cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/76827125

What safety warnings?

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/76827125

It's vibe coded, who knows what else it's doing?

The same applies to the genuine article too though.

The same applies to the genuine article too though.

And that's the problem. At least if the vibe-coded thing is open-source you can look at the code (or in all likelihood just have another LLM skimp over the code it to check for intentional malware if it's too much slop but that's still much better than nothing)

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/76827125

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/76827125

The same applies to the genuine article too though.

And that's the problem. At least if the vibe-coded thing is open-source you can look at the code (or in all likelihood just have another LLM skimp over the code it to check for intentional malware if it's too much slop but that's still much better than nothing)

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/76827125

does it actually work though? Anyone tried it?

does it actually work though? Anyone tried it?

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/76827125

Y'all are missing the bigger picture here. This brings up the question of ai and intellectual property and throws the ball into adobe's court to set their army of lawyers on figuiring out a no-win solution for themselves.

• If they do nothing, a working clone normalizes copying their product's behavior and UI. Copyright covers that thinly anyway (the First Circuit in Lotus v. Borland treated a command menu hierarchy as an unprotectable method of operation). Trademarks need policing!! (And they suck)
• If they go after it, they have to argue in court that AI output built from public material is infringing or derivative. That's the precedent the AI industry wants to avoid, and it cuts against Adobe's own Firefly pitch. Imagine what that means for "art" made with an LLM
• If the clone's code is mostly AI-written, its copyrightability is shaky (Copyright Office, Thaler). But that cuts both ways: Adobe can't claim "you stole our code" without proving actual copied code. Which bites into OpenAI, Anthropic, Google's claims that they haven't stolen anything.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/76827125

I really don't think any of this is intentional, though. It's just the contradictions being heightened.

I have the whole suite of apps installed as a Flatpak. The Photoshop clone is the fastest one to implement features, but the whole suite is moving really fast. Looking at the commits and features shipped, I haven't seen anything like this. It looks very well organized.

I have been using Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign professionally for ~30 years. These Craft apps are freaking amazing, they open in the blink of an eye and open multi-gb files just as fast. Working with these big files is also instantaneous.

I have done my own calculations, and what they say is true, the Suite will reach beta status by mid-late October depending on the app. But the suite in general will be ready with more features than what a basic-intermediate user would want.

I think what will make or break the Suite is if they go with local AI or not for Neural filters and generative fill. The community might turn on them if they don't.

But technically speaking It's truly an amazing feat.

Adobe VS AI slop, who would win ?

Y'all are missing the bigger picture here. This brings up the question of ai and intellectual property and throws the ball into adobe's court to set their army of lawyers on figuiring out a no-win solution for themselves.

• If they do nothing, a working clone normalizes copying their product's behavior and UI. Copyright covers that thinly anyway (the First Circuit in Lotus v. Borland treated a command menu hierarchy as an unprotectable method of operation). Trademarks need policing!! (And they suck)
• If they go after it, they have to argue in court that AI output built from public material is infringing or derivative. That's the precedent the AI industry wants to avoid, and it cuts against Adobe's own Firefly pitch. Imagine what that means for "art" made with an LLM
• If the clone's code is mostly AI-written, its copyrightability is shaky (Copyright Office, Thaler). But that cuts both ways: Adobe can't claim "you stole our code" without proving actual copied code. Which bites into OpenAI, Anthropic, Google's claims that they haven't stolen anything.

Yeah this would be great if it went that way but really the other option more likely to happen is they settle and the guy goes away quietly and nothing comes of it as their SLAP lawsuit works like a charm.