• 0 Posts
  • 59 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 3rd, 2023

help-circle













  • The example of stubbing ones toe is a strawman. It is levying a rhetorical argument which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is also hyperbolic and satirical.

    Taken from excelsior.edu on the topic of sreawman arguments. Distort: equate it with a non-topical example.

    Exaggerate: use hyperbole in the example to describe a link between stubbing one’s toe and deaths in car accidents.

    Lack of engagement with my argument: there was no support for your assertion that the companies I mentioned do not engage in phone/textual communication when all of them work on the phone, are able to make voice calls, transmit text between phones, and are able to be set as the default SMS apps for a phone, which then subjects SMS communication to thier monitoring and filtering.

    I know it subjects them to filtering as I once had Facebook Messenger set as my default SMS app and attempted to SMS a friend a porbhub link and FBM said that the message failed to send. Non-pornhub links worked just fine, but they filtered my porn message, and it was on SMS.

    I know precisely what a strawman argument is. I made a good faith response, you did not.


  • The example of stubbing ones toe is a strawman. It is levying a rhetorical argument which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. It is also hyperbolic and sartorial.

    Taken from excelsior.edu on the topic of sreawman arguments. Distort: equate it with a non-topical example.

    Exaggerate: use hyperbole in the example to describe a link between stubbing one’s toe and deaths in car accidents.

    Lack of engagement with my argument: there was no support for your assertion that the companies I mentioned do not engage in phone/textual communication when all of them work on the phone, are able to make voice calls, transmit text between phones, and are able to be set as the default SMS apps for a phone, which then subjects SMS communication to thier monitoring and filtering.

    I know it subjects them to filtering as I once had Facebook Messenger set as my default SMS app and attempted to SMS a friend a porbhub link and FBM said that the message failed to send. Non-pornhub links worked just fine, but they filtered my porn message, and it was on SMS.

    I know precisely what a strawman argument is. I made a good faith response, you did not.



  • That’s fun, glad to see they are paying people now. I didn’t see in there when in the multi-years long process it takes to develop tool-sets and train checkpoints they paid for the rights to create derivative works. The article is dated a few days ago and it is present tense. They are NOW paying. The AI is trained. The tool is built. It takes tens of thousands of images to train a generative model from scratch, I would expect decades of footage for a video model. So if the model is trained, and them paying is new…?

    Also, they don’t have to ask, or pay… They already have the rights for all content stored in Creative Cloud (EULA Link). Adobe Creative Cloud EULA

    Legally, an AI training is a “derivative work”, so I would need a letter from the lead engineers on the AI dev team at Adobe, signed by every dev who has worked on it, stating that they only used paid training material at every stage of development of the tools, disseminated separately from any official Adobe channel before I would believe that the greedy gaping maw that is Adobe did not just use the millions of images and thousands of years of footage they have legal right to use that THEY are actually PAID for. They know they can pay now because it is a drop in the bucket compared to the Creative Cloud fees and is great PR and an even better smokescreen. There is precisely 0 chance they are going to receive enough good, usable footage through this program to train an AI from scratch.


  • Can we take a minute and stop to assess where Adobe is obtaining its training data? Everyone is all up in arms about the OpenAI devs scraping DA and such, but Adobe is 100% training on the entirety of Behance and the Adobe Cloud. Things that are not public, our personal files that we never intended others to be seen. Our private albums of our children, or our wives/husbands/partners, or parts of NDA restricted projects that are stored in Adobe Cloud automatically that are supposedly not in violation of our NDAs.

    Where are the pitchforks? Where is the outrage? This is 1000x worse than some desperate AI engineer staring at a publicly visible and available training set that is already tagged and described in detail that was begging to be used. People lost their shit over that one. Why does Adobe get a pass?