That's impressive and will probably be useful, but I am not sure that we should keep the "Photo" part of Photoshop.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Highlights New Generative AI Features for Photoshop and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Such pessimism. The art of the artist is to judge what is a good or bad product in a given situation. Tool automation has nothing to do with this. Someone will need to judge what is appealing, tasteful, exciting and interesting and it better not be people like me.
We see the same in academia where students and later researches need to be expert critical thinkers to judge the output of AI. The focus of the work will just shift. Fewer people may be needed or the demand might just increase for high quality work as it becomes more affordable.
Consumer demand is everything. If consumers, the public, look at these lifeless images and feel nausea they won't click the buy button and they won't spend money. They are already being hit with AI generated scams and **** Adsense ads. Off to a bad start and it will only get worse because a lot of this AI spam we see online is generated in countries outside our laws and social media platforms don't give AF.
Not more affordable. The amount of compute power image generators require to match high resolution photography is enormous and much bigger than they are using today. The amount of compute power they need to match high resolution video without any errors in incalculable. The amount of compute power they need to displace the CGI, VFX and photography/cinematography/animation industries is so high that they would have to use all the available silicon wafers in the world.
All these costs are not cheap. They are already racking up mountains of debt, creating enormous carbon footprints, using stupidly high amounts of water for cooling, and those burned out GPUs are going to be sent as ewaste to poor countries which will further pollute landscapes and create more health problems.
What looks cheap today will come at a cost tomorrow just like cheap fossil fuels and slave workers have done in the past.
And it is all for nothing because the stuff machine learning produces will always have a ghoulish nausea inducing tint to it. It doesn't improve upon what we already have, it doesn't "democratise" anything except more spam, and it turns certain type of people into aggressive nuts who badly want these shiny new toys because they want to "teach those ****ing elite artists a lesson now that I can copy their work".
Nvidia's CEO and others like him will probably keep his mouth shut and enjoy watching those sales, and they will all probably keep promising outlandish things that can't be delivered except in perfectly curated stage demos.
AI is art theft, and it's incredibly shameful that Adobe, an "art" program company, is stooping to this level
AI art is to art as “a cheese food” is to cheese. Pale, faintly reminiscent strange stuff.
Is a human getting inspired by looking at images then doing his own thing based upon what he saw theft? Then why when AI does it?
People sue each other for theft all the time. Call people 'people'. When you use the term 'humans' in the third person you sound like you aren't human.
That is an extremely bad and flawed argument. It is the same as saying 'Corporations with massive resources should be allowed to steal intellectual property and use all your materials and then monetise that theft.'
"AI" is not a person. It is a large corporate machine run by people whose interests are data hoarding and sucking up money from society.
But if you are "inspired" by a little logo belonging to those corporations they will sue you into poverty forever.
Like I said, to fulfil that is the core job of the artist. The tool cannot evaluate what works for the consumer. Don't get me wrong, I think regenerative art is mostly boring but if certain steps can have AI assistance to improve the quality or reduce time, that is only a natural progress that started with Photoshop, DTP and illustrator many decades ago.
The salary is typically the highest expense, not the computer and not the electricity.
This is the first true feature to ever come to Photoshop that I believe is worthy of a monthly subscription fee, because it doesn't run locally. That said, nothing is stopping it from running locally...
Haha the ultimate Adobe question. I work in IT and we have clients that pay just for Adobe Acrobat Pro and I can't believe what they are paying per month just to edit PDFs. Can't imagine an AI image renderer.
Clients are asking us to cut costs right now. Adobe is a massive cost. Problem is many of my peers can't open their files unless they continue to pay "the forever ransom". This is why the subscription model is so evil. To this end we try and use standalone apps wherever possible. FCPX + Motion is a no brainer (and far superior to Premier imo). The Affinity Suite has gotten extremely competitive, too, and we've had very little issues sharing files w/ Adobe peeps, and saving-out for press/production.
My guess is Adobe stock will get hit in the next few years, as the economy continues to get tougher and agencies look for ways to ditch the Adobe Handcuffs.
This is a standard feature for current subscribers (including the $9.99/month USD Lightroom/PS Photography Plan); there is no added cost.
The problem with AI art is when it gets caught in a feedback loop and creates some Lovecraftian horror, eg women with two sets of teeth, Will Smith eating spaghetti.😬
If I remember correct you get 100 credits per month to use it. Since 95 percent of the time the generated images are completely useless and only 5% of the time you MIGHT have something useful to edit, that means 95 credits are worth nothing.
This is something AI firms and AI 'creators' don't like to talk about. They only publish the best stuff they can generate, which is a tiny fraction of what they see being generated. Most of it is too bad to use. Wasted electricity in a world that needs affordable energy so badly. But the energy corporations won't complain about that.
You would need an extremely large data set and a lot of compute power to run locally. These models consume enormous amounts of energy to produce low resolution images in about 30 seconds. If you tried to do this locally on your machine you would need to invest in a lot of hardware and even then it would consume a lot of your time and electrical costs.
As mentioned above, 95% of that would be wasted electricity.
All that for what amounts to be ghoulish images. Once the initial novelty of the output wears off a sinking nausea sinks in when people see these lifeless soulless images.
There really is a kind of magic that a person imparts on their work, whether it is photography or writing or painting or animation. It's not the kind of magic of superstitions and religions. It's precious life itself.
When we see a machine's work it lacks this quality and cannot replicate it. When it does, the effect is fleeting and breaks down upon closer look.
If AI does anything really meaningful it will be this : it will show us how special real artists and writers are. It will show us how precious life is.
Last edited:
I wish adobe would update their existing apps rather than focusing so much on AI and running after the moving train called Canva. Their apps are so barey updated over the years. If only they could at least copy what other apps do better for years. Like Procreate: better brushes creation, basic tracing of shapes "hold pen", better UX interface, etc.
On the positive side, I think they're doing a great job with Premiere and the new editing option to work on the transcript.
On the positive side, I think they're doing a great job with Premiere and the new editing option to work on the transcript.
Something is really, really going wrong in your company if the Adobe monthly cost is a problem.
There's a massive image library it uses to generate AI images, so that would be a storage-intensive local resource
CGI has never gotten good enough to get out of the uncanny valley. You can bet that the moment they can pull it off they'll replace people. Actors are expensive, not perfectly consistent, and tend to do unpleasant things like strike for protection of their jobs and living wages. When you fire an actor you also don't have to deal with hair, makeup, wardrobe, catering, transportation... The second a big studio can call up a creative team to drop in a digital version that the audience can't distinguish from a human, they will absolutely do so and they will pocket the savings.
The old IBM vision of the way the world should be.
The idea that an average person would have their own computer and have total control over it was sneered upon. Computers would always need experts, and the software was the thing of the computer maker, not a property of the end user.
Those were the days.
We are returning to said days.
For many people, for most people, computers are intimidating. Why burden them with endless acronyms and protocols?
I know people for whom simply plugging or unplugging a cable is too much to ask of them.
So now we all just buy into an ecosystem and subscribe for the rest of our lives.
This is the future we've all been waiting for, no?