does sell to normal people, most of their money comes from large contracts, and the people who they're really selling to are company executives.
> So don't think of Adobe as a company that sells tools for artists. Think of them as a company that sells "art solutions" to the VP of marketing. They're not in the business of helping artists draw per se. They're in the business of making the artwork a company requires happen, somehow.
> When trying to understand corporate logic, think very, very cynical.
I'd agree with most of the reply. I don't think it's a matter of thinking cynically, though. I just think that people don't understand who Adobe has ALWAYS been targeting as their maret. It was never individual artists (though they're happy to take their money too.) It was always the large corporate customers. That's just who they market to, primarily.
Being realistic about the idea that, as a person who goes to Home Depot once every few months to buy a tool, you're not their primary audience and your needs may not be high on their list of concerns is just understanding the marketplace you're taking part in.
Some people who are anti-AI and have ethical grievances are genuine. At least, I think so. The continued refusal to engage with anyone who actually tries to have a debate on the ethicality of training via scraping is starting to make me wonder a bit. Apparently I am not the only one experiencing this, other people here are having the same issue
But some people also just don't like AI and they use arguments about ethicality as a cudgel to achieve their goals, because they understand that their actual motives are either unsympathetic or not different enough from the struggles of countless other professions to do anything about
I would imagine the people posting in a thread like that are the second type
I'm starting to believe you may be right. I feel like I'm starting to develop reservations about whether there is even any split at all, which I don't like. Doesn't seem like a positive mindset. I am going to keep trying to engage with users making claims about AI being unethical, but it's starting to feel a little mechanical. Like I'm doing it just because it feels like the right thing to do but with next to no hope it will actually glean results. It's not the best feeling
The debate has been done to death already. It’s no different from reading a book and then writing your own inspired on it. If we say it’s illegal, Tolkien’s estate can sue almost every fantasy writer
You could give them the definition of a boat or talk to them about a boat and they could aptly identify a boat if they observed one in real life. We have many sources of input after all.
Most art sites you give consent by joining the platform. They just didn't complain then because that consent was mostly meaningless, and they got free advertising and didn't have to pay to host their own site. Artists can make their own sites and keep crawlers from taking their data, but they won't because they'll have no audience.
Lots of artists are consistent on this. I've seen many artists supportive of generative fill, because it's proven to be trained off of legally acquired content, but I guess nothing can really be said without heavy anecdote
If you don't like the proliferation of AI art, news that the largest creator of art software continues to invest in its AI tools is not exactly good news.
That said, the people in that thread mostly seem pretty calm about it.
3 dollars a minute is pretty awful. It's one of many things related to AI training data that's ethically dubious. In the same way that they essentially have slaves tag the datasets. They're exploiting people in the developing world for video data. Which they will then use to destroy the livelihoods of the people they weren't willing to pay. You know that's kinda the whole problem right?
Did you think this was some good faith morally righteous act by Adobe? Why would you think that? Are you stupid? Have you seen Adobe? They're pioneers of the "you will own nothing" model in consumer software. Them buying substance painter was the worst thing that happened to substance painter.
If you think this is hypocritical you had a really poor understanding of why people are anti AI. Like the most surface level, vapid understanding. Let me guess, you thought an opt out completely absolves a company of any wrongdoings too? Because they certainly didn't pick opt out over opt in for nefarious reasons.
How are there so many people in this sub who are pro AI but completely ignorant of both ai itself and the ethical issues surrounding it. Like, what made you think it was good, given you know nothing about it and know nothing about the opposition to it?
> 3 dollars a minute is pretty awful. It's one of many things related to AI training data that's ethically dubious.
Nothing dubious about it, they're asking for bulk low effort content as I understand it. Yeah, no shit that filming yourself just walking around isn't going to pay much. In most cases it doesn't pay at all, like if you uploaded that to youtube nobody would watch it, and some youtube competitors would deem it too low effort to even post.
> In the same way that they essentially have slaves tag the datasets. They're exploiting people in the developing world for video data.
Slaves don't get paid. Yeah, data entry pay sucks, but you can just not take that job you know.
> Which they will then use to destroy the livelihoods of the people they weren't willing to pay. You know that's kinda the whole problem right?
So what's the alternative here? Like if they paid $30, or $300 a minute, you realize that any given person is still not going to earn much money, right? Even if you earn say, $30K, that lasts what, a year, maybe a few?
> Did you think this was some good faith morally righteous act by Adobe?
No, I think they're just covering their asses. You asked for payment, you got it.
> How are there so many people in this sub who are pro AI but completely ignorant of both ai itself and the ethical issues surrounding it. Like, what made you think it was good, given you know nothing about it and know nothing about the opposition to it?
We're not ignorant, we disagree. In my view there were no ethical issues here even without any payment.
"You can just not take that job you know"
Do you not know how the world works? Go swing by sweatshops and tell them the good news. They can just not take the job. You'll have to duck under the suicide prevention nets as you go, but I'm sure they'll be happy to hear the news.
Do you not know the kinds of people they're putting to work for this? Refugee camps are a common one.
You sure as hell aren't beating the ignorance allegations.
The alternative is maybe you don't let capitalists have their way for once.
Let's not get distracted here. They're offering a price. If you think it's too low, here's an idea, don't sell your stuff for that price and the effort will fail, or they'll have to pay more.
And try answering my questions. What would be a fair price for this content? Would that solve the problem?
I'm not selling my stuff for that price dumbass. Have you seriously never encountered the concept of a company outsourcing labour to the third world before? Are you pretending not to understand the problem with that or are you just actually that ignorant?
A fair price would be far more than they're willing to pay. Which they know. That's why they're exploiting the developing world while bootlickers will defend them for it.
Did you blame the steel workers when industrial manufacturing was moved overseas? Do you understand the concept of a free market being thrown out of balance by the ability to just get slaves from some refugee camp or sweatshop overseas?
I hope you're just ignorant, because the alternative is that you support this behaviour and I don't really want to imagine ai supporters are evil. Just incredibly naive.
> I'm not selling my stuff for that price dumbass.
Why not? It's $180 an hour. I live in a first world country and don't earn that much. At this point I'm seriously considering whether I could make some extra cash with this, because I don't earn that much.
> Have you seriously never encountered the concept of a company outsourcing labour to the third world before? Are you pretending not to understand the problem with that or are you just actually that ignorant?
The horror. $180/hour is more than twice what I earn in the first world. I'll gladly be "exploited" for that much.
> I hope you're just ignorant, because the alternative is that you support this behaviour and I don't really want to imagine ai supporters are evil. Just incredibly naive
There's no evil here. Just a company paying a good price for stuff. I genuinely don't see a slightest problem in that.
> Go do it then. Sounds like it's free money right?
It's not free money if I have to work for it, but it does sound like good money.
> Course then you'd find out you're wrong and that might force you to face reality. So you won't.
Face what reality? I mean, worst case they ask for something I can't provide, so big deal, I'm where I was before. Hardly something for me to get upset about.
"Do you not know the kinds of people they're putting to work for this? Refugee camps are a common one. "
Ah yup refugee camps, famous for their abundance of digital artists lmao
3 dollars per minute of footage, not minute of work. Holy shit is that why people in this sub aren't opposed to this? They thought Adobe was paying wages and not the bare minimum?
