aflarge t1_je2sxx4 wrote
So are they gonna ban using photoshop to doctor pictures of the unconsenting? They're being sensationalist idiots.
EmbarrassedHelp t1_je2tjg0 wrote
You joke, but I could see governments trying to pressure Adobe into adding AI to Photoshop that constantly scan what you are making in order to try and block things they don't like.
ozonejl t1_je3ay6c wrote
I’m in the Adobe Firefly beta and the content filters are pretty restrictive. Deleted what I thought were a couple innocuous words from my prompts AND I wouldn’t let me use “Michael Jackson.” To be fair, I was trying to make Michael Jackson at the karaoke bar with G.G. Allin, who apparently Adobe doesn’t know about.
[deleted] t1_je5eol1 wrote
[removed]
MetricVeil t1_je2w6cs wrote
Yep, they did something similar with photocopiers and paper currency, I believe.
[deleted] t1_je5epcc wrote
[removed]
WhatTheZuck420 t1_je3bhwp wrote
adobe: no problemo. we already scan in order to sell shit.
aflarge t1_je2v8pl wrote
Seems like a sure fire way to make sure Photoshop ceases to be an industry standard.
H3g3m0n t1_je4c5i7 wrote
There are copyrighted colors that Photoshop refuses to display without a $15 permonth subscription. Thanks Pantone.
Also Photoshop refuses to work on images of American currency.
aflarge t1_jed549p wrote
That's idiotic. That's like taking people to court because their picture of the night sky included the star you "own".
[deleted] t1_je3a23t wrote
[removed]
BobRobot77 t1_je3puh4 wrote
Well, the line should be drawn somewhere. I think sexual content of a non-consenting non-public figure is the line.
EnsignElessar t1_je55k6k wrote
Im not sure if they could even ban it at this point... its too later but something needs to be done. Otherwise our internet will be mostly bots, same deal with phone calls (probably already the case) but the scamming is about to get a whole lot more effective and scalable.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments