This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!
And this is why software should always be offline and installed from media. My copy of Photoshop 6(CS1) doesn't care what I do with it, it's software that does a job. I've tried updated CS versions of Photoshop thanks to friends and other means, and frankly? CS1 does all of what I need or want, and very little of what I don't.
Working with software not installed and accessible on an airgapped offline machine is a bad idea.
Guess what the CC in Adobe stands for, yes it's "you don't own anything".
I was curious how Adobe was going to monitor/enforce this. In the article:
And again, outside of hitting users with an ever-classic "pretty please," it's unclear how Adobe actually plans to police this kind of material.
Basically, they can't. Maybe if someone was reported, their account can be deleted for violating a TOS. I feel like this is just an adobe CYA in the event someone creates nude photoshoot of a celebrity, so Adobe cannot be held responsible.
Since adobe firefly doesn't run locally, they could just implement a classifier/tokenizer that looks at the image and gives it a "nudity" rating where if it is rated too high the service could refuse to send the generated image to the user along with logging the attempt.
That's expensive enough software they'd have to be damn careful about false positives that mess with actual productivity because it happened to include a lot of skintones. Seems like they'd either need an appeal process with a quick response time or deal with pissing off legitimate users with the occasional hiccup.
I can’t wait for someone to get banned for drawing a tan couch.
Don't be surprised if this is exactly what ends up happening. These huge companies with near 100% professional market captivity feel like they can do whatever the fuck they want and you'll just have to suck it up and deal with it. And most of the time they're right.
This feels like a plausible deniability thing so when the creeps inevitably start cranking gross, illegal stuff they can shrug and say, "well we tried."
Why not, honestly?