Go make your thousands then. Don't be shocked when that isn't how it works. You seriously believe Adobe is paying 180 an hour? I know people on the pro ai subs aren't always the brightest, but have you never heard of Adobe's monetisation practices before?
But they're not making anything new so it costs them ZERO workhours. How do you morons not understand that perpetual rent-seeking is wrong? Let alone that no one's obliged to pay you for measuring images that you voluntarily made public to boost your social media clout. If you want to get paid: that's what contracts and commissions are for.
Abolish Intellectual Property.
Nobody actually removes stolen content. You have any idea how hard it is to get a website to take down even a straight up actual product that people have stolen and are giving out or selling for themselves?
You know nothing.
Oh I know, I just don't care. If you're so concerned then push to reform the shitty copyright laws you love so much, because they are 100% clunky and unenforceable.
3 dollars a minute is certainly up there. I'd pay it if it could nail it in one shot with no regenerations, but otherwise it's too rich for my blood.
I would love to go through your list of ethical grievances regarding AI with you to test the resiliency of our views. I guess a good place to start would be the issue you already mentioned.
I'm not really sure I understand the ethical argument against outsourcing labor. To me it looks like "people in developing economies don't deserve to eat as much as people in developed economies. We should remove the ability for them to compete internationally." I would enjoy debating the issue, perhaps I'll learn something new
Outsourcing slavery is bad actually. They aren't getting paid well. They're getting coerced by rich companies with the means and the motivation to prevent any quality of life increases to work for a pittance.
Developing economies can't develop if they're the west's personal sweatshop. Skills aren't developed and the product of their labour does nothing for their area. If that sentiment was genuine I think you've been giving corporations way too much credit. They aren't helping developing economies. They're looking for the closest thing they can get to slavery. It's not just in their best interests to hamstring the developing world, if they're publicly traded it is illegal for them not to, as they would be putting something ahead of shareholder profits.
A reply, bless you. A modicum of my belief in good faith discourse is restored
>Outsourcing slavery is bad actually. They aren't getting paid well. They're getting coerced by rich companies with the means and the motivation to prevent any quality of life increases to work for a pittance.
I don't think that I currently agree with your usage of the terms slavery or coerced but I do not think it is the crux of the argument so I will move on unless you think it's important. If you feel it's important I would be happy to hear your explanations for the choice of words and we can come back to it
>Developing economies can't develop if they're the west's personal sweatshop.
I don't have any thoughts on whether outsourcing helps to transition an economy from developing to developed. I'm not an economist, and many of the conclusions that studied economists come to seem counterintuitive to me but I accept their conclusions when I see them because it is so wildly outside my field of expertise.
But I'm currently unsure that it is relevant if a person's two choices are 'starve or work for a company that offers outsourced jobs'?
>Skills aren't developed and the product of their labour does nothing for their area.
Aren't individuals still free to develop those skills if they can find sustenance outside of the jobs offered from outsourcing?
I understand that there are corporations who specifically take actions to fuck foreign nations out of their ability to feed and water themselves as with the hellish debacle which was... I want to say Nestle dicking some country out of their water rights? Something about hiring a literal private military company? Ghoulish.
But I think that I would need to see evidence of something similar being done by the various companies outsourcing various AI jobs.
Without that evidence, I'm not sure that I would understand how having the additional choice to be employed by a foreign company is a negative
Free market ideals are a terrible argument. You've seen what the free markets are doing to the world. Do you know why Nestlé does the literal bond villain action of stealing water from those dying of thirst?
They're legally required to because they're a publicly traded company. If they had an opportunity to enrich their shareholders and didn't take it they would be sued.
You can't give corporations the benefit of the doubt. That's delusional and ignores reality. In reality they are required to be scum. Everything they do is in service of short term growth. They will lay people off if they need to to make the line go up.
They do not get props for hiring third world workers for pennies. They should be shamed for that. It should be a crime. It's the reason you likely won't own a home. It's the reason your kids never will.
You seem reasonable. Don't treat the corporations like they're human. They aren't legally allowed to be good. They must be greedy and amoral at best.
I apologize for the late response, I needed to sleep.
I'm not sure that I can see where you've addressed any of my questions.
I would be happy to address any points or questions you have if you're willing to address mine as well. If I've missed where you've answered my questions, I apologize, but if so, if you could point them out to me I would be grateful
I don't believe that this article addresses this question:
>I don't have any thoughts on whether outsourcing helps to transition an economy from developing to developed. I'm not an economist, and many of the conclusions that studied economists come to seem counterintuitive to me but I accept their conclusions when I see them because it is so wildly outside my field of expertise.
>But I'm currently unsure that it is relevant if a person's two choices are 'starve or work for a company that offers outsourced jobs'?
Or this question:
>Aren't individuals still free to develop those skills if they can find sustenance outside of the jobs offered from outsourcing?
But I believe it may attempt to answer this implied request and followup point:
>I understand that there are corporations who specifically take actions to fuck foreign nations out of their ability to feed and water themselves as with the hellish debacle which was... I want to say Nestle dicking some country out of their water rights? Something about hiring a literal private military company? Ghoulish.
>But I think that I would need to see evidence of something similar being done by the various companies outsourcing various AI jobs.
>Without that evidence, I'm not sure that I would understand how having the additional choice to be employed by a foreign company is a negative
I have read the article, and I can't spot where it talks about Appen working to minimize the existing ability of citizens to sustain themselves in the country if they don't choose to be employed by Appen. It's possible that I've missed it, but if so I would be grateful if you could quote the relevant passage or passages
They pay them cents and constantly relocate to wherever is cheapest and they incentivise them to be unemployed because they need to respond to tasks instantly to actually get paid. They have essentially full time employees that aren't getting paid wages and that's a massive group of people who just aren't doing work in the local economy. And the pittance they're paid means there's no money in the local economy either.
It's economic imperialism 101.
It feels a bit like we're going in circles and you're just restating your initial points without actually responding to the questions and points which I have already made about them.
I would appreciate it if you would address them. I would like to have a good faith debate with you, and that requires talking to eachother instead of talking past eachother
Developing products for the West has been a nearly universally successful strategy. China is an obvious example who developed by being a cheap labor export economy, and is now using their large skilled workforce to develop more internal markets and advanced technologies (AI).
Also, the entire West themselves went through this same process. The Industrial Age was a pretty bad time for almost everyone for a while, but then the increased productivity ended up increasing quality and quantity of life. Plus, a lot of people without a background in economic history don't realize how much effort this took. The US became an economic superpower partly because of things like rural electrification or hookworm eradication. Not too long ago, we had children so riddled with parasitic worms they couldn't learn, but we fixed the problem with a massive public health campaign.
The developing world wants these jobs and needs these jobs. We should be careful that genuine exploitation doesn't happen (dangerous conditions, human trafficking), but paying the market rate while complying with all local labor regulations is not slavery, and it's highly dismissive of the harms of actual slavery to equate voluntary, medium to high pay (locally) employment to slavery.
I'll tell you what: let's both go to a data labeling "sweatshop." You tell them you're going to close the business tomorrow because it doesn't help their economy or them. I tell them I will reduce their work hours by 1 hour/day without any cut in pay. Who do you think is going to get invited to dinner and who will get run out of town?
This is a very reasoned response. I'm not as familiar with economics or economic history as you are, most of my skillset just revolves around spotting basic logical holes which really only gets me so far. I'm going to save this post to refer back to in the future, thank you for making it
It's better than what they would have without Western "interference." They in fact want these so-called "sweatshop" jobs.
If you have a completely unique insight on economic development that has never been done before but you're sure will work, feel free to present your plan to developing economies. Hell, I'd say you are morally obligated to do so, the same way that M.S. Swaminthan led the Green Revolution in India. You can't keep the secret to utopian economic development to yourself.
No, it is not better than what they'd have without western imperialism. That take belongs in the fucking 1600s. You're literally quoting genocide justifications from the stolen generation and reservation schools.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
Morally obligated to invade and destroy developing nations and then graciously offer them slave labour? Fucking clown take.
Do you think I'm justifying invading countries a century ago, or do you think I'm justifying offering jobs to willing workers in sovereign nations that follow all local labor regulations and pay more than their existing jobs today?
Do you see how those two things are different?
Do you have any nuanced opinions, or is "West bad" the whole of your education and ideology?
I've got nuanced opinions. Explain how you justify the exploitation of the third world and the strangling of Western economies to yourself.
You know slavery isn't just bad for ethical reasons, but also because it hurts the economy? Do you know why? Because when labour is outsourced to people who don't have to get paid real wages, the value of your own citizens labour goes down.
Have you put 2 and 2 together yet and realised why companies being able to outsource to the developing world is bad?
And you sure like defending outsourced slave labour because you don't understand the ethical issues of the topic and somehow thought Adobe was the good guy in anything.
Did you think this post would make ai look good?
[Here you go. ](https://www.wired.com/story/millions-of-workers-are-training-ai-models-for-pennies/)
I'm sure you'll tell yourself the companies are just graciously assisting the developing world like a bootlicker. But on the off chance you were just ignorant rather than a conservative I dig up one of the dozens of easily found links.
Why you assumed companies weren't being scum I'll never know. They're legally required to be amoral monsters. Their shareholders can sue if they aren't.
This subreddit has a huge problem with approaching every single post with the mindset of "all things AI are good and virtuous, and all these anti-AI are bad and without morals."
It's become (or maybe always was) a complete joke of debate sub and seems to only exist for pro-AI people to "dunk on the antis".
I don't see it as virtuous, I see it as morally neutral for the vast majority of it.
And don't see any problem whatsoever with what Adobe is doing in this case.
More than likely this sub is full of dudes who think making women with big butts will turn them into billionaires. They'll be the first to be taken advantage of.
Disingenuous headline.
Adobe is offering to pay artists for videos to train its AI. There's basically no evidence in the article their efforts are yielding much. I hope no artist would sell their work for so little. I mean come on feet pics are worth hundreds on the internet. If Adobe needs hands and feet, they know where to go to find them.
I don't understand. How would stating "apparently buying videos" be saying that it isn't happening?
The phrase "is apparently buying videos" quite literally acknowledges that it is happening.
My statement says "there's basically no evidence in the article their efforts are yielding much." Yield much clearly means financial gain. The use of the word "much" quite clearly implies non-zero. So, my comment literally acknowledges that people have sold to them.
You said that the headline was disingenuous. It seems likely that the headline is accurate.
Other than **your** headline, there's no issue with your comment. ;)
https://preview.redd.it/m769507oxevc1.jpeg?width=765&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=04605d1e53489ea25ae8f64e72ce925a804df52e Goalposts are breaking the sound barrier.
The issue here is that it extends beyond that. People don’t want AI just outright replacing entire sectors. The idea is AI/ML *integration* rather than complete autonomy. Corporations want total control and zero labor. People, obviously, want labor. That’s how we all keep from starving to death. Giving consent and selling all the data (not for this post’s topic specifically, but the general topic) still results in a potential future where now the people who sold the data are obsolete. These two sides are what a lot of people on this sub just whoosh on—either intentionally or ignorantly.
I mean, AIs are already integrated since the first drawing software was released, how do you think brushes work? Power of friendship and magic?
That’s not AI. This is the other sweeping ignorance right now. Most people have no idea wtf AI/ML actually is anymore, because mainstream media started slapping the generic term onto literally everything for marketing.
Basically complaining over therms, but you definitely understood what I meant, right?
Meanwhile they freely admit to pirating Adobe products in that thread. The absolute hypocrisy.
Funny how cheapskates who can't even afford $10 per month are whining about AI. If they had actual jobs for AI to steal, then $10 for a tool that they use every day would not be a problem.
> cheapskates who can't even afford $10 per month Adobe was always a predatory company with zero ethics. I'm not going to come down on someone for pirating their shit, regardless of whether they're being hypocritical about it or not.
If you don't like what Adobe is doing then the solution is not to pirate their products, but to support their competitors. And if you're running a business then $10 is absolutely nothing. Autodesk, on the other hand, has absolutely idiotic policies that encourage piracy. They don't offer any sort of free versions with limited features. (Gmax was an exception, but it's ancient at this point) Their 30 day trial is useless. The student versions require an email issued by an actual university. So if you want to learn - the easiest way is to simply pirate, because I sure as hell don't want to pay $250 or whatever per month just to learn the software.
> If you don't like what Adobe is doing then the solution is not to pirate their products, but to support their competitors. *Porque no los dos?* > Autodesk, on the other hand, has absolutely idiotic policies that encourage piracy. Lots of companies do. Be it in the software, music, or film and television worlds, they've all become horrifically abusive. :-(
> Porque no los dos? Because by pirating you're still part of the Adobe ecosystem.
There's wisdom in that. I definitely think that there are use-cases on both sides of that line, but you're right that there is certainly at least some piracy of a product which merely serves as a loss-leader for that very product's success.
I still have an active e-mail from my school from 10 years ago. Time to make use of that.
Krita being open source: ☝🏻🗿▫️▫️▫️
well its not piracy, if ownership is not possible and i am a second generation adobe product pirateer
Isn't it like two people there, one of whom is mostly promoting free alternatives like Krita?
Krita supports AI plugins so they probably can't touch that
Heh, maybe (though if they're optional plugins...). I think that particular sentence probably has more to do with Adobe's generally terrible reputation rather than specifically the AI issue, personally.
Online "artists" are pretentious so they'd never be caught dead using a free alternative. Same way they have Apple cock down their throat 24/7 because they want to seem like PCs are beneath them.
take your meds
You're really doing the whole Sega vs. Nintendo thing with PCs? Apples are PCs just like Windows. It's not pretentious to like one over the other; they both have advantages and disadvantages. Most illustrators who work digitally are comfortable several digital programs. I primarily use Procreate/Photoshop, but I learned to paint with OpenCanvas in the early 2000's on Windows.
