I think Ai can become a great help in overcoming our compulsive need for verification from others. This downward spiral of eroding credibility already began with the advent of digital photography. In the minds of many (rather uninformed) people the utilisation of a computer in the process of making any form of art render it more or less fake. That sentiment have always been around in a large segment of a potential audience. Ai is just another nail in the coffin in that respect. And in many ways the commercial art industry has been a major force behind this development. Al the while slowly eroding and undermining its own position in the eyes of the audience. The root of the problem lies in our incessant need for others verification. We imagine that our art is only worthy in the eyes of others. And if that audience doesn’t approve of our efforts, we feel worthless, right? Well, I say, Ai maybe the best thing that ever happened to our relationship with our own craft and art! It may very well be the very thing we needed to really stop hankering after an approval of an imaginary audience. That’s truly liberating! If we take this insight into a higher level of understanding it can liberate us from all unnecessary shackles and our relationship with ourselves becomes much more genuine and real. If the world wants to play these silly games, let it! We always have the choice to participate or disconnect, consciously or mindlessly. Our choice! What matters is how we relate to the surrounding world. Are we going to let it effect the relationship we have with ourselves, or have we (finally) decided to not let the world define us? Are we finally removing ourselves from being a market-item?
Adobe Tells Users They Can Get Sued for Using Old Versions of Photoshop. "You are no longer licensed to use the software," Adobe told them. Adobe is warning some owners of its Creative Cloud software applications that they're no longer allowed to use older versions of the software. Now thats stealing software from the consumer.
Again, to adapt a quote... I want AI to do the dishes so I have time to make art, I don't want AI to make art so I have time to do the dishes. AI was promised to make our lives easier, but it is there to make profits bigger at the expense of the artist.
Timing is everything, with most 1st world governments keeping the big businesses happy, thinking that if unemployment is low, people are happy etc… in reality jobs suck, pay and benefits are worse than 20yrs ago and politicians don’t understand or have any experience with creative industries, look at budgets today and creative thinking today across all creative industries, bland, vanilla, safe, boring. It’s harder to find really great movie, a really great song, quality art or clever advertising… AI will just make it worse…
I remember saying much the same thing when the Mac OS was using a GUI while PCs were using command line interface. Those using PCs thought I was using a toy. I explained to them that the computer was suppose to help me do my work better, not make me obsolete.
Well this AI crap is not getting better. Captions activated by themselves and when I turned them off a message pop that said to help creators by correcting mistakes made by the auto captions. I am pretty sure that is more dishonest AI training disguised as something else.
@@Scotian280 Because they are not taking work away from people and giving it to machines. And because Adobe isn't being inspired by work, it's straight copying.
I completely agree with you. I'm a semi-retired photographer. For the reasons you stated, I've decided to end my Adobe ties. The real kicker to me is the fact that we are paying for the privilege to have them treat us like products. There are other options out there. It's time for Adobe to learn to respect artists and customers. Personally, I stubbornly avoid using AI as much as possible although I admit I do use it for some retouching/edits. Keep up the good work.
Everything you mentioned was spot on. Including the part of about no hope. The AI train is not going to be derailed. Mankind has several fatal flaws as a species. One of them is being atrocious at weighing the conveniences vs the costs...the actual costs. We will grab any shiny object, no matter how detrimental it is to us in the long run.
And the problem becomes even more serious when you realise that there are already several scientific articles written with artificial intelligence that go unnoticed by many journal reviewers... We are facing an immense abyss caused by an unhealthy acceleration of work processes and a constant demand for productivity, phenomena resulting from the cold mentality of profit and neoliberalism.
Even though Ai is destroying the market for a whole industry an even greater problem with Ai it is undermining and eroding our genuine appreciation for craft and art in general. I’m talking about the general understanding and appreciation for craft and art in the eyes and minds of the general audience. This is what will destroy the ‘market’ more than anything else. But what can never be touched by Ai is our own love and feelings we have while engaging in our own craft or art activities. And maybe that’s a great thing? Maybe Ai will de-commercialize arts and craft and return it to a purer state or a more innocent realm again? Maybe Ai can bring us back to the original state where we only engage and produce art and craft for our own enjoyment sake? Not with an audience in mind at all?
Imagine Adobe saying Skip the photoshoot. I think they forget one little detail, it is the creative community that are buying their software products. How about skipping Adobe products? Oh and AI is the Fast Food/MCDonalds of creativity, At some point all this crap looks the same and people will get tired of it. Look what happens to fast food chains and all these big franchise restaurants. they are going out of business, Why? Because people are no longer willing to pay $$$ for crap.
This is just me but I find AI generated photos to be weirdly uninteresting. If I know an image doesn’t have human creativity behind it I just can’t get into it. It leaves me cold.
Adobe has always been like this. I used their products from photoshop 4 to cs6. When they introduced cc, many of us tried to sound the alarm and left, but the amateur photographers couldn't wait to throw their money at Adobe. Fitting that they/we should be the first industry that they cannibalize.
I dropped Adobe suite and am now using Affinity suite. Not as many bells and whistles, but suits my needs, is much more affordable, and doesn't have Adobe's agenda of eliminating the photo industry
I am still at a loss as to how AI is going to drive profits. A sheep eats grass, then walks around, shitting all over the field. The shit is full of vitamins and nutrients that make the grass grow, and the next summer, the sheep are in that same field consuming the grass. The worker at the Ford Plant buys lunch, go on vacation, pay for school, buy supplies for their kids to school, and on school field trips. They pay for their teenagers to go to the movies with their friends, to buy stuff at the local mall. So what happens when an AI can build a car and you don't need those workers anymore? No one has adequately explained where the increased profits will come from because at a certain point, when enough autoworkers, photographers, makeup artists, studios, and rental houses don't employ people well, how do you buy school lunch, pay for college, go to the mall, buy food and clothing? This AI revolution is not a closed loop, and none of the resources are recycled or upcycled through the system. There will come a point where you cannot afford to buy iPhones or go shopping for new clothes in the spring. So what happens then? How is AI leading to an economic boom and not a total economic collapse?
Ultimately- “photography” generated without a camera using AI , isn’t original art. It is copied / borrowed /stolen from actual original creative work that was used to “train” the AI engine. The next AI engines may be able to look at a piece of derivative / copied AI imagery and extrapolate back to whom it was stolen . In the meantime we must identify such derivative imagery and boycott the products that they advertise .
All artists steal. Every photo I take is an amalgam of every photo I've ever looked at. There is simply no way to separate my art from my influences. Do I wish AI didn't exist. Yes. Our hubris in creating artificial intelligence will destroy us. But the demons are not going back into Pandora's box.
I agree with everyone you said. I want to be a professional photographer, and I have spent thousands on courses and gear, and for the past three years I have been working quite hard to build up a portfolio. Now it looks like all the work and money is going to be a waste of time.
I’ve not done a lot of photography the past couple of years. When Adobe decided to go the subscription route I decided I would not be using their products ever again. I’m not limited in what I can accomplish, just the opposite as I’m not financially tied to a company whose main goal is to suck my wallet dry… So far as AI is concerned, the day I need a preprogrammed app to help me decide how to edit my photo I’ll be selling everything. AI is for people with no imagination.
A.I. is moving the creative community to the point where it is doing away with the "subject matter experts" who we pay for their time, knowledge & expertise to formulaic computer generate assets that lack a human personal touch. Instead of being a tool in the toolbox, its moving towards being the means to an end. It should have us all worried. IMHO
I’m totally on board with you on the first part of the video, but you lost me at the end. The only reason you can “produce” any image, video, or copy with AI is because a lot of artists and creators didn’t have the option to remove a checkbox for training AI on their data. Because at that time, there was no checkbox for them. So, we need to fight for AI products to be entirely created based on works approved by creators. And we need to find solutions to collaborate more with human-creators in fields that are hard for us to learn. Otherwise, these companies will divide us and damage everyone. I don't want this to happen.
This issue will be tested in court under fair use (USA) and fair dealing (Canada) stipulations in copyright acts. Training on existing data doesn't require a license because it's not reselling or using that data to produce results, just to learn. If it violated copyright for me to look at magazine covers and study them and learn how to take images in that way, learning would be impossible. We can't stop this train, but the best we can do is not use the tech to replace people. I only use it to enhance my personal productivity, not to replace a person that is already doing the job. I appreciate your perspective.
@@Mintyseden No I don't think so I'm not sure at which point adobe takes a copy of your work, it'll be even more insane if it captures it as your progressing... For Adobe you literally want to pirate the software.. If you google piracy reddit megathread, it has safe links to adobe software, it'll stop any connection between you and them. Nightshade is good if your done with a piece and it'll end up being uploaded or shared on the internet.
@@stan_TripleS-24 If that's true then we are all in trouble.. I wonder if uploading much lower resolution which kinda defeats the point. At this point i'm not uploading online and selling art in person.. It could take 100 years before laws catch up.
Did you watch the whole video? I clearly stated, "When I can, I prefer to pay someone." Not everyone, especially self-employed people running their own businesses, can afford to hire someone to do everything in their business. Do you hire a bookkeeper to manage all your accounts? A marketing firm to create and run all of your ads? A web designer to create and update your website? A scribe to take notes on parchment and write in cursive? Did you have an assistant read, manage, and write your emails and type your thoughts into these comments on their own device? Or do you use software to handle all of these tasks?
@@StudioBuilderYes I watched the whole post. You had the same business issues before the advent of AI - and, I assume, you managed to resolve them. But now even though you've dealt with those business issues before and "When I can, I prefer to pay someone" you still chose to use AI to do the work. Seems to me that, in fact, you've chosen the "skip the photoshoot".
@@theprintguide3610 Agree with you completely. It isn't exactly fair to pour gasoline on a fire and complain about getting burned and then claim it was only a little gasoline so it wasn't your fault. Just like all tech there is a good side and a bad side. Just like fire. Use it. Make it work for you. But don't complain about fire being fire.
Using AI to speed up or enhance something you were already doing yourself isn’t ’skipping the photo shoot’. You’re not displacing anyone that was previously used.
Instead of hiring great marketologist, adobe have to chosen ai shit instead of proper marketologist. Only ai or pure idiot can recomend you quote like this "skip photography".
I'm an amateur photographer and have been for 50 years. I cannot speak for professionals but, even as an amateur, I see (the generative / replacement type of) AI as a potential threat. I don't have a problem with using AI to improve the likes of noise reduction and sharpening; even dust spot removal and removing minor distractions from an actual photograph. However, as your excellent video sows, Adobe appears to be hastening the demise of a whole creative process, having benefitted from its photographer customers' income for two decades. Major corporations and even smaller ones are always looking for ways to reduce expenses and Adobe is giving them a big stick with which to harm the hands that fed it for so long. I've turned off the right for Adobe to analyse my content and use it to improve its AI / machine learning. However, can we REALLY trust Adobe to honour this?
