Adobe caught selling AI generated images imitating Ansel Adams' work.

[Wenge]

maybe they did it on purpose to end the controversy before the barn door opens

 

[boojum]

Well what do you call it when a company creates a product that takes from millions without credit or compensation? Is that not a rip off? What do you call it when a company claims their product can do something, but which in practice it either cannot do at all, or does poorly most of the time? Is that not a rip off? What would you say about a technology that's chief value is that it makes imitations or forgeries? What do you call it when a company sells a product to another company, on the promise that it will reduce costs, but immediately upon implementation that product performs so poorly that it brings lawsuits and causes lost time and money? Come to your senses.

It also amuses me that people will go "oh but everybody thought computers were bad" or "the internet was bad" when, on the contrary, the practical value of these was easily understood from the get go. The reason things like NFTs and AI get so much criticism is because they don't really provide much (if any) value. People like to bleat on about "luddites" when the simple truth is that all technology that provides value has been taken up as quickly as possible. Saying something that is a terrible product only gets criticized by "luddites" because it's "technology" is a cop out. It's an excuse to not have to think critically.

To paraphrase John Bloomfield Jervis, writing on the subject of the then newly invented steam locomotive: when something works, the beauty of the thing is obvious.

We are talking about intent here. Intent was your allegation. Opinions and assumptions do not make the case. It is just idle chatter not fact. Looking that way is not he same as being that way. You might look like a shoplifter if you loiter too long before a shelf of merchandise. But that does not mean you are a shoplifter, does it? Unless you have facts you can cite all you have is your personal speculation. And how valid is that? Are you free of bias? Have you dug into this at all? You may be right. But you have not proved it. I am not supporting Adobe or any of these folks who use EULA's to use images. I am just taking the position that I doubt it was their intent to do this whole thing just to pirate images as you have suggested. But I am glad you broached it, it is a bone that can use some gnawing.

 

[Mos6502]

I'd rather deal in practical reality than attempt to divine the thoughts of people who've shown themselves willing to do actual damage.

 

[Out to Lunch]

This is helpful: Artificial intelligence and copyright - Wikipedia The Economist published an article on the same subject matter in March but you'll need a trial subscription to read it: Does generative artificial intelligence infringe copyright?