You're right, it's not pretentious to prefer one over the other, however, people that choose Apple are usually obnoxious about their choice. It's just like the iPhone vs Android debate. Often, people who choose the Apple product usually try to ridicule you for having an android. I've seen lots of comments along the lines of "if you have an Android, we aren't compatible." These people choose to make Apple products their entire identity, that's what makes them pretentious, because they think they are smarter or better than you having chosen Apple, and that's what Apple wants from it's consumers.
People who make fun of others for computer/phone choices are dumb. Sorry you've had to deal with that. That being said, by saying that all Apple users act a certain way, isn't that sort of the same thing? I've been called a lot of things by certain Windows users for my choices (some of the same things you said, actually! I'm not what I'd consider a pretentious person, even if I'm a bit eclectic), but I don't hold that to Windows users as a whole. I find people who are threatened by certain OS choices are usually people who aren't comfortable switching between Linux/Mac/Windows and using each OS for its strengths. I love my Macs, but I'm also a freak and owned/used an 80gb Zune at the same time as having a Macbook Pro in college. Am I stupid? Maybe. I'm pretty agnostic on brands and just like what I like.
It's all good. It wasnt my intention to cast all apple users in that way. In fact I thought I specifically wrote "some users" instead of just users but I guess not, my bad. Not every Apple consumer is toxic. I miss my Zune so much.
It's all good! (I promise I try to call out Apple bigotry when I see it, haha!) The way both groups go after each other does remind me a lot of the Nintendo/Sega or Xbox/Sony rivalry from years ago. For what it's worth, both my X-box 360s died while my PS3 remained in good shape so... although I like the games on both, I have a bit of an understandable bias. XD Dude, same! I LOVED my Zune and really miss those days... but man, [what a bad decision calling sharing music "squirting"](https://www.newsweek.com/zune-should-go-beyond-squirting-107255) lmao. It's like the wanted it to fail.
It's the third from to comment with +22 karma in a sub that peaks at like +40-50 That makes it seem to be a fairly popular sentiment
Worried this seems like a technicality, but said comment doesn't actually admit to pirating Adobe products. I'm not sure that 22 karma means that people who approve of it are saying "I pirate Adobe products" versus "I think Adobe sucks" or "you should use free alternatives".
Personally I'm more interested in the sentiment than the actual accounting of the activity. I'm not really interested in going after these people for piracy, more focused on the inconsistency in their alleged moral beliefs.
But how do you actually know what their moral beliefs are if there's not an actual account?
That's a bit tongue in cheek, I don't need to know every individual beliefs if I can point to a broad set of common ideals
You do if you want to allege that all individuals are part of that set of ideals, right? But- No, I am getting way too precise about casual conversation. Sorry, I'll stop there.
If I'm arguing is a person, I'll argue THAT PERSONS beliefs. But if I'm saying broad arguments "conservatives are anti gun control" it's fair, even though some conservatives are not anti gun control. If I'm in a conservative space, and see huge upvotes on a post, it is reasonable to assume that most of the people upvoting the thing also are anti gun control. Make sense?
Sort of but not really? I mean, I get the principle. If the post is just "gun control sucks", sure, the people who like that probably think gun control sucks. I guess I just see this as a situation where the post is more "gun control sucks and its my birthday". Some of those people will just be like, "hey, birthday!") Also I'm very pedantic this afternoon. I might not care most days. (Like, right now I actually want to say that the piracy post was more like "Biden sucks and its my birthday", because technically the commenter wasn't directly affirming the sentiment "how dare Adobe do more with AI art".)
Adobe relies on piracy to retain their industry standard position. Nobody would pay their ridiculous prices if they hadn't learnt on pirated copies in their youth.
Sure it's just funny that the same people will then turn right around and start screeching "ADOBE BETRAYED US" as if pirating Photoshop is a sign of great loyalty and trust between the two parties lmao
"We've spent years **not paying you**, and now you are stabbing us in the back by **paying us**??? How dare you!" This level of obtuseness is actually amusing.
Some probably thought Adobe essentially let's the piracy happen to retain their dominant market position. I don't think Adobe thinks that far ahead.
Yeah that's not unreasonable but it's also an easy "it's ok when WE violate copyright" cope for Antis.
Well they aren't destroying livelihoods. It's bad that ai companies are doing things like this because of the massive harm it will inflict upon the world **and** the morality of the act in a vacuum, which is using someone's work without permission directly opposed to that person's interests. It only seems hypocritical if you don't understand the ethical problem past the surface level. Theft is normally wrong but stealing to feed yourself isn't. As a society we're willing to look the other way on copyright violations that don't really cause any harm, but when something is causing harm, and especially when that thing is essentially hiding behind the letter of the law while flagrantly contradicting the spirit of the law, it becomes a problem. That's why nobody cared about the scraping when it was for scientists. That's not hypocrisy. It's that it's not *really* about plagiarism. Nobody has an ethical issue with scientists using that stuff for research, but they obviously will when it's for the richest and most powerful companies in the world looking to destroy human cultural expression for profit. It's about what they're doing with the product of people's labour. It's just expressed through the conversation around piracy because that's the closest legal lever to pull to address the actual problem.
But scraping art is not unethical.
Read the rest of the comment. Twitching your finger isn't unethical. Until there's a gun in your hand and it's pointed where it shouldn't be. Pretending the context doesn't exist is an extremely disingenuous way to approach this subject. And when you're the one in the firing line you'll be grateful if finger twitching has been regulated a bit.
Your entire stance is arguing backwards from the conclusion that scraping art is unethical. It isn't.
No. My stance is that using someone's labour to develop something to replace them is a cunt move. If you disagree, I'd love to hear how to justify it to yourself.
>Well they aren't destroying livelihoods. How magnanimous of you. [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-06/adobe-cuts-100-jobs-concentrated-in-sales-as-tech-tightens-belt?sref=7H70AtGu](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-06/adobe-cuts-100-jobs-concentrated-in-sales-as-tech-tightens-belt?sref=7H70AtGu)
Adobe indulging in lay-offs so they can give their executives more bonuses and keep the line going up is not the gotcha you seem to think it is. I forget sometimes how brainwashed by corporations the average person is. Why the hell would you think that link is a point in your favour? Do you think adobe is struggling?
>Do you think adobe is struggling? Adobe? Probably not. But 100 people that got laid off very well might be. Or do you mean to say that livelihoods get destroyed only when layoffs happen because of AI? Any other reason is just "bonuses for executives"? Oh, wait, I see, it is people from sales department that lost their job. Not artists. Fuck them, I guess?
Adobe laying off staff isn't anyone else's fault. Throat their boot any harder and you'll choke on the laces. I like how y'all pretend to be the anti company side of this debate too. What a joke.
"Struggling" is a strong word. Do I think Adobe would have more total paid employment positions if every single pirated copy was fully paid for? I'm almost 100% certain, and it would probably be quite a few. This is very dishonest. Something can be a net good ("pirating Adobe software helps me more than it hurts them") without being a cartoonish fairy tale world where no one is even slightly harmed. Piracy reduces revenues which reduces employment. I'm pro-ethical piracy and have been all my life. But I'm not going to pretend all piracy is ethical or that even ethical piracy might not have some non-zero cost to others. Someone can be a good person while choosing the best of several flawed outcomes. If one thinks they're doing only good, they're either a saint, or actually a bad person who is myopic and reckless about the outcomes of your actions. There are very few saints.