You can optout of having your images train Adobe AI, but I cannot optout of Adobe's new T&Cs that allow their staff to manually review all your images. That makes it likely that Adobe's employees, contractors, friends and family, and anyone off the street can view your photos. Adobe can set up all the controls in the world to motivate their employees not to share, but their employees are people and things happen. Professional photographers should file a class action lawsuit against Adobe and report them to the European Union that cares much more about people's privacy than any institution in America. It would be good to see UA-cam photographers start recommending alternatives to Adobe. And then offering training. I'd like to ditch Adobe.
Look. As a photographer I am sympathetic to your argument. But you do realize that all the reasons you cited for using AI - create music, writing copy, doing all those things you either can't do or cannot afford to pay someone else to do, could be done by people who are also complaining about how AI is impacting their businesses, right?
And they have a right to be angry, as well. However, I am not REPLACING anyone. I am not letting go of anyone and using AI instead of a human. I am augmenting my own skills.
Great commentary. Maybe an architectural analogy would be helpful. The great cathedrals were built using fairly simple hand tools, and that makes them even more remarkable than if they weren't. Nevertheless, there are many outstanding and conservable modern buildings that probably couldn't have been constructed without new technologies. For some, how buildings are built counts, and that's fair enough. But if AI can help us build something that couldn't have existed without it, I think that should be a defining line in the sand. But to simply be able to lay off all of humanity in order to help stockholders add a few more dollars to each stock share, we all know where that will lead us.
Idea: Adobe is chartered in DE - and has it's headquarters in CA. The only way you're going to reel in the losers running these companies are 3 ideas: 1 - You need some form of antitrust legislation ENFORCEMENT - that actually punishes these losers at these companies. Being that Adobe Microsoft and Google basically own most of the regulatory arm of the federal gov't - why not - Go after it via a state level in Corporate charter agreements? Each state and it's voters can have a say on what they will allow corporations to get away with. 2 - Divorces
The unfortunate truth is that companies like Adobe likely don't care about the uproar by artist's and creatives that have been the customer base and training models for their tools. They will likely forego them all together and choose to make a cheap consumer version for everyday people to tool around in for craft projects and such and then a premium high priced corporate license so all marketing, design, sm, web, motion can be handled with a stripped down team of middle managers. That is the future for digital creatives, photographers, graphic designers, and other artists. Could smell this coming when the adobe rep at the first congressional hearing was talking about trying to pass style copyright. They don't want it to protect artists. They want it so they can corner the market and crush any artist that doesn't pay them to use an offial Adobe "Art Style"
So glad I moved away from Adobe when LR went subscription. I use C1 and Affinity. With Davinci Resolve etc being better, Adobe will pin all of its hopes on AI from now on,
Really appreciated hearing your perspective here. I just happen to do photography as a hobby, so for me AI is a big win. But, I do know a LOT of photographers who will get absolutely wrecked from AI. Interesting to see what will happen in the next few years.
I'm very concerned about AI gutting the photography and connected industries: I'm currently an amateur photographer, and I plan to become professional in 7 years once my age and health necessitates retirement from my current, physically demanding, profession. 7 years won't be long for me professionally, but it's an eon in terms of how AI can harm the photography industry.
I was a pro in NYC in the 60s and have remained seriously interested in photography as an art form. I had a powerful experience in 2019 followed by a clear dream of creating non traditional but respectful religious icons. Yes religious art and not until 2023 did I solve the many artistic challenges. I started by using various photographic filter programs to transform and abstract photos, but like you highlighted I CANT DRAW. Then I tried AI and immediately got far better results. The clincher is that these images immediately appeal to people secular and religious. They are good enough to make their own way in the world. They have been put on permanent display in a church. At 81 I realised that I had become a real artist, yet I am not at sure exactly what has happened. As you say I am the producer, but not fully the creator of those images. It really is a new way of er producing imagery. I do the pre production work by creating and manipulating the image with software. Then I prompt the AI and move to post by selecting the images that work. My head is full of paintings and other art and I was active in the NY art world when I worked as a professional and I studied art history. As a photographer I have trained my right brain to instantly recognise when an image falls into place as a gestalt and my index finger pushes the shutter release before my left brain gets its boots on like anyone who has developed serious photo skills. So in this AI workflow my creative intent carries through the process, but part is outsourced to AI. I would say that I don’t feel my work is fraudulent possibly because what I am doing is similar to what Andy Warhol was doing producing fine art using commercial art processes. I have photos took of Andy pulling silk screens of a Jackie that he had sent out to have made by a regular commercial service. Not the same but analogous in a suggestive way.
The sad reality for all digital photographers is that you can't stop this AI tide from coming. Just like the film shooters felt as the digital wave was approaching.
the development, usage, and monetization of artificial intelligence shall be strictly regulated, and i hope countries will do this immediately. it’s like wild west now where companies with said tech can now do ‘whatever they want’ with it. what makes them different from voc? and where’s the sheriff when you need one?
I remember when microstock took over the stock industry. You either had to adapt and re build your stock business to accommodate the new paradigm, or abandon it altogether and find another occupation.
THe reality is that pandora's box has been opened, we can get mad at Adobe or MS or whoever but we are in an adapt or die situation. If Adobe doesn't do this, some other company will and Adobe will die. There is no stopping AI and this is just the beginning. Creatives are getting hit first but our society needs to take a long hard look at the philosophy of how our society is structured because the day when the vast majority of humans are effectively completely obsolete and have no ability to generate any income for themselves is rapidly approaching. And unfortunately, there is no amount of education that can change this. Anyone below the top 1% in IQ will be replaced by AI and those top 1% people will be the ones designing the AIs that drive the entire engine of the world.
@@StudioBuilder I'd argue that the bigger social challenge though won't even be the lack of income but rather a feeling of purposelessness and lack of opportunity to ever "become" anything. Having a life that is a forever vacation may sound great but psychologically it can be extremely harmful for most humans. I also think there is going to be a fundamental social challenge in a society that is almost completely dependent on UBI. Having your lot in life entirely determined by the whim of some government body can quickly become a source of powerful resentment.
Imagine all the CEO's, lawyers, politicians, basically everybody that doesn't produce a real products can and will be replaced. Who needs CEO's, lawyers, politicians? Another reason not to invest into a college degree. Learn a trade, AI is not going to replace plumbers, electricians, roofers, Landscape, etc.
@@reneweisz9157 Sure it is, AI + Robotics will replace all human labor eventually, the question isn't "if", its just "when". Though Boston Dynamics is already doing some freakishly impressive stuff. Trades people aren't immune to this any more than any other worker.
It's a sad world when I hear someone's purpose is to be a cog in a corporate machine. I think it would give people more opportunities to do real purposeful work.
Ok explain something to me. 1st not quite 2 years ago I got back into photography after 35 years. 35 years ago one of the cameras i used was a 35mm Pentax & spent many hours in a darkroom to develop, Jump ahead 35 years and now with a digital camera now i'm learning to "develop," my pictures, (i know everyone is calling it editing.) I decided to go with Lightroom & Photoshop because of all the abundance of "how to videos." With all this said I don't use the cloud feature that Adobe provides. So my question, "if you don't use Adobe cloud does Adobe still use our (photographers/creatives) content?" or is it just using Adobe to edit have we given Adobe permission to use our content?
by switching to digital, you helped to destroy an entire industry of photo developers. I hope you are happy. jk but, this is what happened and regular people did not care. They just wanted finished photos. I would be worried if I were a professional artist.
So its not cool to skip the photo shoot but its cool to generate music for a production or its cool to not use a copy writer to wordsmith your campaigns... come on man...
No, you didn't actually listen to the video or chose to pick and choose what you heard so that it matches up with your pre-existing bias. Feel free to go back and re-watch the video and listen to what I actually said.
@@StudioBuilder no my dude. You said that to another guy in the comments section and you were wrong. I replied there too. You just are blind to your own hypocrisy. I can see your point about adobe stealing art to make their llm but you are a willing participant to ai taking other people's work. It's plain as day. I just think there's a block in your mind. I explained why even though you say you never would have hired a writer or musician in the past, it still contributes to taking away work. Why don't you try listening to others...
I recon its freelance photographers which have been the quickest to be hit by AI - as a designer the more I look for and find stock images to use the less I find that they are not AI generated... in many cases thats an issue. But honestly the quality is often faultless. Unless you have clients who particuarly want real photos, or are doing specific real-world projects I suspect you may well be feeling the effects of AI in your bottowm line. As a designer - I'm well aware that my industry is going to have its head on the chopping block next - esp. for bread and butter projects. My biggest concern is if Adobe sees the next step as bypassing creators in the hopes of turning EVERYONE into a DIY creator by simply subscribing to their products. If thats the case its would need a mass exodis of their current users to trun the screws as hard as possible as quickly as possible. But the future ain't looking awesome.
The thing being overlooked here is that AI does not generate Photographs- it creates images that have the visual style of photography- essentially fakes. There's this almost universal assumption that AI and Photography are entirely 'fungible'- that the former can seamlesly be used in place of the latter. But there's an ironic problem with this assumption, because the value proposition of AI in commercial projects is that it offers a way to leverage the authenticity of the photographic image at much lower cost. And up to a point this strategy will work- so long as the default perception is that a photographic image is indeed a photograph. But here's the punchline- what happens when AI itself becomes the default perception? what happens when everyone simply assumes that any given photo style image they see is most likely created with AI. What happens, in other words, when the general public come to the view that all the photographs they see in advertising are AI generated fakes? Once this paradigm shift occurs something interesting happens to the relationship that the public has with the photographic image- that public now views those images through a subtle but important new perspective. Because now every image they see is fake- not just retouched or manipulated but absolutely fake- unreal and stripped of the very quality that makes photography the default choice for almost all images used in advertising today- that quality being AUTHENTICITY. Even the most manipulated photograph has it's origin in the real world- not so with AI. So AI 'photography' is a self defeating innovation because once it becomes the default solution it undermines the very authenticity it is designed to evoke. In the moment that consumers see an advert as being fake, their relationship to that advert is changed- they are now engaging with that advert in a different way, because they understand that everything that advert is showing them is not real. Amazingly (to me at least) there seems very little discussion in the advertising industry as to the consequnces of altering the relationship between the advertiser and their target markets in this radical way- the thinking seems to be that no one will notice or care. This may not be true. A very clear example would be the charity sector, where photographic images are often used to evoke sympathy and compassion on the part of would be doners. So- what if instead of a real photo of some tragic event a charity chose to simply generate an image using AI? Would that be ok? Would it be Ok to generate some heart rending image of a child sitting in some ruins of a war torn country in order to raise a bit of cash for some good cause? No- it would not be OK, because there is a problem here- that child did not exist, never existed and nor did the ruins in which they sat- yet the image has been created to look like a photograph- deliberately crafted to look like an authentic image of real suffering. Any charity unwise enough to use AI in it's campaigns would soon attract a lot negative publicity indeed. So does this problem translate across the entire industry? What are the consequnces of undermining the public's faith in the authenticity of the photographic image when the stakes are a little lower- say in the fashion sector or the food sector- is it true that the public will simply not care that the images of fashion models they see are not real people but AI fakes? Or that the images they see in recipie books are not real food but AI fakes? I don't know the answer to these questions- but the fact they are not even being asked is quite surprising- it seems to me that an industry so dependant on having a clearly defined relationship with it's consumers should pay a bit more attention to the implications of replacing photographs with AI fake photographs, in the process undermining the publics trust in the photographic image.
If you're against the ethics behind generative AI, then I think you should be true to your principles and not use any of it altogether. I don't quite understand how you could be using an LLM like GPT and supporting Open AI (you know they use your work to fine tune their models as well, don't you?) that is taking away hordes of copywriters' and ghost writers' jobs but then have a beef with Adobe when it does the same thing to photographers. Not that I want to necessarily take their side, but at least Adobe gives you the option to opt out of their machine learning processes. Using the technology helps foster it, and, like it or not, you're contributing to its growth. Also, note that LLMs like GPT-4o are leaning towards multimodality, which I guess would pose yet another moral cunundrum if you're categorically against AI image recognition and generation as a whole...but I'm sure we can all find an excuse to cherry pick what's morally convenient and what's not.
Adobe owes all those who've spent $ thousands of dollars on Adobe products PLUGINS and PRESETS, TEXTURES and other add ons, and the manufacturers of those add ons an apology and possibly some recompense.
That's just not accurate. I know a ton of photographers who are not in favour of it. But as I said in the video, it's more nuanced then just for/against.
Notice how you did not mention professionals. If using AI is the only way to deliver for a client, are you going to say no because you are against it? Are your bills against AI as well? c'mon...
In my experience art directors and graphic designers try and solve their client's problems with AI instead of consulting or working with a professional photographer. It's more cost-effective but the result is sht. Consumers know and spot AI generated nonsense. - what does this make them think? "wow these people/this brand really put effort into this marketing. I must be very valuable to them" Or "damn, they think I'm stupid and that easy"?
I understand your feelings. And you are right. But your arguments will lose. I have been riding this wave since it began in the 80’s. Sometimes a little ahead of the crest sometimes a little behind. But having graduated with a degree in graphics arts in the early 80’s using T squares rulers and pencils. I was hired by a design firm in Hollywood. 3 years later, we all lost are jobs and were replaced by kids who knew nothing about art or designed but knew the buttons of photoshop. Fast forward, got back on top with 3D modeling and design… sadly they made that so complicated and expensive only the big corporations could afford to gear up for it. Then came digital photography and digital media… again entire industries of people displaced. I have worked in the graphic arts sector for 40 years now. I’d say 75% of that time wasn’t spent creating content, but relearning my job to keep food in my table. You’re right your industry is going to collapse fast. You’re out of a job. It’s time to figure out the new way of doing things. It’s sadly that simple
I use Affinity Photo for my editing because Adobe is not worth the asking price, so stuff em. Your video on UA-cam was followed by an ad for Topaz AI. I won't be buying any of those products either, cos I can do it myself.
I curse the day AI was invented. Dall_E, Mid journey Sora and others of their ilk want to do is eliminate photographers, artists, film directors and producers for AI garbage. The day will never dawn when I'll let my photos be used to train AI. Let those lazy developers learn how to use a camera. To hell with Abode photoshop, premiere and the rest of that garbage. I'll use iPhoto and iMovie!!!!!
As someone who works in both photography and marketing I am (selfishly) conflicted. I don’t want my work used or be accessed by Adobe. I also like to use AI in retouching and in my sense it also wouldn’t impact someone else as I would not pay to outsource retouching. On the marketing side the skip the photoshoot comment hits a certain part of me. Many times in creating marketing assets I simply would not have the time or budget to create exactly what I want. Doing an entire shoot for 1 required hero image would never get approved and I’m left with a subpar final product because my vision can’t be realized. AI stock photography is already opening up possibilities for me that I don’t have 2 years ago. I’m in a scenario where I want my cake and to eat it to on the commercial photography side. As for personal work I don’t care either way as I know what part I create and that work is meaningful to me.
You're a smart guy you earned a sub from me and a share 😉 your exact words in this video is what I've been trying to explain to persons months now😢 but for some reason they're just not smart enough to understand that they're paying to help develop their own downfall in time to come
I think it isn‘t as black and white if you zoom out a bit. Yes, commercial photographers will undeniably suffer from the current shift with AI. I don‘t know about you, but the more AI stuff is out there, the less I tend to care. I go out of my way to find something genuine. Something with intent and craftsmanship. Of course, I do not represent „the 80%“ and I‘m aware of that. To reiterate, yes, a major shift will happen, but I just don‘t think it‘s black or white.
I have just opted OUT of the content analysis. For me personally I do not want Firefly and now Adobe has increased my subscription to pay for it. This should be an option and not an automatic assumption that photographers want to engage in AI generated images.
Years ago Tractors showed up on farms. All the people who maintained and supported the farm horses were made obsolete. Lots of people. This is the same analogy. Would you want to back to only using horses on farms and banning Tractors. If you are, the global cost of food would increase significantly. Progress can be short term painful, but long term very beneficial.
@@StudioBuilder The people supporting Horses include, breeders, vendors of food and hay for horses, saddle and harness makers. Of course the buggy whip vendors. And I am sure I am missing some other people. So I stand by my analogy.
Funny, I am still an amateur trying to break into the field.. but with all the advertising Adobe is doing on facebook, insta, LinkedIn - and showing clear examples of generating images of people/objects/cars etc I got the sickening feeling that they are throwing creators to the curb. They are cutting out the middle-man and going straight to the companies, teaching them that their marketing team can come up with an entire campaign all in-house. Adobe sees more value in dealing straight with these businesses than with photographers. Lesson: Never trust the ethics of ANY corporation, even Adobe. They will always expose their bottom line, which is Profits over People.
I'm a sole proprietor with no employees, not a multinational billion-dollar corporation. I'm not replacing anybody that was already in a creative role. I'm using AI to help me be better at the things I already do. Where in the video do I say otherwise?
I started out as a PC tech until companies outsourced support to other countries. I adapted my computer knowledge to transition to training in learning and development. I understand it's hitting you directly, but you also clearly mapped out how AI is benefiting you and other companies are saving millions. I just checked my Photoshop product improvement settings and it was turned off by default. Thanks for the insight.
When it comes to photography, there are three long shot ways to save it in its current form. First, copyright being denied to images made by AI. As there is no human input, so there shouldn't be an inherent copyright. Copyright is the reward for the "making" of something by a person. A machine, I'll argue, shouldn't can't get copyright. Second, if advertising laws were to prevent the use of AI because the image isn't of the actual, physical, real product. Yeah, product photography isn't exactly completely real today - but AI won't help consumers see the true product. Lastly, I'll be a heretic here and say that film photography may have another resurgence because it is inherently resistant to AI (cropping, burning, dodging, etc. aside). Film photography is by its nature, more "real". It's not truly real or accurate, but somewhat more respectful of what was captured by a person using a camera to get an image. So, just maybe film is a way to move to more authentic images - if authenticity matters at all..
You mentioned medicine. AI will greatly enhance medicine. It's already better than experienced medical staff at picking up cancers in scans and tests. AI is identifying compounds for new drugs, antibiotics and saving a decade of research time by human scientists
Cancelling my Adobe Subscription soon, they are not the only Software available in the Space. The arrogance of Adobe, they used the images of Photographers and Videographers for years to build a Software for Profit. Now Adobe is looking to help take real work from the Professionals they rode the backs of.
It's interesting that you're perfectly okay replacing the job of a copywriter with AI but not your own. Probably extends to web developers too. Don't get me wrong, I think the thrust of the video is correct, but the distinction you've drawn reeks of hypocrisy.
@@StudioBuilder about 0:27 you say you use AI to "help write marketing copy for your website". What I said was an exaggeration at worst. Again, I agree with you in general. I just think that a lot of people end up using these "tools" to "help" rather than hiring a human with some level of expertise, and it's more pervasive than replacing obvious artists/creatives, as in your complaint. As much as invasive and pervasive marketing/advertising pisses us all off, copywriting belongs on that list just as much as musicians churning out cheap background/elevator music, painters making the blurry stuff in the background of a show, photogs evenly lighting some product in a white box, or a great number of other unglamorous but valuable creative tasks that no one thinks about.
@@587583922 I also said, "#hen I can..." I write all my own copy. AI is a writing partner. I'm just a small business owner. I couldn't afford to hire a copywriter if I wanted to. No one is being replaced. My lack of skills is being improved. So again no one is being replaced.
You do not make a good argument. All I see here is someone upset that he will be driven out of work by new technological advances. This is how the world works and its happened over and over and over again yet you are only upset with the change that you are currently witnessing and not the 100 changes before you. It sucks for those involved such as me and you but we have to deal with it and get on with life. There will always be need or the very best creators and if we are not good enough then we have to move onto some other way to make our living.
@@moviemusicmash4899 that’s a different issue which each person can make their own mind up on. For now, I get value for my subscription, when I no longer get value for it I will stop subscribing.. simple as that
Shits changing, just like when cars were first mass produced. People hated it, it destroyed a crazy ammount of jobs. But hey, they may scare horses, but you can get around A LOT faster and you don't have to stop to feed it or sleep, nor do you have to clean up it's poop. Every single one of these had people doing it as their job. Whole companies based only on making horse food. the horses used to cart it around,... gone.. for example. Is life "better" now with cars? I mean people actually leave their own towns/villages with ease now. But did we really need to? I dunno, A.I is here to stay, and laws and Monopolies and terrible terrible companies will have power over them, probably taxes and payments will take place and likely A.I will only be for the rich eventually, or at least the most powerful versions ( Bugatti, Ferrari ) . But who knows.
Welcome to the future. Adapt or die. This is not going away. AI will be used more and more to replace things people do today. Photography and design are just a few of the things that are being impacted. Technology has alway impacted us in this way just not as fast. Unfortunately - or fortunately , this is the world we live in today. Those that find new ways to harness these innovations are the once’s that will survive.
i think the rage on ai - myself included - mostly happened because it _replaces jobs_ which means danger for all of us. however, looking back at literatures about the future when robots and ai are the norm, they _help_ people and let us enjoy live better without having to do labors/jobs that hinders us from reaching our potential, our ultimate life goal. it is complicated, esp. when livelihood is involved. we are now in a time and economy where everything is almost certainly profitable
Please forgive my directness, but aren't you being a little bit contradictory? You talk about entire industries being affected by Adobe's "Forget the Photoshoot" phrase and business model yet, you, yourself, say you use AI for your copywriting, music, etc...things you say you can't do yourself. Well, what about those poor copywriters losing work to AI and/or, the people who make pencils, etc., etc. How about AI music? What about those starving musician's who spend lifetimes learning an instrument or the music manufactures, etc. etc. who build design and build their instruments. How about hiring a copywriter or a musician when you need one? You see, you can't have it both ways: You're either all in with AI or all out-there's no middle ground.
