> I wrote "forced", because companies like Adobe use their dominant position to override legal frameworks developed to protect intellectual property and client-creator contracts in order to grab content that is not theirs to train models they resell back to the people they stole content from and to subject ourselves to unsupervised, unaccountable policing of content.
Adobe is an obnoxious company that does a lot of bad things, but it's weird to me seeing them cast in a negative light like this for their approach to model training copyright. As far as I know they were the first to have a genAI product that was trained exclusively on data that they had rights to under existing copyright law, rather than relying on a free use argument or just hoping the law would change around them. Out of all the companies who've built AI tooling they're the last one I'd expect to see dragged out as an example of copyright misbehavior.
> Out of all the companies who've built AI tooling they're the* last one I'd expect to see dragged out as an example of copyright misbehavior.
I was surprised, too: I thought Adobe's main problem was their abusive pricing, and I was actually a little impressed by their take on this hype wave. And yet. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40607442
That video is about privacy and csam scanning with a very brief reference at the end to the possibility that Adobe might be using customer photos to train the csam scanner.
I can see how that checks the box of "policing", but you also made this claim:
> in order to grab content that is not theirs to train models they resell back to the people they stole content from
Did you not mean that to imply that Adobe is using images from customers to train generative AI? Because that's sure what it sounds like.
Adobe is an obnoxious company that does a lot of bad things, but it's weird to me seeing them cast in a negative light like this for their approach to model training copyright. As far as I know they were the first to have a genAI product that was trained exclusively on data that they had rights to under existing copyright law, rather than relying on a free use argument or just hoping the law would change around them. Out of all the companies who've built AI tooling they're the last one I'd expect to see dragged out as an example of copyright misbehavior.