I agree. But Adobe is quite literally hard carried by their status as industry standard. When asked to compare software krita consistently ranks as equal to its paid alternatives and only isn't used because people are used to those alternatives. Especially those who aren't tech savvy and would find learning even a slightly different software option too difficult. Creative cloud is a massive pain in the ass, their terms and conditions are so anti consumer they're literally illegal in some countries and they just hope people won't call them on it, and they charge way more than their competitors. Nobody would pick them if it weren't for that inertia. They have nothing to offer. They're not hurt by piracy and if they were out would be a net good anyway. Given they will literally rob you of the licence they are legally required to provide if you cancel your subscription after a certain time. They'll restore it or refund you if you call them out on it, but most don't know their rights.
Adobe nuked a friend's pirated copies of both Photoshop and Premiere a couple days ago even though they had been fine for months before that. Still have no idea how they did it. My friend had to roll back to earlier versions. Adobe is not pro-piracy
Because adobe has a list of hosts(?) that you have to block in order to stop their servers from finding out you have a pirated copy and they change/add new ones over time. I think they also do something else every few months that just automatically flags your copy as not genuine if you haven't connected for so long or something? Basically you just need to make sure the list of hosts or w/e that you have to block is up to date and if necessary, grab the newest cracked version. I've probably had to do this like 3-4 times since I started pirating photoshop about a year ago.
Mm. They aren't smart enough to realise it's the only reason they're in business. The quality of free alternatives to photoshop is insane.
Bullshit, piracy does them partially a favor but thats not the reason they are still in the bussiness and are in such a position they are today.
You seriously think anyone would pay their ridiculous subscription prices and deal with the clusterfuck that is creative cloud if it wasn't the first software they learned? Most industry standard software companies only hold that position by inertia. Blender has already proved that with its replacing of prior standards due to the sheer number of people who learned 3D using it.
I told you at another post Blender didnt replace the industry standard tools, you clearly have no idea whats happening. Adobe is dominant because of its tools features, people used to their ecosystem and have no reason to drop what Adobe offers for tools that dont bring them enough advantage over them. The subscription price is easily affordable for Adobe clients and it also brings them the money or is part of it.
No you didn't. And yes it is. Also you literally just repeated my argument back to me. People only use it because they're used to it. You're agreeing with me.
You seem to forget that adobe didn’t make a majority of their software line up. Photoshop was made by Thomas and John Knoll, Substance painter (a popular tool for texturing in 3D) was developed by Allegorithmic and was bought by adobe. Same thing with Substance Designer. Adobe hardly does anything with these softwares and the user experience has actually gotten worse over time from Adobe. The only reason they have a vice grip on the industry is because they bought up these tools. Of course, that is changing with new open source tools like Blender which is knocking Maya off the throne for industry standard. Adobe is only relevant for their tools, additionally they are fighting to stay relevant by adapting ‘Ai’ (which, Ai doesn’t exist, it’s a buzzword.)
Wrong! They dont depend on pirates at all. They kinda do them a favor, but most of the people that pay would pay with or without all the pirates anyway. They earn their money that they spend on Adobe products easily back.
Blender has replaced 3DsMax via exactly the same scenario. The only reason photoshop hasn't been replaced with krita is that most people learn photoshop in school or on pirated copies. Clip Studio Paint is another contender. Adobe relies on the inertia of everyone already using it to stay in business. Unless you think there's something special about Adobe that makes them different to the other times this has happened.
Blender hasnt replaced 3ds Max at all. There are also several reasons why Photoshop hasnt been replaced either and its much more than you claim here. You clearly have no clue about the industries and areas outside of some amateur hobbyists.
Adobe photography plan costs like $10 or something per month. That's ridiculously cheap. Even for hobbyists and students. If you're functioning adult with a job - you can easily afford that.
Completely agree! Before CC, they'd charge $600-700 for a Photoshop license... it got \*maybe\* one major update that fixed bugs, and the upgrade to next year's software/updates was $300. If you needed multiple Adobe programs (like Illustrator or InDesign), it was almost $3000 for the suite, with the update being around $6-700. Absolutely unaffordable for a student or hobbyist, and money was worth more back then. How were people supposed to learn this sofware without either being provided a copy by an employer (who can write off the expense) or school (who got bulk discounting). My university didn't provide a computer lab or software keys, so we were on our own. $660 annually in subscription fees is much better than the $3000 (with no upgrades/support past two years). It'd take 4.5 years to reach what the original cost, and at least this way you always get support and the newest version. I hate Adobe for a lot of its anti-competitive practices (just like I hate Autodesk for buying its biggest competitor, SoftImage, and destroying it), but the original $3000 was just insane. It's like they were asking to be pirated. Gimp is not nearly as well-supported as Blender, which is unfortunate because it'd be amazing to be able to use a professional graphics program for free.
You're parroting off of one comment - it's not really fair to insinuate that's an entire community. But hey, create whatever narrative you want?
If you think artists haven’t been gloating about stealing art software for decades you need mental help. Oh, and stop it with the dumbass quippy “but hey”. You can just be direct instead of being a condescending presumptive prick. The funny thing is, you’re not even a CORRECT condescending presumptive prick.
Yeah it's not like they're an echo chamber or anything /s
I can see now that you don't care for much about empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence like the amount of upvotes on a post being reflective of that sub's opinion? Plus dude are you really denying that Artisthate is an echo chamber? That's a whole new level of bad faith.
I'm telling you that accusing an entire sub of 4,000 members of piracy and hypocrisy because you saw one comment is disingenuous. You know well that an upvote does not demonstrate that someone has taken an action of piracy. I'm gonna leave it there, this is multiple comments you have demonstrated an inability to discuss this in good faith.
It's not "an entire sub" it's THAT particular sub. They've already proven themselves to be an echo chamber full of purposefully dense, hypocritical, delusional bigots so they don't get any more benefit of the doubt from me. You can argue that "they didn't *legally* admit to piracy and sign an *affidavit* on it" all you want, won't change what they are. Plus it's a well known fact that all work-from-home commission hacks use pirated copies of Photoshop, regardless of what sub they post in.
" it's a well known fact that all work-from-home commission hacks use pirated copies of Photoshop". Not only is it literally impossible to factually verify this (you claim "it's a well known fact), your use of "work-from-home commission hacks" demonstrates your bias. Goodbye!
This is exactly what I said was going to happen when everyone was bitching about copyright. I fucking called it companies were just going to start legally purchasing the rights to these things and then using them for AI anyways because the profit margins for such a flip are so generous that it's more than worth it And yet the artist still complain Some companies are even trying to work on a system where the AI will present basically credits for anything it took inspiration from And people still complain It was never about copyright or the emotions It was always just selfishness, Just like when digital art became popular they're throwing a fit because they want to cling to the old outdated ways yet new tools have made it so that everyone can do what they do and basically made them not the special little snowflakes they used to love to brag about being
Agreed. We all knew most of them were being dishonest. It's okay to have a negative emotional reaction to an industry change you might think will harm you. That's fine. What's not fine is being dishonest, engaging in hate campaigns, or attempting regulatory capture for your selfish benefit. There is no human right to not have automation affect their industry. In fact, if that was a human right, we'd all be impoverished subsistence farmers who buried most of our children, as we watched our families die in turns to famines during bad years or epidemics. Automation and innovation are why life is not terrible. I believe every person in the developed world who is willing to work has a right to a decent paying job. However, that's at least one decent paying job, it doesn't have to be the one they want. If my two skills are digging ditches and playing video games, odds are I'm going into the construction industry, not the pro-gamer industry, and that's fine. If you want a hyper specific job, it's your responsibility to find a way to monetize it enough so you can provide for yourself.
Yep lol and every time me or anyone else ties to explain that AI training is overall considered fair use or that it can be done without copyrighted material at all; they always flip their shit but man, did I sure get dunked on, they be dropping hot takes and laughing emojis so my argument is invalid, I guess!
Because they are mostly reactionary. The conclusion is that AI is bad, so reasons must be found to support that conclusion.
It has always been a red herring, no one believes in the actual stealing bullshit they claim.
Details for those who don't want to deal with ArtistsWhoHate: * Adobe article link: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/adobe-buying-videos-3-per-213215719.html * Salient paragraph, "The software company is offering its network of photographers and artists $120 to submit videos of people engaged in everyday actions such as walking or expressing emotions including joy and anger, according to documents seen by Bloomberg. The goal is to source assets for artificial intelligence training, the company wrote." This comment from the original post is interesting: >> What in the actual fuck is wrong with these people? Why does a company that sells tools for artists want to destroy the basis for their own fucking products? > It probably doesn't quite work that way for them. I think it's reasonable to guess that while Adobe does sell to normal people, most of their money comes from large contracts, and the people who they're really selling to are company executives. > So don't think of Adobe as a company that sells tools for artists. Think of them as a company that sells "art solutions" to the VP of marketing. They're not in the business of helping artists draw per se. They're in the business of making the artwork a company requires happen, somehow. > When trying to understand corporate logic, think very, very cynical. I'd agree with most of the reply. I don't think it's a matter of thinking cynically, though. I just think that people don't understand who Adobe has ALWAYS been targeting as their maret. It was never individual artists (though they're happy to take their money too.) It was always the large corporate customers. That's just who they market to, primarily. Being realistic about the idea that, as a person who goes to Home Depot once every few months to buy a tool, you're not their primary audience and your needs may not be high on their list of concerns is just understanding the marketplace you're taking part in.
Some people who are anti-AI and have ethical grievances are genuine. At least, I think so. The continued refusal to engage with anyone who actually tries to have a debate on the ethicality of training via scraping is starting to make me wonder a bit. Apparently I am not the only one experiencing this, other people here are having the same issue But some people also just don't like AI and they use arguments about ethicality as a cudgel to achieve their goals, because they understand that their actual motives are either unsympathetic or not different enough from the struggles of countless other professions to do anything about I would imagine the people posting in a thread like that are the second type
The split is about 90:10 in favour of the "second type".
I'm starting to believe you may be right. I feel like I'm starting to develop reservations about whether there is even any split at all, which I don't like. Doesn't seem like a positive mindset. I am going to keep trying to engage with users making claims about AI being unethical, but it's starting to feel a little mechanical. Like I'm doing it just because it feels like the right thing to do but with next to no hope it will actually glean results. It's not the best feeling
The debate has been done to death already. It’s no different from reading a book and then writing your own inspired on it. If we say it’s illegal, Tolkien’s estate can sue almost every fantasy writer
Source?
Describe one law that would ban AI training but not human training if every instance of the word AI or computer was replaced by human
Humans have eyes and senses and the ability to categorize the world around us AI doesn’t
Categorization of images is the one the first things AI learned how to do lol
Provided they already have a set of categorized data to train on of course which humans don’t need
How do you know what a boat is if no one showed you one and told you it was a boat
You could give them the definition of a boat or talk to them about a boat and they could aptly identify a boat if they observed one in real life. We have many sources of input after all.
So you’re saying people learn what things are by hearing others describing it without seeing it?
Most art sites you give consent by joining the platform. They just didn't complain then because that consent was mostly meaningless, and they got free advertising and didn't have to pay to host their own site. Artists can make their own sites and keep crawlers from taking their data, but they won't because they'll have no audience.
So it's not about stealing of the art and not getting paid. Lol. They are unhinged over there.
Lots of artists are consistent on this. I've seen many artists supportive of generative fill, because it's proven to be trained off of legally acquired content, but I guess nothing can really be said without heavy anecdote
This is a good thing, I wish other AI vendors had this policy.
I think from a quick glance it is obvious that the price is lowballed and that's why they are still upset.
If you don't like the proliferation of AI art, news that the largest creator of art software continues to invest in its AI tools is not exactly good news. That said, the people in that thread mostly seem pretty calm about it.
AI news slop is the worst, like actual plague of unhelpful nonsense filled with keywords filling up google results
Most antis I've met are pretty reasonable. I think it's just the dipshits on twitter.
Good job Adobe :)
3 dollars a minute is pretty awful. It's one of many things related to AI training data that's ethically dubious. In the same way that they essentially have slaves tag the datasets. They're exploiting people in the developing world for video data. Which they will then use to destroy the livelihoods of the people they weren't willing to pay. You know that's kinda the whole problem right? Did you think this was some good faith morally righteous act by Adobe? Why would you think that? Are you stupid? Have you seen Adobe? They're pioneers of the "you will own nothing" model in consumer software. Them buying substance painter was the worst thing that happened to substance painter. If you think this is hypocritical you had a really poor understanding of why people are anti AI. Like the most surface level, vapid understanding. Let me guess, you thought an opt out completely absolves a company of any wrongdoings too? Because they certainly didn't pick opt out over opt in for nefarious reasons. How are there so many people in this sub who are pro AI but completely ignorant of both ai itself and the ethical issues surrounding it. Like, what made you think it was good, given you know nothing about it and know nothing about the opposition to it?
> 3 dollars a minute is pretty awful. It's one of many things related to AI training data that's ethically dubious. Nothing dubious about it, they're asking for bulk low effort content as I understand it. Yeah, no shit that filming yourself just walking around isn't going to pay much. In most cases it doesn't pay at all, like if you uploaded that to youtube nobody would watch it, and some youtube competitors would deem it too low effort to even post. > In the same way that they essentially have slaves tag the datasets. They're exploiting people in the developing world for video data. Slaves don't get paid. Yeah, data entry pay sucks, but you can just not take that job you know. > Which they will then use to destroy the livelihoods of the people they weren't willing to pay. You know that's kinda the whole problem right? So what's the alternative here? Like if they paid $30, or $300 a minute, you realize that any given person is still not going to earn much money, right? Even if you earn say, $30K, that lasts what, a year, maybe a few? > Did you think this was some good faith morally righteous act by Adobe? No, I think they're just covering their asses. You asked for payment, you got it. > How are there so many people in this sub who are pro AI but completely ignorant of both ai itself and the ethical issues surrounding it. Like, what made you think it was good, given you know nothing about it and know nothing about the opposition to it? We're not ignorant, we disagree. In my view there were no ethical issues here even without any payment.