Using it at all still means you've exploited the uncompensated labor of others. Same as Adobe did to their stock providers and wants to do to everyone else now. It's not just about whether you would have hired someone, it's that the ability to do the task at all comes from companies theft. The only way to use it ethically is when the base data and any fine tuning are fully permissioned and compensated. And 99% of them are not.
Nope. We are no longer the creators and the publisher. We have been consumers and have constantly contributed spending money instead of making money to do real trading. Hence what we buy with is what we trade away in secret. Money, signatures, art, pictures all of it, instead of willing ourselves to give archives of free stuff to them to make AI out of. That’s the will of Americans now. They grow broke fast before they even know their own potential out in the real world. That sounds very boomer to a lot of people but, I’m 23 years old with no job or money at all attached to my real name. I am mot planning on getting my adult life together until my education is what pays me for the jobs that I am committed to and vice-versa. It has to pay off no matter what my next goals are or where to achieve them or both.
Ai is a copyright infringement of most humans whom ever posted anything on internet... No denying that... Using Ai for creating anything should be avoided... Retouch or sharpening or increasing resolution is fine... Please don't use it to create anything, don't buy their subscription
@@StudioBuilder Booooooo!!!!!! I think it was thievery when Adobe told customers who bought CS4 to CS6, they are not allowed to use those products!! Imagine paying all that money for CS6, just for the Adobe to turn around and say, "you cant use it any longer becasue we want you stuck on our subscription model instead." Boooooo! Great artists steal.
I’ve heard this all before! What you describing is “too big to fail”. A huge, expensive, fickle, neurotic industry condensed to an app. Nobody says, oh, let’s have a Crazy artist or photographer in-house! Because it’s cute, or or productive. It often it was just for convenience . If they had the space and the money . Nobody wants to deal with us. If they don’t have to. Is the photo industry too big to fail? Unfortunately, it is not. Anyway, don’t feel alone. This is going to happen to every single person on this planet once robotics catch up. You can just start patting people on the back and tell them you understand it’ll be OK. Do you Understand who’s next? It is the movie industry. You’re talking about upsetting probably the world economy in a notable fashion once …you take an account how that industry is involved all the way up into governments of some countries and the money that is made. Tourism, cgi, hotels, restaurants… just a tip of everything that will disappear within a year or two😮. Your industry… Not so much. Aint nobody coming *comment on your video: And just a sidenote. You and the people before you put an entire creative industry out of work. Just a couple years earlier than probably you have started…I came into the entire airbrush, retouching industry. With my huge, small car sized scitex system, and put person, after person out of business, those people were true artists. They use paints and spray guns to make absolutely true photographic corrections. I don’t think any of of the people watching this video, including you, could do that. And we’re talking using a microscope sometimes to fix errors with a paintbrush. Using dyes and rubbing them in to films, there is no way you could do that AND have a one person photography business. You had to send it to a true artist to do these things. I worked in Manhattan. There were so many retouchers everywhere. They were all put out of business within a couple years. What you describing now is no different from these true physical artists, except it’s a bunch of people with a tablet that has brushes that are already made into 100 leaves, or 1000 clouds, or into buildings .. a tap of a stylus… and really, I’m sorry, it’s really not a lot of expertise, that with any of those automated things that you already had , that this should be a surprise , how could most of you have seen this coming? So… I saw photography,pre-press, photo/chemical, graphic design industries decimated by me coming in. I have pushed into unemployment an entire gymnasium full of film strippers, one after another, and condensing into my ONE room, With a computer monitor scanner, and printer. I really don’t recall any of those people saying, “something needs to be done!” It is what it is. I would advise all of you to stop making UA-cam videos complaining about this, huddling in coffee shops and discussing the unfairness of it all & imagining class actions, and just move onto something else, time is running out. I don’t see any UBI coming in time to save any of you. Get to work, find work …as a worker. Your biggest mistake for all of you is calling yourself artists. You are not. You have been, and always will be workers.. .
There's three things in life that are guaranteed, death, taxes, and change. If you can't change with the times, and find a way to make yourself more valuable, you'll be replaced. I'm retired now and started out in electronics with tubes and discrete transistors, now I'm building a computer that has about ten Billion transistors in its CPU. "Endever to Persevere" (Lone Waddi, The Outlaw Josie Wales) or get wiped out.
so, when you used AI to "make music" because you couldn't afford to pay someone to do it (or use the free or very low cost music resources out there) that's okay because you were making money from it, but when your employers are using AI to not hire you then its ethically wrong… because you are getting cut out of it. Ok no hypocrisy going down there. Type setters used to set type one glyph at a time from metal, then bromides put them out f business, now we go straight to plate, putting bromides out of business. I can't really see your point… other than I sucks being you/human right now. The buddha had plenty to say on suffering, wise words to learn and live buy. not saying I like Adobe or paying their overpriced subscriptions for increasingly bug-infested software and shitty customer service. Not saying I'll enjoy seeing millions of people lose their jobs, but you aren't making a great argument when the line is "if I personally benefit or not".
I don't have employers. I am self employed. I do license music from stock libraries, such as the music at the beginning of this video. So, a human got paid for that. Where's the hypocrisy?
Are you feeling conflicted? I get that impression, because you definitely contradicted yourself in this video. Wow. You had my agreement for the first part. Unfortunately, the Generative AI issue has only been realized by Photographers; some of whom utilize AI themselves. I’m a photographer, but I’m also an artist, designer, and writer. I do not, have not, and will not use generative AI. Gen AI has been affecting us costing work and jobs for years and that was after initially having our work stolen by datasets like LAION who license stolen goods they aren’t licensed to have let alone redistribute. Writers, artists, book cover designers, poster designers, illustrators and more have been replaced or have to compete in AI flooded markets. It’s been devastating. Unfortunately so many AI users use the same excuses you have in this video for using Gen AI, thus exacerbating the problem. Taking a stand against AI by NOT using any of it would be helpful. If you don’t know or can’t figure something out, hire someone or collab with someone. Humans supporting humans. Saying “It didn’t put anyone out of a job because I wouldn’t have hired anyone anyway” is an enabler excuse, to put it bluntly; a justification for using AI when one feel guilty for doing so. I’ve heard this from everyone that uses AI and gets angry about those of us affected by it complaining. I heard this exact wording from an author who used to be a friend for using Gen AI narration rather than choosing any human option from hiring a narrator, working with volunteers, to reading their story themselves. It’s an excuse, not a reason. There are other options. It’s why myself and other readers avoid AI narration completely. It’s a tool when someone who has a disability utilizes AI narration on their device to help them read text of any kind. It is no longer a tool when a creator uses AI to create rather than working with a human; it’s an easy road to avoid creating, for whatever reason, and have instant gratification. I’m a coloring book artist as well. My sales have dropped considerably because the market is flooded by posers who can output a dozen books a week using Generative AI because they’re not actually doing the work. Then they sell for for pennies on the dollar because again it’s not like they need paid for their time and work; they didn’t do much. Yes, a producer oversees a project but please don’t compare that to prompting some words into Generative AI because these are not the same things AT all. A producer hires and oversees the work of an actual team or teams of people like you just mentioned. A Generative AI user typically types in some words and does little to no work because it all is compiled from others’ work. You contradicted yourself multiple times by first laying out all the reasons why Generative AI is harmful and then giving the typical AI user slogans of “it didn’t put anyone out of a job because I wasn’t going to hire anyone anyway” and I’ll paraphrase here, “it’s better for humanity if I create something that is not my own work by typing in a few words into an AI generator rather than doing the actual work or working with actual humans otherwise my idea might die”. No, the idea won’t die it just won’t be instant gratification. You might have to write it down and work harder to see it come to fruition. You didn’t plan to hire anyone because you planned to use Generative AI. These are not reasons for use AI, they’re flimsy excuses. All you need now is the third slogan, “People said photography was going to end art” and blah, blah, blah and you’ll have the trifecta of nonsense excuses for justifying using Generative AI…. albeit while complaining about how AI is harming humans. How confusing.🤔
To check and change the settings in your Creative Cloud, go to account.adobe.com/privacy
I think Ai can become a great help in overcoming our compulsive need for verification from others. This downward spiral of eroding credibility already began with the advent of digital photography. In the minds of many (rather uninformed) people the utilisation of a computer in the process of making any form of art render it more or less fake. That sentiment have always been around in a large segment of a potential audience. Ai is just another nail in the coffin in that respect. And in many ways the commercial art industry has been a major force behind this development. Al the while slowly eroding and undermining its own position in the eyes of the audience. The root of the problem lies in our incessant need for others verification. We imagine that our art is only worthy in the eyes of others. And if that audience doesn’t approve of our efforts, we feel worthless, right?
Well, I say, Ai maybe the best thing that ever happened to our relationship with our own craft and art! It may very well be the very thing we needed to really stop hankering after an approval of an imaginary audience. That’s truly liberating! If we take this insight into a higher level of understanding it can liberate us from all unnecessary shackles and our relationship with ourselves becomes much more genuine and real. If the world wants to play these silly games, let it! We always have the choice to participate or disconnect, consciously or mindlessly. Our choice! What matters is how we relate to the surrounding world. Are we going to let it effect the relationship we have with ourselves, or have we (finally) decided to not let the world define us? Are we finally removing ourselves from being a market-item?
I opted out some time ago. Good vid tho. Well done you
Thats why I only use pirated versions of Adobe products.
They're thieves.
Adobe Tells Users They Can Get Sued for Using Old Versions of Photoshop. "You are no longer licensed to use the software," Adobe told them. Adobe is warning some owners of its Creative Cloud software applications that they're no longer allowed to use older versions of the software.
Now thats stealing software from the consumer.
@@moviemusicmash4899 A better way would be to “invest” in the development of worthy competitors, wouldn’t it?
Again, to adapt a quote... I want AI to do the dishes so I have time to make art, I don't want AI to make art so I have time to do the dishes.
AI was promised to make our lives easier, but it is there to make profits bigger at the expense of the artist.
Timing is everything, with most 1st world governments keeping the big businesses happy, thinking that if unemployment is low, people are happy etc… in reality jobs suck, pay and benefits are worse than 20yrs ago and politicians don’t understand or have any experience with creative industries, look at budgets today and creative thinking today across all creative industries, bland, vanilla, safe, boring. It’s harder to find really great movie, a really great song, quality art or clever advertising… AI will just make it worse…
I remember saying much the same thing when the Mac OS was using a GUI while PCs were using command line interface. Those using PCs thought I was using a toy. I explained to them that the computer was suppose to help me do my work better, not make me obsolete.
ADOBE, Google, Microsoft, etc...should pay us the designer for using their product
yes. we _are_ the product, so you companies shall pay _us!_
Don't forget Apple
Well this AI crap is not getting better. Captions activated by themselves and when I turned them off a message pop that said to help creators by correcting mistakes made by the auto captions. I am pretty sure that is more dishonest AI training disguised as something else.
