I know some artists don’t mind it, but I just can’t hear the word “creatives” as anything other than silicon valley speak for the source of the content they sell. It feels dehumanizing.
Particularly in this case, it’s Adobe, so you can just call them artists, designers, photographers, etc.
Or, ya know, just users.
In fairness, it’s Wired who called them creatives, while Adobe called them artists.
Because they will. They literally will.
Adobe is one of the most awful, insidious, evil corporations in the software space and they have done absolutely nothing to claw back even a tiny shred of good faith.
This seems to happen every time a technology company grows beyond some threshold of size/market share/revenue. I can’t think of a single exception.
Valve has done a pretty good job. Probably because of their ownership model
Valve is still a private company. If they ever made an IPO then they would be screwed.
Does anyone else find the term “creatives” to be so damn condescending? It’d be like calling executives, “Admins” or “powerpointers”
Affinity Photo, Affinity Designer, Affinity Publisher
Sorry, no linux versions.
“We won’t train AI on artists’ work…this quarter.”
~Adobe probably
Trust us bro!
release your training materials or GTFO
100% the scenario will be this: Adobe will hire a company to provide “licensed training material” to their AI tools then it will be laundered with a contract that says “uphold our code of conduct or something” and then when it comes out it won’t even violate the contract it will just be a shocked pikachu face and a stern sounding PR rebuke.
Adobe kinda burned up any good will it had with…all the shit they pullin’.
I have no issue trusting someone at their word, but not when they spent their trust capital elsewhere. Adobe doesn’t have any, because their reputation for decades now has been asinine pricing, M&As, and whatever crap they tried to do with Mixamo before someone told them to stop.
What then will they use to train it?
“…for now”