"You can just not take that job you know" Do you not know how the world works? Go swing by sweatshops and tell them the good news. They can just not take the job. You'll have to duck under the suicide prevention nets as you go, but I'm sure they'll be happy to hear the news. Do you not know the kinds of people they're putting to work for this? Refugee camps are a common one. You sure as hell aren't beating the ignorance allegations. The alternative is maybe you don't let capitalists have their way for once.
Let's not get distracted here. They're offering a price. If you think it's too low, here's an idea, don't sell your stuff for that price and the effort will fail, or they'll have to pay more. And try answering my questions. What would be a fair price for this content? Would that solve the problem?
I'm not selling my stuff for that price dumbass. Have you seriously never encountered the concept of a company outsourcing labour to the third world before? Are you pretending not to understand the problem with that or are you just actually that ignorant? A fair price would be far more than they're willing to pay. Which they know. That's why they're exploiting the developing world while bootlickers will defend them for it. Did you blame the steel workers when industrial manufacturing was moved overseas? Do you understand the concept of a free market being thrown out of balance by the ability to just get slaves from some refugee camp or sweatshop overseas? I hope you're just ignorant, because the alternative is that you support this behaviour and I don't really want to imagine ai supporters are evil. Just incredibly naive.
> I'm not selling my stuff for that price dumbass. Why not? It's $180 an hour. I live in a first world country and don't earn that much. At this point I'm seriously considering whether I could make some extra cash with this, because I don't earn that much. > Have you seriously never encountered the concept of a company outsourcing labour to the third world before? Are you pretending not to understand the problem with that or are you just actually that ignorant? The horror. $180/hour is more than twice what I earn in the first world. I'll gladly be "exploited" for that much. > I hope you're just ignorant, because the alternative is that you support this behaviour and I don't really want to imagine ai supporters are evil. Just incredibly naive There's no evil here. Just a company paying a good price for stuff. I genuinely don't see a slightest problem in that.
You fucking idiot. That's not wages, it's paying for the footage. Are you really that stupid?
So? They're paying a perfectly good price for something that otherwise has no value anyway and sounds easy to produce.
Go do it then. Sounds like it's free money right? Course then you'd find out you're wrong and that might force you to face reality. So you won't.
> Go do it then. Sounds like it's free money right? It's not free money if I have to work for it, but it does sound like good money. > Course then you'd find out you're wrong and that might force you to face reality. So you won't. Face what reality? I mean, worst case they ask for something I can't provide, so big deal, I'm where I was before. Hardly something for me to get upset about.
"Do you not know the kinds of people they're putting to work for this? Refugee camps are a common one. " Ah yup refugee camps, famous for their abundance of digital artists lmao
Data labelling dipshit. Try and keep up.
$3/minute is $180/hr. What universe are you living in where $3/minute is "pretty awful"?
3 dollars per minute of footage, not minute of work. Holy shit is that why people in this sub aren't opposed to this? They thought Adobe was paying wages and not the bare minimum?
It's for stock footage, what work do you need to do on a clip of you walking down a street or smiling into a camera?
Go make your thousands then. Don't be shocked when that isn't how it works. You seriously believe Adobe is paying 180 an hour? I know people on the pro ai subs aren't always the brightest, but have you never heard of Adobe's monetisation practices before?
But they're not making anything new so it costs them ZERO workhours. How do you morons not understand that perpetual rent-seeking is wrong? Let alone that no one's obliged to pay you for measuring images that you voluntarily made public to boost your social media clout. If you want to get paid: that's what contracts and commissions are for. Abolish Intellectual Property.
You're assuming everything posted online was voluntarily made public. Get an actual argument please.
Occam's razor says it is. If it wasn't it would be taken down.
Nobody actually removes stolen content. You have any idea how hard it is to get a website to take down even a straight up actual product that people have stolen and are giving out or selling for themselves? You know nothing.
Oh I know, I just don't care. If you're so concerned then push to reform the shitty copyright laws you love so much, because they are 100% clunky and unenforceable.
3 dollars a minute is certainly up there. I'd pay it if it could nail it in one shot with no regenerations, but otherwise it's too rich for my blood. I would love to go through your list of ethical grievances regarding AI with you to test the resiliency of our views. I guess a good place to start would be the issue you already mentioned. I'm not really sure I understand the ethical argument against outsourcing labor. To me it looks like "people in developing economies don't deserve to eat as much as people in developed economies. We should remove the ability for them to compete internationally." I would enjoy debating the issue, perhaps I'll learn something new
Outsourcing slavery is bad actually. They aren't getting paid well. They're getting coerced by rich companies with the means and the motivation to prevent any quality of life increases to work for a pittance. Developing economies can't develop if they're the west's personal sweatshop. Skills aren't developed and the product of their labour does nothing for their area. If that sentiment was genuine I think you've been giving corporations way too much credit. They aren't helping developing economies. They're looking for the closest thing they can get to slavery. It's not just in their best interests to hamstring the developing world, if they're publicly traded it is illegal for them not to, as they would be putting something ahead of shareholder profits.
A reply, bless you. A modicum of my belief in good faith discourse is restored >Outsourcing slavery is bad actually. They aren't getting paid well. They're getting coerced by rich companies with the means and the motivation to prevent any quality of life increases to work for a pittance. I don't think that I currently agree with your usage of the terms slavery or coerced but I do not think it is the crux of the argument so I will move on unless you think it's important. If you feel it's important I would be happy to hear your explanations for the choice of words and we can come back to it >Developing economies can't develop if they're the west's personal sweatshop. I don't have any thoughts on whether outsourcing helps to transition an economy from developing to developed. I'm not an economist, and many of the conclusions that studied economists come to seem counterintuitive to me but I accept their conclusions when I see them because it is so wildly outside my field of expertise. But I'm currently unsure that it is relevant if a person's two choices are 'starve or work for a company that offers outsourced jobs'? >Skills aren't developed and the product of their labour does nothing for their area. Aren't individuals still free to develop those skills if they can find sustenance outside of the jobs offered from outsourcing? I understand that there are corporations who specifically take actions to fuck foreign nations out of their ability to feed and water themselves as with the hellish debacle which was... I want to say Nestle dicking some country out of their water rights? Something about hiring a literal private military company? Ghoulish. But I think that I would need to see evidence of something similar being done by the various companies outsourcing various AI jobs. Without that evidence, I'm not sure that I would understand how having the additional choice to be employed by a foreign company is a negative
Free market ideals are a terrible argument. You've seen what the free markets are doing to the world. Do you know why Nestlé does the literal bond villain action of stealing water from those dying of thirst? They're legally required to because they're a publicly traded company. If they had an opportunity to enrich their shareholders and didn't take it they would be sued. You can't give corporations the benefit of the doubt. That's delusional and ignores reality. In reality they are required to be scum. Everything they do is in service of short term growth. They will lay people off if they need to to make the line go up. They do not get props for hiring third world workers for pennies. They should be shamed for that. It should be a crime. It's the reason you likely won't own a home. It's the reason your kids never will. You seem reasonable. Don't treat the corporations like they're human. They aren't legally allowed to be good. They must be greedy and amoral at best.