So why dont you chase after every other artist out there who has looked at and been inspired by your art and then gone on to produce their own?
@@Scotian280 Because they are not taking work away from people and giving it to machines. And because Adobe isn't being inspired by work, it's straight copying.
I completely agree with you. I'm a semi-retired photographer. For the reasons you stated, I've decided to end my Adobe ties. The real kicker to me is the fact that we are paying for the privilege to have them treat us like products. There are other options out there. It's time for Adobe to learn to respect artists and customers. Personally, I stubbornly avoid using AI as much as possible although I admit I do use it for some retouching/edits. Keep up the good work.
Everyone currently paying a subscription to Adobe is part of the problem.
Yep, some just complain night and day and stay with them. While their are alternatives
Blame the person getting stolen from, not the thief. Interesting.
What is the alternative?
Thats why I only use pirated versions of Adobe products.
They're thieves.
Everything you mentioned was spot on. Including the part of about no hope. The AI train is not going to be derailed.
Mankind has several fatal flaws as a species. One of them is being atrocious at weighing the conveniences vs the costs...the actual costs.
We will grab any shiny object, no matter how detrimental it is to us in the long run.
The Incredibles, Syndrome, says, "Everyone can be super! And when everyone's super... no one will be"
And the problem becomes even more serious when you realise that there are already several scientific articles written with artificial intelligence that go unnoticed by many journal reviewers... We are facing an immense abyss caused by an unhealthy acceleration of work processes and a constant demand for productivity, phenomena resulting from the cold mentality of profit and neoliberalism.
wait what!? please not researchgate
Even though Ai is destroying the market for a whole industry an even greater problem with Ai it is undermining and eroding our genuine appreciation for craft and art in general. I’m talking about the general understanding and appreciation for craft and art in the eyes and minds of the general audience. This is what will destroy the ‘market’ more than anything else.
But what can never be touched by Ai is our own love and feelings we have while engaging in our own craft or art activities. And maybe that’s a great thing? Maybe Ai will de-commercialize arts and craft and return it to a purer state or a more innocent realm again? Maybe Ai can bring us back to the original state where we only engage and produce art and craft for our own enjoyment sake? Not with an audience in mind at all?
I think that's beautiful.
Imagine Adobe saying Skip the photoshoot. I think they forget one little detail, it is the creative community that are buying their software products. How about skipping Adobe products? Oh and AI is the Fast Food/MCDonalds of creativity, At some point all this crap looks the same and people will get tired of it. Look what happens to fast food chains and all these big franchise restaurants. they are going out of business, Why? Because people are no longer willing to pay $$$ for crap.
This is just me but I find AI generated photos to be weirdly uninteresting. If I know an image doesn’t have human creativity behind it I just can’t get into it. It leaves me cold.
Adobe has always been like this. I used their products from photoshop 4 to cs6. When they introduced cc, many of us tried to sound the alarm and left, but the amateur photographers couldn't wait to throw their money at Adobe. Fitting that they/we should be the first industry that they cannibalize.
I dropped Adobe suite and am now using Affinity suite. Not as many bells and whistles, but suits my needs, is much more affordable, and doesn't have Adobe's agenda of eliminating the photo industry
I am still at a loss as to how AI is going to drive profits. A sheep eats grass, then walks around, shitting all over the field. The shit is full of vitamins and nutrients that make the grass grow, and the next summer, the sheep are in that same field consuming the grass. The worker at the Ford Plant buys lunch, go on vacation, pay for school, buy supplies for their kids to school, and on school field trips. They pay for their teenagers to go to the movies with their friends, to buy stuff at the local mall. So what happens when an AI can build a car and you don't need those workers anymore? No one has adequately explained where the increased profits will come from because at a certain point, when enough autoworkers, photographers, makeup artists, studios, and rental houses don't employ people well, how do you buy school lunch, pay for college, go to the mall, buy food and clothing? This AI revolution is not a closed loop, and none of the resources are recycled or upcycled through the system. There will come a point where you cannot afford to buy iPhones or go shopping for new clothes in the spring. So what happens then? How is AI leading to an economic boom and not a total economic collapse?
Ultimately- “photography” generated without a camera using AI , isn’t original art. It is copied / borrowed /stolen from actual original creative work that was used to “train” the AI engine. The next AI engines may be able to look at a piece of derivative / copied AI imagery and extrapolate back to whom it was stolen . In the meantime we must identify such derivative imagery and boycott the products that they advertise .
All artists steal. Every photo I take is an amalgam of every photo I've ever looked at. There is simply no way to separate my art from my influences.
Do I wish AI didn't exist. Yes. Our hubris in creating artificial intelligence will destroy us. But the demons are not going back into Pandora's box.
I agree with everyone you said. I want to be a professional photographer, and I have spent thousands on courses and gear, and for the past three years I have been working quite hard to build up a portfolio. Now it looks like all the work and money is going to be a waste of time.
I’ve not done a lot of photography the past couple of years. When Adobe decided to go the subscription route I decided I would not be using their products ever again. I’m not limited in what I can accomplish, just the opposite as I’m not financially tied to a company whose main goal is to suck my wallet dry…
So far as AI is concerned, the day I need a preprogrammed app to help me decide how to edit my photo I’ll be selling everything. AI is for people with no imagination.
A.I. is moving the creative community to the point where it is doing away with the "subject matter experts" who we pay for their time, knowledge & expertise to formulaic computer generate assets that lack a human personal touch. Instead of being a tool in the toolbox, its moving towards being the means to an end. It should have us all worried. IMHO
I’m totally on board with you on the first part of the video, but you lost me at the end. The only reason you can “produce” any image, video, or copy with AI is because a lot of artists and creators didn’t have the option to remove a checkbox for training AI on their data. Because at that time, there was no checkbox for them. So, we need to fight for AI products to be entirely created based on works approved by creators. And we need to find solutions to collaborate more with human-creators in fields that are hard for us to learn. Otherwise, these companies will divide us and damage everyone. I don't want this to happen.
This issue will be tested in court under fair use (USA) and fair dealing (Canada) stipulations in copyright acts. Training on existing data doesn't require a license because it's not reselling or using that data to produce results, just to learn. If it violated copyright for me to look at magazine covers and study them and learn how to take images in that way, learning would be impossible. We can't stop this train, but the best we can do is not use the tech to replace people. I only use it to enhance my personal productivity, not to replace a person that is already doing the job. I appreciate your perspective.
More people need to use Nightshade...
Would that help in the adobe case?
@@Mintyseden No I don't think so I'm not sure at which point adobe takes a copy of your work, it'll be even more insane if it captures it as your progressing... For Adobe you literally want to pirate the software.. If you google piracy reddit megathread, it has safe links to adobe software, it'll stop any connection between you and them. Nightshade is good if your done with a piece and it'll end up being uploaded or shared on the internet.
@@stan_TripleS-24 If that's true then we are all in trouble.. I wonder if uploading much lower resolution which kinda defeats the point. At this point i'm not uploading online and selling art in person.. It could take 100 years before laws catch up.
So, instead of hiring a copywriter or marketing pro you use A.I. ? YOU have chosen to "skip the photoshoot" yourself.
Did you watch the whole video? I clearly stated, "When I can, I prefer to pay someone." Not everyone, especially self-employed people running their own businesses, can afford to hire someone to do everything in their business. Do you hire a bookkeeper to manage all your accounts? A marketing firm to create and run all of your ads? A web designer to create and update your website? A scribe to take notes on parchment and write in cursive? Did you have an assistant read, manage, and write your emails and type your thoughts into these comments on their own device? Or do you use software to handle all of these tasks?
@@StudioBuilderYes I watched the whole post. You had the same business issues before the advent of AI - and, I assume, you managed to resolve them. But now even though you've dealt with those business issues before and "When I can, I prefer to pay someone" you still chose to use AI to do the work. Seems to me that, in fact, you've chosen the "skip the photoshoot".
@@theprintguide3610 Agree with you completely. It isn't exactly fair to pour gasoline on a fire and complain about getting burned and then claim it was only a little gasoline so it wasn't your fault. Just like all tech there is a good side and a bad side. Just like fire. Use it. Make it work for you. But don't complain about fire being fire.
Using AI to speed up or enhance something you were already doing yourself isn’t ’skipping the photo shoot’. You’re not displacing anyone that was previously used.
Instead of hiring great marketologist, adobe have to chosen ai shit instead of proper marketologist. Only ai or pure idiot can recomend you quote like this "skip photography".
I'm an amateur photographer and have been for 50 years. I cannot speak for professionals but, even as an amateur, I see (the generative / replacement type of) AI as a potential threat. I don't have a problem with using AI to improve the likes of noise reduction and sharpening; even dust spot removal and removing minor distractions from an actual photograph. However, as your excellent video sows, Adobe appears to be hastening the demise of a whole creative process, having benefitted from its photographer customers' income for two decades. Major corporations and even smaller ones are always looking for ways to reduce expenses and Adobe is giving them a big stick with which to harm the hands that fed it for so long. I've turned off the right for Adobe to analyse my content and use it to improve its AI / machine learning. However, can we REALLY trust Adobe to honour this?
To answer your question. No
You can optout of having your images train Adobe AI, but I cannot optout of Adobe's new T&Cs that allow their staff to manually review all your images. That makes it likely that Adobe's employees, contractors, friends and family, and anyone off the street can view your photos. Adobe can set up all the controls in the world to motivate their employees not to share, but their employees are people and things happen. Professional photographers should file a class action lawsuit against Adobe and report them to the European Union that cares much more about people's privacy than any institution in America. It would be good to see UA-cam photographers start recommending alternatives to Adobe. And then offering training. I'd like to ditch Adobe.
Great piece. Adobe should pay for the use, and as a minimum make it opt in.
Look. As a photographer I am sympathetic to your argument. But you do realize that all the reasons you cited for using AI - create music, writing copy, doing all those things you either can't do or cannot afford to pay someone else to do, could be done by people who are also complaining about how AI is impacting their businesses, right?
And they have a right to be angry, as well. However, I am not REPLACING anyone. I am not letting go of anyone and using AI instead of a human. I am augmenting my own skills.
Great commentary. Maybe an architectural analogy would be helpful. The great cathedrals were built using fairly simple hand tools, and that makes them even more remarkable than if they weren't. Nevertheless, there are many outstanding and conservable modern buildings that probably couldn't have been constructed without new technologies. For some, how buildings are built counts, and that's fair enough. But if AI can help us build something that couldn't have existed without it, I think that should be a defining line in the sand. But to simply be able to lay off all of humanity in order to help stockholders add a few more dollars to each stock share, we all know where that will lead us.
Idea: Adobe is chartered in DE - and has it's headquarters in CA.
