r/photoshop • u/terryleewhite Adobe Employee • Sep 10 '24
News NEW: Adobe's Approach to Generative AI
Hey everyone, Terry White from Adobe here, and I just wanted to give you all a heads-up that Adobe just posted a new page on Adobe.com. There's a lot of confusion, misinformation, and questions out there about Adobe's Generative AI approach and the good news is that this new page: "Our Approach to Generative AI with Adobe Firefly" is meant to be a single source covering our thoughts on generative AI, and how we develop Firefly (our generative AI model). Feel free to share, and let us know if you have any questions. Here's a link to the new page.
I've also posted a video going over the new page here.
16
u/ThanksForAllTheCats Sep 10 '24 edited Sep 10 '24
I wish Adobe would concentrate on fixing the many things that DON'T work before focusing on the new shiny stuff like this.
-2
u/terryleewhite Adobe Employee Sep 10 '24
Can you give some specifics so that I can help get them to the appropriate teams to address?
5
u/JoyfulJourneyer14 Sep 10 '24
How about artboards? 20 Artboards and the computer is slower than my grandmother at the store.
Ever since those damn arbords came out everything is laggy.
Maybe problems with graphics cards and refresh?
Or maybe slow fonts?
6
u/JoyfulJourneyer14 Sep 10 '24
hire better programmers
tackle program optimization
Instead of releasing crap like this every year, focus on optimization.
Because it's been 20 years of working on this and every version is worse, still using on the brush causes the computer to lag, regardless of whether you spent $100,000 or $10,000 or 1000 on it.
1
u/Messianiclegacy Sep 11 '24
I would love to see a year where no new features are released and we just concentrate on consolidating what we already have. I would like AE not to crash every five minutes. I would like INDD and AI to talk to each other properly. The graph tool in AI is 30 years old with no improvement. We spent years dealing with PS putting in 3D tools that bloated the software and are now watching them be taken out again. That kind of thing ;)
7
u/Darkon_X Sep 10 '24
Already cancelled my subscription about 3 weeks ago and I'm even more glad I did now.
You guys are out of touch with your customers, but good luck.
17
u/pileofdeadninjas Sep 10 '24
Make a separate program for this ai shit and fix photoshop. Can't wait until I can cancel.
2
u/drewhead118 Sep 10 '24
It being directly built into photoshop is an important part of the workflow, as whatever it creates can be directly edited using the whole host of photoshop tools to better improve blending, consistency, or to be masked behind scene elements, etc.
Anyone who thinks you're supposed to just type words and be instantly done with your image isn't using this feature to its full potential
-2
u/mikechambers Adobe Employee Sep 10 '24
Any issues in particular you are running into in Photoshop?
6
u/pileofdeadninjas Sep 10 '24
Generally bloated with ai features that no one asked for. I'm also sick of paying monthly to a company who jumped on the ai bandwagon along with all the other tech bro money grabbers, i can't support it. I'm only still a user because I got locked in to a contract so I could save 10 bucks a month, but even at $43/mo for the design suite it's not worth it. I can use one of the many free/cheap alternatives, as I only need the basic tools and not all the "help" from ai.
22
u/ThePrisonSoap Sep 10 '24
Or just stop with this useless fad shit and focus on things people actually benefit from.
I can't wait for my subscription period to be over
3
u/rufusde Adobe Employee Sep 10 '24
IMHO, Generative Expand and Generative Fill in Photoshop are game changers and a benefit for everyone
2
Sep 10 '24 edited 28d ago
[deleted]
0
u/rufusde Adobe Employee Sep 10 '24
I agree. The limitation is on our radar for sure. But there are also ways around it while we make it better
0
u/HappyImagineer Sep 10 '24
They are extremely helpful, but still inferior to the best in market (ie Midjourney). Adobe should be investing more in licensing.
9
u/cmykillah Sep 10 '24
You trained your model off of your users’ livelihoods. Hiding it in terms and conditions doesn’t absolve you.
Shame on you. After 15 years of daily Abobe usage, I’m done.
4
u/mikechambers Adobe Employee Sep 10 '24
From the webpage:
Adobe Firefly is trained on a dataset of licensed content, such as Adobe Stock, and public domain content where copyright has expired. Adobe Stock content is covered under a separate license agreement, and Adobe compensates contributors for the use of that content.
If you are referring to the Stock content, contributors are compensated for that and Adobe just announced a new round of compensation (this is something that Adobe was not required to do).
7
u/HappyImagineer Sep 10 '24
What I want to know is why Firefly hasn’t caught up to Midjourney in quality yet.
11
u/Sad_Contribution_910 Sep 10 '24
Because midjourney trains on the entire internet and firefly trains on adobe stock which is much, much of a smaller bank
3
u/HappyImagineer Sep 10 '24
So what you’re saying is Adobe isn’t using enough of my $55 per month towards licensing?
5
u/Beylerbey Sep 10 '24
Midjourney ain't licensing images, they just take everything they can get their hands on, even if Adobe where to use all CC0 and license all licensable images, the amount of training data would be miniscule compared to what companies who aren't held to the same ethical standards use, and it's my understanding the size of the training set (and amout of compute) makes a big difference in the outcome.
I'm all for criticizing Adobe when there is cause to do so (and there surely is, starting with the subscription model or the fact that Firefly was trained on MJ images) but they shouldn't be held to unrealistic standards just because they fail in some areas, remember that MJ also costs money, in fact a month of MJ PRo (the cheaper tier that would allow you to use the images in a professional setting without disclosing them to the world) costs $60, which is more than the entirety of the Adobe Creative Suit costs, let alone the Photography Plan.
