[HN Gopher] Adobe starts roll-out of AI video tools, challenging...
___________________________________________________________________
Adobe starts roll-out of AI video tools, challenging OpenAI and
Meta
Author : JumpCrisscross
Score : 49 points
Date : 2024-10-14 18:55 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| jsheard wrote:
| And Sora is still nowhere to be seen, 8 months since the
| announcement now.
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| It was pretty obvious back then they weren't gonna release it
| before the US election.
| sandspar wrote:
| The AI space has such a high risk profile. Adobe's choice: bet on
| AI, and if AI takes off, Adobe is more profitable than ever. Or,
| bet on AI, and if AI doesn't take off, Adobe damages its own
| reputation (potentially permanently). AI is leading to so many
| companies making choices like this.
| jsheard wrote:
| Adobe is being pretty conservative by AI standards however, by
| only training their models on material they've licensed. They
| seem to be banking on a middle path where AI does take off but
| most of the competition which took the YOLO approach to
| licensing eventually gets shot down by the courts and goes down
| in flames. Getty Images is doing something similar.
| GaggiX wrote:
| Given that they own a big library of images, it's the path
| they prefer.
| jokellum wrote:
| If you use their product, per their tos, my understanding is
| they can train on their customer data at any time. In other
| words, if you use their product, they automatically have
| license to train on your art.
|
| I think the only statements saying that they don't train on
| their customer data is from their CEO, but unless they encode
| it in their tos, that doesn't really matter.
| zrobotics wrote:
| I mean, given their recent liscence kerfuffle it seems clear
| to me that Adobe _really wanted_ to be able to train on
| customer data. They had to backpedal, since that generated a
| surprising amount of controversy. They hold an effective
| monopoly in certain fields, and their behavior shows they
| really don 't always have customer interests at heart.
|
| Even without customer data to train on, they do have a pretty
| large moat with their image library. And you are right, they
| are in a good position VS competitors who trained on data
| they don't have rights to. We'll have to see how things play
| out legally, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up that
| something like midjourney ends up in an untenable position.
| However, openAI has a huge amount of funds that could be
| redirected to fight a oegal/lobbying battle. While they
| aren't a direct Adobe competitor, their whole business
| revolves around using unliscenced data to train their models,
| so they have a pretty clear horse in this race.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| AI becomes a lot more useful in a commercial setting when you
| can steer it towards a desired style which means training.
| Would imagine once they roll out the ability to drive it that
| way they'll include the licence to use whatever you feed into
| it for their own training too and many will capitulate.
| aussiegreenie wrote:
| It's the classic "Innovator's Dilemma," but as most of Adobe's
| clients are graphic professionals, they should make gradual
| changes and leave others with the bleeding edge. Workflow
| improvements are what most users want. Simplify common tasks or
| even have a "lite version" with fewer features but is easier to
| use for non-technical people.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| If everyone's reputation has been damaged, has anyone's
| reputation been damaged?
| jsheard wrote:
| Not quite everyone: https://procreate.com/ai
| namaria wrote:
| AI winter is coming and I wouldn't wanna be known as an 'AI'
| person then.
| wmf wrote:
| If Adobe creates AI that _specifically doesn 't replace
| artists_ (except for extremely menial tasks) and _explicitly
| doesn 't "steal" anything_ yet the AI haters still oppose it,
| that only shows how irrational the hating is. It's kind of a
| great litmus test.
| BillSaysThis wrote:
| Those are two big ifs though.
| chpatrick wrote:
| Pretty sure it's taken off already.
| xnx wrote:
| Note that "AI video tools" can mean so much more than text-to-
| video generation. Because video is so rich, it can involve every
| type of AI image, audio, motion, detection, inpainting,
| outpainting, etc. tool.
| rochak wrote:
| Won't have to wait long before Adobe figures out the stupidest
| way to squeeze more money out of its customers by shoving its AI
| down their throats.
| htrp wrote:
| Have they fixed their image generation models yet?
| chankstein38 wrote:
| This is what my thought was reading this as well. I used it
| early on and it was great but I don't know if it got updated or
| what but anymore I feel like it can barely generate anything
| useful from a prompt. "Oh good, videos of random weird blobby
| things now"
| adzm wrote:
| Really excited from the glimpses we've seen so far. Lots of
| useful little things like being able to extend a video a few
| extra frames. I think AI is generally more useful as a tool like
| this on existing footage currently rather than generating
| everything.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-14 23:01 UTC)