The only way you're going to reel in the losers running these companies are 3 ideas:
1 - You need some form of antitrust legislation ENFORCEMENT - that actually punishes these losers at these companies. Being that Adobe Microsoft and Google basically own most of the regulatory arm of the federal gov't - why not - Go after it via a state level in Corporate charter agreements? Each state and it's voters can have a say on what they will allow corporations to get away with.
2 - Divorces
The unfortunate truth is that companies like Adobe likely don't care about the uproar by artist's and creatives that have been the customer base and training models for their tools. They will likely forego them all together and choose to make a cheap consumer version for everyday people to tool around in for craft projects and such and then a premium high priced corporate license so all marketing, design, sm, web, motion can be handled with a stripped down team of middle managers. That is the future for digital creatives, photographers, graphic designers, and other artists.
Could smell this coming when the adobe rep at the first congressional hearing was talking about trying to pass style copyright. They don't want it to protect artists. They want it so they can corner the market and crush any artist that doesn't pay them to use an offial Adobe "Art Style"
So glad I moved away from Adobe when LR went subscription. I use C1 and Affinity.
With Davinci Resolve etc being better, Adobe will pin all of its hopes on AI from now on,
Really appreciated hearing your perspective here. I just happen to do photography as a hobby, so for me AI is a big win. But, I do know a LOT of photographers who will get absolutely wrecked from AI. Interesting to see what will happen in the next few years.
Will AI replace Adobe also?
Wow!! That’s was very well put together. Thank you! Someone had to say it.
I appreciate that!
I'm very concerned about AI gutting the photography and connected industries: I'm currently an amateur photographer, and I plan to become professional in 7 years once my age and health necessitates retirement from my current, physically demanding, profession. 7 years won't be long for me professionally, but it's an eon in terms of how AI can harm the photography industry.
I was a pro in NYC in the 60s and have remained seriously interested in photography as an art form. I had a powerful experience in 2019 followed by a clear dream of creating non traditional but respectful religious icons. Yes religious art and not until 2023 did I solve the many artistic challenges. I started by using various photographic filter programs to transform and abstract photos, but like you highlighted I CANT DRAW. Then I tried AI and immediately got far better results. The clincher is that these images immediately appeal to people secular and religious. They are good enough to make their own way in the world. They have been put on permanent display in a church. At 81 I realised that I had become a real artist, yet I am not at sure exactly what has happened. As you say I am the producer, but not fully the creator of those images. It really is a new way of er producing imagery. I do the pre production work by creating and manipulating the image with software. Then I prompt the AI and move to post by selecting the images that work. My head is full of paintings and other art and I was active in the NY art world when I worked as a professional and I studied art history. As a photographer I have trained my right brain to instantly recognise when an image falls into place as a gestalt and my index finger pushes the shutter release before my left brain gets its boots on like anyone who has developed serious photo skills. So in this AI workflow my creative intent carries through the process, but part is outsourced to AI. I would say that I don’t feel my work is fraudulent possibly because what I am doing is similar to what Andy Warhol was doing producing fine art using commercial art processes. I have photos took of Andy pulling silk screens of a Jackie that he had sent out to have made by a regular commercial service. Not the same but analogous in a suggestive way.
what a load of shit ... just copying and fakery !!! and theft !!! no way to justify it ... your are only kidding yourself
Keep doing what you're doing! The world needs your voice.
The sad reality for all digital photographers is that you can't stop this AI tide from coming. Just like the film shooters felt as the digital wave was approaching.
And I still shoot film 😂
Film photographers were not replaced, most moved to digital and some are still shooting film.
Funny thing - I decided to skip Adobe in my creative workflow… haven’t missed it a bit.
the development, usage, and monetization of artificial intelligence shall be strictly regulated, and i hope countries will do this immediately. it’s like wild west now where companies with said tech can now do ‘whatever they want’ with it.
what makes them different from voc? and where’s the sheriff when you need one?
I remember when microstock took over the stock industry. You either had to adapt and re build your stock business to accommodate the new paradigm, or abandon it altogether and find another occupation.
THe reality is that pandora's box has been opened, we can get mad at Adobe or MS or whoever but we are in an adapt or die situation. If Adobe doesn't do this, some other company will and Adobe will die. There is no stopping AI and this is just the beginning.
Creatives are getting hit first but our society needs to take a long hard look at the philosophy of how our society is structured because the day when the vast majority of humans are effectively completely obsolete and have no ability to generate any income for themselves is rapidly approaching. And unfortunately, there is no amount of education that can change this. Anyone below the top 1% in IQ will be replaced by AI and those top 1% people will be the ones designing the AIs that drive the entire engine of the world.
I am a massive proponent of UBI. A lot of the AI tech CEOs are, too, because they know what is around the corner.
@@StudioBuilder I'd argue that the bigger social challenge though won't even be the lack of income but rather a feeling of purposelessness and lack of opportunity to ever "become" anything. Having a life that is a forever vacation may sound great but psychologically it can be extremely harmful for most humans.
I also think there is going to be a fundamental social challenge in a society that is almost completely dependent on UBI. Having your lot in life entirely determined by the whim of some government body can quickly become a source of powerful resentment.
Imagine all the CEO's, lawyers, politicians, basically everybody that doesn't produce a real products can and will be replaced. Who needs CEO's, lawyers, politicians? Another reason not to invest into a college degree. Learn a trade, AI is not going to replace plumbers, electricians, roofers, Landscape, etc.
@@reneweisz9157 Sure it is, AI + Robotics will replace all human labor eventually, the question isn't "if", its just "when". Though Boston Dynamics is already doing some freakishly impressive stuff. Trades people aren't immune to this any more than any other worker.
It's a sad world when I hear someone's purpose is to be a cog in a corporate machine. I think it would give people more opportunities to do real purposeful work.
This!!! Thank you for saying everything I'm thinking in much better words than I.could.
You are so welcome
Ok explain something to me. 1st not quite 2 years ago I got back into photography after 35 years. 35 years ago one of the cameras i used was a 35mm Pentax & spent many hours in a darkroom to develop, Jump ahead 35 years and now with a digital camera now i'm learning to "develop," my pictures, (i know everyone is calling it editing.) I decided to go with Lightroom & Photoshop because of all the abundance of "how to videos." With all this said I don't use the cloud feature that Adobe provides. So my question, "if you don't use Adobe cloud does Adobe still use our (photographers/creatives) content?" or is it just using Adobe to edit have we given Adobe permission to use our content?
I HIGHLY recommend reading their Terms of Service and checking out this video I just posted as a follow up.
ua-cam.com/video/XzPE5BMBJAc/v-deo.html
by switching to digital, you helped to destroy an entire industry of photo developers. I hope you are happy.
jk but, this is what happened and regular people did not care. They just wanted finished photos. I would be worried if I were a professional artist.
Thanks for your thoughtful and nuanced thoughts on this revolutionary technology.
So its not cool to skip the photo shoot but its cool to generate music for a production or its cool to not use a copy writer to wordsmith your campaigns... come on man...
No, you didn't actually listen to the video or chose to pick and choose what you heard so that it matches up with your pre-existing bias. Feel free to go back and re-watch the video and listen to what I actually said.
@@StudioBuilder no my dude. You said that to another guy in the comments section and you were wrong. I replied there too. You just are blind to your own hypocrisy. I can see your point about adobe stealing art to make their llm but you are a willing participant to ai taking other people's work. It's plain as day. I just think there's a block in your mind. I explained why even though you say you never would have hired a writer or musician in the past, it still contributes to taking away work. Why don't you try listening to others...
@@TerenceKearns He has removed several posts making this point.
I recon its freelance photographers which have been the quickest to be hit by AI - as a designer the more I look for and find stock images to use the less I find that they are not AI generated... in many cases thats an issue. But honestly the quality is often faultless. Unless you have clients who particuarly want real photos, or are doing specific real-world projects I suspect you may well be feeling the effects of AI in your bottowm line. As a designer - I'm well aware that my industry is going to have its head on the chopping block next - esp. for bread and butter projects. My biggest concern is if Adobe sees the next step as bypassing creators in the hopes of turning EVERYONE into a DIY creator by simply subscribing to their products. If thats the case its would need a mass exodis of their current users to trun the screws as hard as possible as quickly as possible. But the future ain't looking awesome.
The thing being overlooked here is that AI does not generate Photographs- it creates images that have the visual style of photography- essentially fakes. There's this almost universal assumption that AI and Photography are entirely 'fungible'- that the former can seamlesly be used in place of the latter.
But there's an ironic problem with this assumption, because the value proposition of AI in commercial projects is that it offers a way to leverage the authenticity of the photographic image at much lower cost. And up to a point this strategy will work- so long as the default perception is that a photographic image is indeed a photograph.
But here's the punchline- what happens when AI itself becomes the default perception? what happens when everyone simply assumes that any given photo style image they see is most likely created with AI. What happens, in other words, when the general public come to the view that all the photographs they see in advertising are AI generated fakes?
Once this paradigm shift occurs something interesting happens to the relationship that the public has with the photographic image- that public now views those images through a subtle but important new perspective. Because now every image they see is fake- not just retouched or manipulated but absolutely fake- unreal and stripped of the very quality that makes photography the default choice for almost all images used in advertising today- that quality being AUTHENTICITY. Even the most manipulated photograph has it's origin in the real world- not so with AI.
So AI 'photography' is a self defeating innovation because once it becomes the default solution it undermines the very authenticity it is designed to evoke. In the moment that consumers see an advert as being fake, their relationship to that advert is changed- they are now engaging with that advert in a different way, because they understand that everything that advert is showing them is not real.
Amazingly (to me at least) there seems very little discussion in the advertising industry as to the consequnces of altering the relationship between the advertiser and their target markets in this radical way- the thinking seems to be that no one will notice or care. This may not be true.
A very clear example would be the charity sector, where photographic images are often used to evoke sympathy and compassion on the part of would be doners. So- what if instead of a real photo of some tragic event a charity chose to simply generate an image using AI? Would that be ok? Would it be Ok to generate some heart rending image of a child sitting in some ruins of a war torn country in order to raise a bit of cash for some good cause?
No- it would not be OK, because there is a problem here- that child did not exist, never existed and nor did the ruins in which they sat- yet the image has been created to look like a photograph- deliberately crafted to look like an authentic image of real suffering. Any charity unwise enough to use AI in it's campaigns would soon attract a lot negative publicity indeed.
So does this problem translate across the entire industry? What are the consequnces of undermining the public's faith in the authenticity of the photographic image when the stakes are a little lower- say in the fashion sector or the food sector- is it true that the public will simply not care that the images of fashion models they see are not real people but AI fakes? Or that the images they see in recipie books are not real food but AI fakes?
I don't know the answer to these questions- but the fact they are not even being asked is quite surprising- it seems to me that an industry so dependant on having a clearly defined relationship with it's consumers should pay a bit more attention to the implications of replacing photographs with AI fake photographs, in the process undermining the publics trust in the photographic image.