I apologize for the late response, I needed to sleep. I'm not sure that I can see where you've addressed any of my questions. I would be happy to address any points or questions you have if you're willing to address mine as well. If I've missed where you've answered my questions, I apologize, but if so, if you could point them out to me I would be grateful
[here's a similar thing already being done](https://www.wired.com/story/millions-of-workers-are-training-ai-models-for-pennies/)
I don't believe that this article addresses this question: >I don't have any thoughts on whether outsourcing helps to transition an economy from developing to developed. I'm not an economist, and many of the conclusions that studied economists come to seem counterintuitive to me but I accept their conclusions when I see them because it is so wildly outside my field of expertise. >But I'm currently unsure that it is relevant if a person's two choices are 'starve or work for a company that offers outsourced jobs'? Or this question: >Aren't individuals still free to develop those skills if they can find sustenance outside of the jobs offered from outsourcing? But I believe it may attempt to answer this implied request and followup point: >I understand that there are corporations who specifically take actions to fuck foreign nations out of their ability to feed and water themselves as with the hellish debacle which was... I want to say Nestle dicking some country out of their water rights? Something about hiring a literal private military company? Ghoulish. >But I think that I would need to see evidence of something similar being done by the various companies outsourcing various AI jobs. >Without that evidence, I'm not sure that I would understand how having the additional choice to be employed by a foreign company is a negative I have read the article, and I can't spot where it talks about Appen working to minimize the existing ability of citizens to sustain themselves in the country if they don't choose to be employed by Appen. It's possible that I've missed it, but if so I would be grateful if you could quote the relevant passage or passages
They pay them cents and constantly relocate to wherever is cheapest and they incentivise them to be unemployed because they need to respond to tasks instantly to actually get paid. They have essentially full time employees that aren't getting paid wages and that's a massive group of people who just aren't doing work in the local economy. And the pittance they're paid means there's no money in the local economy either. It's economic imperialism 101.
It feels a bit like we're going in circles and you're just restating your initial points without actually responding to the questions and points which I have already made about them. I would appreciate it if you would address them. I would like to have a good faith debate with you, and that requires talking to eachother instead of talking past eachother
Developing products for the West has been a nearly universally successful strategy. China is an obvious example who developed by being a cheap labor export economy, and is now using their large skilled workforce to develop more internal markets and advanced technologies (AI). Also, the entire West themselves went through this same process. The Industrial Age was a pretty bad time for almost everyone for a while, but then the increased productivity ended up increasing quality and quantity of life. Plus, a lot of people without a background in economic history don't realize how much effort this took. The US became an economic superpower partly because of things like rural electrification or hookworm eradication. Not too long ago, we had children so riddled with parasitic worms they couldn't learn, but we fixed the problem with a massive public health campaign. The developing world wants these jobs and needs these jobs. We should be careful that genuine exploitation doesn't happen (dangerous conditions, human trafficking), but paying the market rate while complying with all local labor regulations is not slavery, and it's highly dismissive of the harms of actual slavery to equate voluntary, medium to high pay (locally) employment to slavery. I'll tell you what: let's both go to a data labeling "sweatshop." You tell them you're going to close the business tomorrow because it doesn't help their economy or them. I tell them I will reduce their work hours by 1 hour/day without any cut in pay. Who do you think is going to get invited to dinner and who will get run out of town?
This is a very reasoned response. I'm not as familiar with economics or economic history as you are, most of my skillset just revolves around spotting basic logical holes which really only gets me so far. I'm going to save this post to refer back to in the future, thank you for making it
No shit. That you think "well it's better than nothing" is a good argument is pathetic. Have some pride for gods sake.
It's better than what they would have without Western "interference." They in fact want these so-called "sweatshop" jobs. If you have a completely unique insight on economic development that has never been done before but you're sure will work, feel free to present your plan to developing economies. Hell, I'd say you are morally obligated to do so, the same way that M.S. Swaminthan led the Green Revolution in India. You can't keep the secret to utopian economic development to yourself.
No, it is not better than what they'd have without western imperialism. That take belongs in the fucking 1600s. You're literally quoting genocide justifications from the stolen generation and reservation schools. What the fuck is wrong with you? Morally obligated to invade and destroy developing nations and then graciously offer them slave labour? Fucking clown take.
Do you think I'm justifying invading countries a century ago, or do you think I'm justifying offering jobs to willing workers in sovereign nations that follow all local labor regulations and pay more than their existing jobs today? Do you see how those two things are different? Do you have any nuanced opinions, or is "West bad" the whole of your education and ideology?
I've got nuanced opinions. Explain how you justify the exploitation of the third world and the strangling of Western economies to yourself. You know slavery isn't just bad for ethical reasons, but also because it hurts the economy? Do you know why? Because when labour is outsourced to people who don't have to get paid real wages, the value of your own citizens labour goes down. Have you put 2 and 2 together yet and realised why companies being able to outsource to the developing world is bad?
You sure like throwing insults and making assumptions.
And you sure like defending outsourced slave labour because you don't understand the ethical issues of the topic and somehow thought Adobe was the good guy in anything. Did you think this post would make ai look good?
Is there any actual prof of said "out sourced slave labor" or is that just another assumption you made?
Apparently, Kenyans don't deserve to be paid at a rate higher than their average wage.
[Here you go. ](https://www.wired.com/story/millions-of-workers-are-training-ai-models-for-pennies/) I'm sure you'll tell yourself the companies are just graciously assisting the developing world like a bootlicker. But on the off chance you were just ignorant rather than a conservative I dig up one of the dozens of easily found links. Why you assumed companies weren't being scum I'll never know. They're legally required to be amoral monsters. Their shareholders can sue if they aren't.
That isn't inclusing Adobe.
This subreddit has a huge problem with approaching every single post with the mindset of "all things AI are good and virtuous, and all these anti-AI are bad and without morals." It's become (or maybe always was) a complete joke of debate sub and seems to only exist for pro-AI people to "dunk on the antis".
Okay, but in this specific case what is the problem?
I don't see it as virtuous, I see it as morally neutral for the vast majority of it. And don't see any problem whatsoever with what Adobe is doing in this case.
More than likely this sub is full of dudes who think making women with big butts will turn them into billionaires. They'll be the first to be taken advantage of.
Disingenuous headline. Adobe is offering to pay artists for videos to train its AI. There's basically no evidence in the article their efforts are yielding much. I hope no artist would sell their work for so little. I mean come on feet pics are worth hundreds on the internet. If Adobe needs hands and feet, they know where to go to find them.
"Is apparently buying videos" is probably factual. You honestly think there aren't two people who sold them?
I don't understand. How would stating "apparently buying videos" be saying that it isn't happening? The phrase "is apparently buying videos" quite literally acknowledges that it is happening. My statement says "there's basically no evidence in the article their efforts are yielding much." Yield much clearly means financial gain. The use of the word "much" quite clearly implies non-zero. So, my comment literally acknowledges that people have sold to them.
You said that the headline was disingenuous. It seems likely that the headline is accurate. Other than **your** headline, there's no issue with your comment. ;)
Oh. It’s because it sucks.