Adobe starts roll-out of AI video tools, challenging OpenAI and Meta(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Adobe starts roll-out of AI video tools, challenging OpenAI and Meta
https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/adobe-starts-roll-out-ai-video-tools-challenging-openai-meta-2024-10-14/
48 comments
And Sora is still nowhere to be seen, 8 months since the announcement now.
It was pretty obvious back then they weren't gonna release it before the US election.
> before the US election
Aren't these happening regularly ? We're always before a US election
Aren't these happening regularly ? We're always before a US election
Okay, but like so close to a big election.
So why did they release their 2 updates to GPT?
Because they were incremental and not generating realistic video?
Why aren’t apples oranges?
Why aren’t apples oranges?
But competitors did so what’s the point of this predilection or the debate around it
[deleted]
I am not sure I would say it was "pretty obvious", but it is certainly likely.
Regardless I don't see why sigmoid10 was downvoted.
Regardless I don't see why sigmoid10 was downvoted.
Maybe. Maybe not.
The ex-CTO didn’t want to release GPT3 for fear of fake news articles, but OAI did anyway.
Safety doesn’t seem to be their biggest concern, unless they’re making inroads with politicians by fearmongering AI danger.
The ex-CTO didn’t want to release GPT3 for fear of fake news articles, but OAI did anyway.
Safety doesn’t seem to be their biggest concern, unless they’re making inroads with politicians by fearmongering AI danger.
Really excited from the glimpses we've seen so far. Lots of useful little things like being able to extend a video a few extra frames. I think AI is generally more useful as a tool like this on existing footage currently rather than generating everything.
I saw some great results years ago around restoring old film and placing in between frames to make old karate films 60fps.
It looked really really good at the time. I’m sure it’d only be better now.
It looked really really good at the time. I’m sure it’d only be better now.
Yeah I think this is being understated- reducing the workload or friction from editing existing footage could really help lower the barrier to making quality amateur stuff.
Adobes use of AI is embarrassing. Try it in illustrator or photoshop.
Have they fixed their image generation models yet?
This is what my thought was reading this as well. I used it early on and it was great but I don't know if it got updated or what but anymore I feel like it can barely generate anything useful from a prompt. "Oh good, videos of random weird blobby things now"
Note that "AI video tools" can mean so much more than text-to-video generation. Because video is so rich, it can involve every type of AI image, audio, motion, detection, inpainting, outpainting, etc. tool.
Meanwhile Animate has gotten few updates and left to linger, while competitors are doing a slightly better job, no one has risen to the top yet, but once they do, Adobe will buy them up.
Dreamweaver is stagnated. Fireworks died years ago and they killed Freehand right away.
Just proves, Adobe bought Macromedia just to kill the competition and for Flash which was popular at the time for video on the web.
Dreamweaver is stagnated. Fireworks died years ago and they killed Freehand right away.
Just proves, Adobe bought Macromedia just to kill the competition and for Flash which was popular at the time for video on the web.
> no one has risen to the top yet
https://rive.app/
https://rive.app/
I took a look at Rive a while ago. The thing that made it a no go was the lack of local file saving. There is a lot I really, really liked about it, but without local file saving it did not feel like a serious product to do serious work. I want to use it to make indie games. I want to build hundreds of animations, not the odd animation on a client’s website. For that I need control over my files, and I need the experience to feel more native and less web app.
They have a desktop app now and it can totally save files.
https://help.rive.app/editor/exporting
https://help.rive.app/editor/exporting
Ok, time to give it another look.
Thanks for the link.
Thanks for the link.
It’s close but still has issues
Adobe has a really huge moat they can leverage to acquire users.
> Adobe starts roll-out of AI video tools, challenging OpenAI and Meta
So if they can't make softweare (acrobat), they make AI. /s
So if they can't make softweare (acrobat), they make AI. /s
The AI space has such a high risk profile. Adobe's choice: bet on AI, and if AI takes off, Adobe is more profitable than ever. Or, bet on AI, and if AI doesn't take off, Adobe damages its own reputation (potentially permanently). AI is leading to so many companies making choices like this.
Adobe is being pretty conservative by AI standards however, by only training their models on material they've licensed. They seem to be banking on a middle path where AI does take off but most of the competition which took the YOLO approach to licensing eventually gets shot down by the courts and goes down in flames. Getty Images is doing something similar.
If you use their product, per their tos, my understanding is they can train on their customer data at any time. In other words, if you use their product, they automatically have license to train on your art.
I think the only statements saying that they don't train on their customer data is from their CEO, but unless they encode it in their tos, that doesn't really matter.
I think the only statements saying that they don't train on their customer data is from their CEO, but unless they encode it in their tos, that doesn't really matter.
This is not true - they do not train on customer data - they have clarified this here:
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-a...
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/06/06/clarification-a...
How do they even get "customer data"? Majority of people in this space do not use Adobe's cloud.
Do you think they just stream any photos you've opened with Photoshop to Adobe?
Do you think they just stream any photos you've opened with Photoshop to Adobe?
Given that they own a big library of images, it's the path they prefer.
I mean, given their recent liscence kerfuffle it seems clear to me that Adobe really wanted to be able to train on customer data. They had to backpedal, since that generated a surprising amount of controversy. They hold an effective monopoly in certain fields, and their behavior shows they really don't always have customer interests at heart.
Even without customer data to train on, they do have a pretty large moat with their image library. And you are right, they are in a good position VS competitors who trained on data they don't have rights to. We'll have to see how things play out legally, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up that something like midjourney ends up in an untenable position. However, openAI has a huge amount of funds that could be redirected to fight a oegal/lobbying battle. While they aren't a direct Adobe competitor, their whole business revolves around using unliscenced data to train their models, so they have a pretty clear horse in this race.
Even without customer data to train on, they do have a pretty large moat with their image library. And you are right, they are in a good position VS competitors who trained on data they don't have rights to. We'll have to see how things play out legally, but I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up that something like midjourney ends up in an untenable position. However, openAI has a huge amount of funds that could be redirected to fight a oegal/lobbying battle. While they aren't a direct Adobe competitor, their whole business revolves around using unliscenced data to train their models, so they have a pretty clear horse in this race.
Someone submits one image to their library that they didn't own the rights to and Adobe has to do a completely new training run to remove it, since you can't just delete.
Or they just leave it up and admit they didn't need the rights and their library being cleared of rights isn't really a value add.
Or they just leave it up and admit they didn't need the rights and their library being cleared of rights isn't really a value add.
AI becomes a lot more useful in a commercial setting when you can steer it towards a desired style which means training. Would imagine once they roll out the ability to drive it that way they'll include the licence to use whatever you feed into it for their own training too and many will capitulate.
If Adobe creates AI that specifically doesn't replace artists (except for extremely menial tasks) and explicitly doesn't "steal" anything yet the AI haters still oppose it, that only shows how irrational the hating is. It's kind of a great litmus test.
Those are two big ifs though.
It's the classic "Innovator's Dilemma," but as most of Adobe's clients are graphic professionals, they should make gradual changes and leave others with the bleeding edge. Workflow improvements are what most users want. Simplify common tasks or even have a "lite version" with fewer features but is easier to use for non-technical people.
If everyone's reputation has been damaged, has anyone's reputation been damaged?
Not quite everyone: https://procreate.com/ai
AI winter is coming and I wouldn't wanna be known as an 'AI' person then.
Adobe has no good reputation anyway, they are just so entrenched in the media and print industries that they can do whatever they want.
Pretty sure it's taken off already.