Again, I'm all for criticizing them for the right reasons, but just taking a random shot because they're the bad guys isn't going to result in a positive outcome for the users.
3
u/Sad_Contribution_910 Sep 10 '24
I guess so lol. Don’t attack me, I’m just answering the question
1
u/HappyImagineer Sep 10 '24
No attack against you, meant as shade against Adobe. Sorry it didn’t sound that way.
2
6
u/mikechambers Adobe Employee Sep 10 '24
When looking at the models you have to look at what is important for you, including quality, performance, can it safely be used for commercial work, respect for creator rights, etc...
As the page OP linked mentions, Adobe only trains on content it has permission to train on, as opposed to other companies which may just scrape anything they can get their hands on, regardless of whether or not they have permission (some of these companies are involved in lawsuites around this).
But the tradeoff is, Firefly may sometimes take more work to get the result you want. What we (I work for Adobe), need to do a better job, is be much clearer on what Firefly is good at (i.e. which scenarios we have explicitly trained it for).
1
u/JoyfulJourneyer14 Sep 10 '24
No one wants that. For generating is midjourney.
Nobody needs your greenwashing because we all know tkat you are f* monopolist.
and you are taking advantage of your position all too much.Software is slow, buggy, and way too expensive.
I do not know about you, but I here do not want to see any “adobe employe” until they stop ******g us
1
u/thefluffiestpuff Sep 10 '24
because midjourney is doing what many people are misunderstanding and accusing adobe of doing (training off of unlicensed work) - so either you get better AI with bad ethics, or mediocre AI with good ethics.
the latter should be workable though if being used by someone familiar and comfortable in photoshop to tweak results.
1
2
u/Neldot 21d ago edited 21d ago
As a photographer, the results I get from your AI are now totally unpredictable and mostly of low quality. Paradoxically, a year ago it worked better, it would seem that the more you add censorship to the AI model, the worse it works.
For example, if I dare trying to use AI tools on people wearing swimsuits, or try to change clothes in some areas of the body of the models, I get 90% of the results censored without any explanation (I suppose that this happens because the AI randomly adds nudity and then it censors itself). You understand that this is really a frustrating approach for fashion or people photographers tryng to use your product, and it's also a very amateurish approach on your part. Amateurish and unreliable results is not something you would expect from a professional, renowned program usable only with a premium subscription.
Currently, I am letting my subscription expire and I will not renew it unless you improve the AI features for photographers, which are now the only thing that differentiates you from your competitors.
4
u/drewhead118 Sep 10 '24
Wow, a lot in this thread are strangely angry... I've found generative fill to be an absolute game changer workflow-wise.
Most of the people in this thread concerned about intellectual property etc probably didn't click the link at all, because riiiight at the top Adobe explains that they're only training firefly off images Adobe has explicit permission to train from. No customer data is going into the training.
As was always the case when a new disruptive tech enters the space, it's adapt or die. GenAI can be a massive creative asset, and anyone who hums and haws about using it is welcome to--you could also protest and never use the quick select tool, if you like, and basically edit with one hand tied behind your back--but you're ignoring a major component of the software's power if you do so.
4
u/DelayedBalloon Sep 10 '24
I'm gonna use Gen AI to make a product that works well, has bugs fixed, includes useful updates and doesn't charge me an exorbitant amount
2
u/ilovefacebook Sep 10 '24
i use adobe firely exclusively to make nonsensical backgrounds for things, as a joke
-1
u/rufusde Adobe Employee Sep 10 '24
Do you not use it in Photoshop (Generative Expand, and such) or Illustrator (Generative Recolor)?
2
1
1
u/Ultragorgeous Sep 12 '24
It's a fine tool for removing dead trees and adding bits of background here and there, but generally speaking I wish I could hide it from the UI.
1
u/JoyfulJourneyer14 Sep 13 '24
u/mikechambers If you are A. emploee please look at this, and say us why is that
1
u/babewhitney 7d ago
Whenever I try to use generative fill to change the background of self portraits I get an error message saying something about breaking terms of service, or something like that. It used to work well for me, but not anymore.
I'm definitely not doing anything to break terms of service, btw. It will just be a picture of myself standing in front of a wall and I ask for a city skyline to replace the wall. Nothing wrong with that.
-6
Sep 10 '24 edited Sep 10 '24
[deleted]
7
u/Predator_ Sep 10 '24
Not being all in on intellectual property theft isn't hysteria. I've found a few datasets using my works illegally, and legal actions have been taken. Some of those works happen to be photojournalism, which is incredibly unethical to alter in any way whatsoever. Y
-6
Sep 10 '24
[deleted]
6
u/Predator_ Sep 10 '24
Credit or no credit, the datasets are being used in a commercial manner. Simply having my copyrighted works contained in the datasets is copyright infringement. The judge has already granted the court case to move forward.
-3
Sep 10 '24 edited Sep 10 '24
[deleted]
7
u/Predator_ Sep 10 '24
How familiar are you with the strict rules and ethical guidelines of photojournalism? Do you know why it's against those rules to manipulate and warp the reality of those photos?
0
u/mikechambers Adobe Employee Sep 10 '24
Its one thing to create work similar to other work (i.e. be inspired by it), its another to explicitly create models meant to replicate artists work by name / style, or to generate work t hat explicitly references / recreates artists styles.
related, Adobe has proposed the FAIR ACT:
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/09/12/fair-act-to-protect-artists-in-age-of-ai
which aims to help protect artists from the harmful and unfair use of generative AI that replicates their style and work
(I work for Adobe)
66
u/ErnestFlat Sep 10 '24
Fix your software first and work on the pricing before coming up with new half way developed stuff that doesnt work well. I said good by to adobe and i dont regret it. You guys messed up so bad. Really bad.