If you're against the ethics behind generative AI, then I think you should be true to your principles and not use any of it altogether. I don't quite understand how you could be using an LLM like GPT and supporting Open AI (you know they use your work to fine tune their models as well, don't you?) that is taking away hordes of copywriters' and ghost writers' jobs but then have a beef with Adobe when it does the same thing to photographers. Not that I want to necessarily take their side, but at least Adobe gives you the option to opt out of their machine learning processes.
Using the technology helps foster it, and, like it or not, you're contributing to its growth. Also, note that LLMs like GPT-4o are leaning towards multimodality, which I guess would pose yet another moral cunundrum if you're categorically against AI image recognition and generation as a whole...but I'm sure we can all find an excuse to cherry pick what's morally convenient and what's not.
I didn't say that. I also said I'm not getting into an ethics debate.
If the product is free then you're the product...Adobe: Hold my beer!
Great video, please keep it up. You've convinced me to dump Adobe as soon as my next video project is done.
Adobe owes all those who've spent $ thousands of dollars on Adobe products PLUGINS and PRESETS, TEXTURES and other add ons, and the manufacturers of those add ons an apology and possibly some recompense.
So many artist (illustrators) are against Ai.
Photographers embraced it.
That's just not accurate. I know a ton of photographers who are not in favour of it. But as I said in the video, it's more nuanced then just for/against.
Notice how you did not mention professionals. If using AI is the only way to deliver for a client, are you going to say no because you are against it? Are your bills against AI as well? c'mon...
In my experience art directors and graphic designers try and solve their client's problems with AI instead of consulting or working with a professional photographer.
It's more cost-effective but the result is sht. Consumers know and spot AI generated nonsense. - what does this make them think?
"wow these people/this brand really put effort into this marketing. I must be very valuable to them"
Or
"damn, they think I'm stupid and that easy"?
As I said in the first sentence of the video, I have mixed feelings about it. It's not a simple as for or against.
no, just you.
adobe has annoyed me soo much that i have no adobe on my pc
Photo shop is no longer photo shop is inventShop, why have artificial intelligence when you can have real intelligence !
From your video, it seems that the Ai checkbox is not a default, you have to opt in voluntarily
I had already disabled it before making the video. It's actually what prompted me to make the video.
I understand your feelings. And you are right. But your arguments will lose. I have been riding this wave since it began in the 80’s. Sometimes a little ahead of the crest sometimes a little behind. But having graduated with a degree in graphics arts in the early 80’s using T squares rulers and pencils. I was hired by a design firm in Hollywood. 3 years later, we all lost are jobs and were replaced by kids who knew nothing about art or designed but knew the buttons of photoshop. Fast forward, got back on top with 3D modeling and design… sadly they made that so complicated and expensive only the big corporations could afford to gear up for it. Then came digital photography and digital media… again entire industries of people displaced. I have worked in the graphic arts sector for 40 years now. I’d say 75% of that time wasn’t spent creating content, but relearning my job to keep food in my table. You’re right your industry is going to collapse fast. You’re out of a job. It’s time to figure out the new way of doing things. It’s sadly that simple
All that is solid melts into air.
I use Affinity Photo for my editing because Adobe is not worth the asking price, so stuff em. Your video on UA-cam was followed by an ad for Topaz AI. I won't be buying any of those products either, cos I can do it myself.
I curse the day AI was invented. Dall_E, Mid journey Sora and others of their ilk want to do is eliminate photographers, artists, film directors and producers for AI garbage. The day will never dawn when I'll let my photos be used to train AI. Let those lazy developers learn how to use a camera. To hell with Abode photoshop, premiere and the rest of that garbage. I'll use iPhoto and iMovie!!!!!
As someone who works in both photography and marketing I am (selfishly) conflicted. I don’t want my work used or be accessed by Adobe. I also like to use AI in retouching and in my sense it also wouldn’t impact someone else as I would not pay to outsource retouching.
On the marketing side the skip the photoshoot comment hits a certain part of me. Many times in creating marketing assets I simply would not have the time or budget to create exactly what I want. Doing an entire shoot for 1 required hero image would never get approved and I’m left with a subpar final product because my vision can’t be realized. AI stock photography is already opening up possibilities for me that I don’t have 2 years ago.
I’m in a scenario where I want my cake and to eat it to on the commercial photography side. As for personal work I don’t care either way as I know what part I create and that work is meaningful to me.
You're a smart guy you earned a sub from me and a share 😉 your exact words in this video is what I've been trying to explain to persons months now😢 but for some reason they're just not smart enough to understand that they're paying to help develop their own downfall in time to come
Thanks for the sub!
Nothing to fear. If photographers lose income, they will cancel their subscriptions. Then adobe will notice.
I think it isn‘t as black and white if you zoom out a bit. Yes, commercial photographers will undeniably suffer from the current shift with AI. I don‘t know about you, but the more AI stuff is out there, the less I tend to care. I go out of my way to find something genuine. Something with intent and craftsmanship. Of course, I do not represent „the 80%“ and I‘m aware of that. To reiterate, yes, a major shift will happen, but I just don‘t think it‘s black or white.
I have just opted OUT of the content analysis. For me personally I do not want Firefly and now Adobe has increased my subscription to pay for it. This should be an option and not an automatic assumption that photographers want to engage in AI generated images.
Years ago Tractors showed up on farms. All the people who maintained and supported the farm horses were made obsolete. Lots of people.
This is the same analogy.
Would you want to back to only using horses on farms and banning Tractors. If you are, the global cost of food would increase significantly.
Progress can be short term painful, but long term very beneficial.
It's a false equivalency. Ranch hands and cowboys still exist. Migrant workers are very a thing. Find a better example.
@@StudioBuilder The people supporting Horses include, breeders, vendors of food and hay for horses, saddle and harness makers. Of course the buggy whip vendors. And I am sure I am missing some other people. So I stand by my analogy.
Funny, I am still an amateur trying to break into the field.. but with all the advertising Adobe is doing on facebook, insta, LinkedIn - and showing clear examples of generating images of people/objects/cars etc I got the sickening feeling that they are throwing creators to the curb. They are cutting out the middle-man and going straight to the companies, teaching them that their marketing team can come up with an entire campaign all in-house. Adobe sees more value in dealing straight with these businesses than with photographers.
Lesson: Never trust the ethics of ANY corporation, even Adobe. They will always expose their bottom line, which is Profits over People.
So it’s ok to replace a copywriter and not the photographer? 🙄
Who's replacing a copywriter? I've done all my own copywriting for 20+ years. Now I have a writing partner. I think you need to rewatch the video.
People are mindlessly cruel on the internet.
Skynet is here. When do the Terminators come?
They already left. But they'll be back.
Great, copywriters are also artist like you. You only complain when it affect your job, and I am saying it as a photographer.
I'm a sole proprietor with no employees, not a multinational billion-dollar corporation. I'm not replacing anybody that was already in a creative role. I'm using AI to help me be better at the things I already do. Where in the video do I say otherwise?
4:55 worse for MOST people
Okay
Does this mean I might can soon snap up a used Profoto Pro-10 for a cheaper price?
You can get less expensive lights that don't use proprietary mounts and work just as good brand new.
Adobe PS is nothing more than a fancy paint brush.
Imagine one day your paint brush having copyrights to what YOU painted. LOL.
I started out as a PC tech until companies outsourced support to other countries. I adapted my computer knowledge to transition to training in learning and development. I understand it's hitting you directly, but you also clearly mapped out how AI is benefiting you and other companies are saving millions. I just checked my Photoshop product improvement settings and it was turned off by default. Thanks for the insight.
When it comes to photography, there are three long shot ways to save it in its current form. First, copyright being denied to images made by AI. As there is no human input, so there shouldn't be an inherent copyright. Copyright is the reward for the "making" of something by a person. A machine, I'll argue, shouldn't can't get copyright. Second, if advertising laws were to prevent the use of AI because the image isn't of the actual, physical, real product. Yeah, product photography isn't exactly completely real today - but AI won't help consumers see the true product. Lastly, I'll be a heretic here and say that film photography may have another resurgence because it is inherently resistant to AI (cropping, burning, dodging, etc. aside). Film photography is by its nature, more "real". It's not truly real or accurate, but somewhat more respectful of what was captured by a person using a camera to get an image. So, just maybe film is a way to move to more authentic images - if authenticity matters at all..
You mentioned medicine. AI will greatly enhance medicine. It's already better than experienced medical staff at picking up cancers in scans and tests. AI is identifying compounds for new drugs, antibiotics and saving a decade of research time by human scientists
Great video
Thanks!
Cancelling my Adobe Subscription soon, they are not the only Software available in the Space.
The arrogance of Adobe, they used the images of Photographers and Videographers for years to build a Software for Profit. Now Adobe is looking to help take real work from the Professionals they rode the backs of.
It's interesting that you're perfectly okay replacing the job of a copywriter with AI but not your own. Probably extends to web developers too.
Don't get me wrong, I think the thrust of the video is correct, but the distinction you've drawn reeks of hypocrisy.
You didn't listen. Watch it again and listen.
@@StudioBuilder did you or did you not say exactly that?
@@587583922 did not say that at all. Please cite the moment where I said I "replace" copywriters.
@@StudioBuilder about 0:27 you say you use AI to "help write marketing copy for your website". What I said was an exaggeration at worst.
Again, I agree with you in general. I just think that a lot of people end up using these "tools" to "help" rather than hiring a human with some level of expertise, and it's more pervasive than replacing obvious artists/creatives, as in your complaint.
As much as invasive and pervasive marketing/advertising pisses us all off, copywriting belongs on that list just as much as musicians churning out cheap background/elevator music, painters making the blurry stuff in the background of a show, photogs evenly lighting some product in a white box, or a great number of other unglamorous but valuable creative tasks that no one thinks about.
@@587583922 I also said, "#hen I can..." I write all my own copy. AI is a writing partner. I'm just a small business owner. I couldn't afford to hire a copywriter if I wanted to. No one is being replaced. My lack of skills is being improved. So again no one is being replaced.
You do not make a good argument. All I see here is someone upset that he will be driven out of work by new technological advances. This is how the world works and its happened over and over and over again yet you are only upset with the change that you are currently witnessing and not the 100 changes before you.
It sucks for those involved such as me and you but we have to deal with it and get on with life. There will always be need or the very best creators and if we are not good enough then we have to move onto some other way to make our living.
You're paying adobe to make their product replace you.
@@moviemusicmash4899 that’s a different issue which each person can make their own mind up on. For now, I get value for my subscription, when I no longer get value for it I will stop subscribing.. simple as that
Shits changing, just like when cars were first mass produced. People hated it, it destroyed a crazy ammount of jobs. But hey, they may scare horses, but you can get around A LOT faster and you don't have to stop to feed it or sleep, nor do you have to clean up it's poop. Every single one of these had people doing it as their job. Whole companies based only on making horse food. the horses used to cart it around,... gone.. for example.
Is life "better" now with cars? I mean people actually leave their own towns/villages with ease now. But did we really need to? I dunno, A.I is here to stay, and laws and Monopolies and terrible terrible companies will have power over them, probably taxes and payments will take place and likely A.I will only be for the rich eventually, or at least the most powerful versions ( Bugatti, Ferrari ) . But who knows.
Welcome to the future. Adapt or die. This is not going away. AI will be used more and more to replace things people do today. Photography and design are just a few of the things that are being impacted. Technology has alway impacted us in this way just not as fast. Unfortunately - or fortunately , this is the world we live in today. Those that find new ways to harness these innovations are the once’s that will survive.
Thank you for being a shining example of the kind of commenter I was talking about.
i think the rage on ai - myself included - mostly happened because it _replaces jobs_ which means danger for all of us. however, looking back at literatures about the future when robots and ai are the norm, they _help_ people and let us enjoy live better without having to do labors/jobs that hinders us from reaching our potential, our ultimate life goal.
it is complicated, esp. when livelihood is involved. we are now in a time and economy where everything is almost certainly profitable
Thanks for showing the way to turn off content analysis. Just done it
Maybe some people who support AI have no talent and don't want to work. JAT.!
Please forgive my directness, but aren't you being a little bit contradictory? You talk about entire industries being affected by Adobe's "Forget the Photoshoot" phrase and business model yet, you, yourself, say you use AI for your copywriting, music, etc...things you say you can't do yourself. Well, what about those poor copywriters losing work to AI and/or, the people who make pencils, etc., etc. How about AI music? What about those starving musician's who spend lifetimes learning an instrument or the music manufactures, etc. etc. who build design and build their instruments. How about hiring a copywriter or a musician when you need one? You see, you can't have it both ways: You're either all in with AI or all out-there's no middle ground.
Watch it again and pay very close attention to the very first line.
Using it at all still means you've exploited the uncompensated labor of others. Same as Adobe did to their stock providers and wants to do to everyone else now.
It's not just about whether you would have hired someone, it's that the ability to do the task at all comes from companies theft. The only way to use it ethically is when the base data and any fine tuning are fully permissioned and compensated. And 99% of them are not.
@@StudioBuilder I think you made it quite clear throughout so no need to review.
Go Linux. Time to give another chance to Free Open Source Software.
Great- but your feelings, mixed or otherwise, don’t matter to AI.
Nope. We are no longer the creators and the publisher. We have been consumers and have constantly contributed spending money instead of making money to do real trading.
Hence what we buy with is what we trade away in secret. Money, signatures, art, pictures all of it, instead of willing ourselves to give archives of free stuff to them to make AI out of.
That’s the will of Americans now. They grow broke fast before they even know their own potential out in the real world.
That sounds very boomer to a lot of people but, I’m 23 years old with no job or money at all attached to my real name.
I am mot planning on getting my adult life together until my education is what pays me for the jobs that I am committed to and vice-versa.
It has to pay off no matter what my next goals are or where to achieve them or both.
I Love You.
I love you, too!
Ai is a copyright infringement of most humans whom ever posted anything on internet... No denying that... Using Ai for creating anything should be avoided... Retouch or sharpening or increasing resolution is fine... Please don't use it to create anything, don't buy their subscription
❤❤❤
That’s why we have to download cracked Adobe software.
Don't steal software.
@@StudioBuilder Don’t steal personal content ✨
Thats why I only use pirated versions of Adobe products.
They're thieves.
@@StudioBuilder Booooooo!!!!!!
I think it was thievery when Adobe told customers who bought CS4 to CS6, they are not allowed to use those products!!
Imagine paying all that money for CS6, just for the Adobe to turn around and say, "you cant use it any longer becasue we want you stuck on our subscription model instead."
Boooooo!
Great artists steal.
@@X.11.11 Im with you on that one. Thats why I only use pirated versions of Adobe products.
They're thieves.
A case for piracy
I’ve heard this all before! What you describing is “too big to fail”. A huge, expensive, fickle, neurotic industry condensed to an app.
Nobody says, oh, let’s have a Crazy artist or photographer in-house! Because it’s cute, or or productive. It often it was just for convenience . If they had the space and the money .
Nobody wants to deal with us. If they don’t have to.
Is the photo industry too big to fail? Unfortunately, it is not.
Anyway, don’t feel alone. This is going to happen to every single person on this planet once robotics catch up. You can just start patting people on the back and tell them you understand it’ll be OK.
Do you Understand who’s next? It is the movie industry. You’re talking about upsetting probably the world economy in a notable fashion once …you take an account how that industry is involved all the way up into governments of some countries and the money that is made. Tourism, cgi, hotels, restaurants… just a tip of everything that will disappear within a year or two😮.
Your industry… Not so much. Aint nobody coming
*comment on your video:
And just a sidenote. You and the people before you put an entire creative industry out of work. Just a couple years earlier than probably you have started…I came into the entire airbrush, retouching industry. With my huge, small car sized scitex system, and put person, after person out of business, those people were true artists. They use paints and spray guns to make absolutely true photographic corrections. I don’t think any of of the people watching this video, including you, could do that. And we’re talking using a microscope sometimes to fix errors with a paintbrush. Using dyes and rubbing them in to films, there is no way you could do that AND have a one person photography business. You had to send it to a true artist to do these things.
I worked in Manhattan. There were so many retouchers everywhere. They were all put out of business within a couple years. What you describing now is no different from these true physical artists, except it’s a bunch of people with a tablet that has brushes that are already made into 100 leaves, or 1000 clouds, or into buildings .. a tap of a stylus… and really, I’m sorry, it’s really not a lot of expertise, that with any of those automated things that you already had , that this should be a surprise , how could most of you have seen this coming?
So… I saw photography,pre-press, photo/chemical, graphic design industries decimated by me coming in. I have pushed into unemployment an entire gymnasium full of film strippers, one after another, and condensing into my ONE room, With a computer monitor scanner, and printer. I really don’t recall any of those people saying, “something needs to be done!”
It is what it is.
I would advise all of you to stop making UA-cam videos complaining about this, huddling in coffee shops and discussing the unfairness of it all & imagining class actions, and just move onto something else, time is running out. I don’t see any UBI coming in time to save any of you. Get to work, find work …as a worker.
Your biggest mistake for all of you is calling yourself artists. You are not. You have been, and always will be workers.. .
Yeah, I’m in illustrator and I kinda got off of that bent. But more or less is still the same for all of us creative worker bees
There's three things in life that are guaranteed, death, taxes, and change.
If you can't change with the times, and find a way to make yourself more valuable, you'll be replaced. I'm retired now and started out in electronics with tubes and discrete transistors, now I'm building a computer that has about ten Billion transistors in its CPU.
"Endever to Persevere" (Lone Waddi, The Outlaw Josie Wales) or get wiped out.
so, when you used AI to "make music" because you couldn't afford to pay someone to do it (or use the free or very low cost music resources out there) that's okay because you were making money from it, but when your employers are using AI to not hire you then its ethically wrong… because you are getting cut out of it. Ok no hypocrisy going down there. Type setters used to set type one glyph at a time from metal, then bromides put them out f business, now we go straight to plate, putting bromides out of business. I can't really see your point… other than I sucks being you/human right now. The buddha had plenty to say on suffering, wise words to learn and live buy. not saying I like Adobe or paying their overpriced subscriptions for increasingly bug-infested software and shitty customer service. Not saying I'll enjoy seeing millions of people lose their jobs, but you aren't making a great argument when the line is "if I personally benefit or not".
I don't have employers. I am self employed. I do license music from stock libraries, such as the music at the beginning of this video. So, a human got paid for that. Where's the hypocrisy?
The only way to stop this is to see massive unsubscribes.
If you continue to use Adobe, don't complain when they use your photos to train their AI software to put you out of business.
Are you feeling conflicted? I get that impression, because you definitely contradicted yourself in this video. Wow. You had my agreement for the first part.
Unfortunately, the Generative AI issue has only been realized by Photographers; some of whom utilize AI themselves.
I’m a photographer, but I’m also an artist, designer, and writer. I do not, have not, and will not use generative AI. Gen AI has been affecting us costing work and jobs for years and that was after initially having our work stolen by datasets like LAION who license stolen goods they aren’t licensed to have let alone redistribute.
Writers, artists, book cover designers, poster designers, illustrators and more have been replaced or have to compete in AI flooded markets. It’s been devastating. Unfortunately so many AI users use the same excuses you have in this video for using Gen AI, thus exacerbating the problem.
Taking a stand against AI by NOT using any of it would be helpful. If you don’t know or can’t figure something out, hire someone or collab with someone. Humans supporting humans.
Saying “It didn’t put anyone out of a job because I wouldn’t have hired anyone anyway” is an enabler excuse, to put it bluntly; a justification for using AI when one feel guilty for doing so. I’ve heard this from everyone that uses AI and gets angry about those of us affected by it complaining. I heard this exact wording from an author who used to be a friend for using Gen AI narration rather than choosing any human option from hiring a narrator, working with volunteers, to reading their story themselves. It’s an excuse, not a reason. There are other options. It’s why myself and other readers avoid AI narration completely. It’s a tool when someone who has a disability utilizes AI narration on their device to help them read text of any kind. It is no longer a tool when a creator uses AI to create rather than working with a human; it’s an easy road to avoid creating, for whatever reason, and have instant gratification.
I’m a coloring book artist as well. My sales have dropped considerably because the market is flooded by posers who can output a dozen books a week using Generative AI because they’re not actually doing the work. Then they sell for for pennies on the dollar because again it’s not like they need paid for their time and work; they didn’t do much.
Yes, a producer oversees a project but please don’t compare that to prompting some words into Generative AI because these are not the same things AT all. A producer hires and oversees the work of an actual team or teams of people like you just mentioned. A Generative AI user typically types in some words and does little to no work because it all is compiled from others’ work.
You contradicted yourself multiple times by first laying out all the reasons why Generative AI is harmful and then giving the typical AI user slogans of “it didn’t put anyone out of a job because I wasn’t going to hire anyone anyway” and I’ll paraphrase here, “it’s better for humanity if I create something that is not my own work by typing in a few words into an AI generator rather than doing the actual work or working with actual humans otherwise my idea might die”. No, the idea won’t die it just won’t be instant gratification. You might have to write it down and work harder to see it come to fruition. You didn’t plan to hire anyone because you planned to use Generative AI. These are not reasons for use AI, they’re flimsy excuses.
All you need now is the third slogan, “People said photography was going to end art” and blah, blah, blah and you’ll have the trifecta of nonsense excuses for justifying using Generative AI…. albeit while complaining about how AI is harming humans. How confusing.🤔
So…you complain about what you yourself are doing.
Go back and rewatch the video. From the very first line of the video and throughout the video I explained very clearly my position.
wow... to get a great photo, I can use AI or hire 60 people? Guess what I am gonna do. :D
What's your business? Are you a European auto manufacturer or global athletic apparel brand?