Photoshop has a crop/enhance feature that now uses AI to fill in areas when you're resizing pictures to expand them. Also their "remove object" feature is now AI-driven. Both work incredibly well and probably account for a lot of the "AI usage" since they were both used extensively before.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to Shazam For This Useful Post:
A grounded person can objectively see the difference between generative AI slop and understandable AI use, but in the creative community there is a significant number of hardcore anti-AI advocates with 100% anti-AI stance regardless of use. The premise being that using AI to generate anything regardless or use is taking pay or a job from a real artist
Pretty much. Along with the notion that something created unassisted by a human being has a fundamentally different quality.
In the tabletop gaming scene there's a push to have publishers label a product if AI was used in its creation. The best parallel is the anti-GMO movement. To some consumers, the fact that a game/vegetable that used AI/GM is indistinguishable from one that didn't does not matter - it's essentially pollluted even if that pollution is invisible.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
You see a difference between AI created and AI assisted, but that view of nuances is not shared by everyone and those who hate on anything AI regardless of context.
Fair on all points. I guess based on my experience I feel like the group that sees no nuance in it is maybe quite small but quite loud. From what I have seen in my industry, these people are masking fear or other personal issues under the guise of holding a morally righteous position. Most of these people aren’t really buyers, they’re other sellers, and they don’t really impact the market much. Those people obviously also attack full AI creations, rightfully so, but like I’ve quoted Shazam below, a lot of AI is literally just the same tools designers, developers, accountants, project managers, etc already used but are now “AI.”
So it’s not that I reject the existence of the group or the possibility that there’s backlash against every usage of AI. I just think not every AI critic can be categorized one way, just as not every AI user can be. Most professional users of AI (as in professionals in their field that have incorporated AI, not people using AI to do tasks they otherwise couldn’t do) aren’t hiding their usage because of fear of retribution, it’s just not even something worth mentioning or something they may even really be aware of (which is how you land on such a high number of AI users).
It’s just not that meaningful to compare one extreme reaction with a poll that heavily samples from users of a platform rife with embedded AI. At the end of the day there are use cases where AI makes a lot of sense and will not go away, but at the same time, people should be highly critical of other ways AI is being used. I think both of these things can comfortably exist together.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shazam
Photoshop has a crop/enhance feature that now uses AI to fill in areas when you're resizing pictures to expand them. Also their "remove object" feature is now AI-driven. Both work incredibly well and probably account for a lot of the "AI usage" since they were both used extensively before.
Yeah, the Adobe suite in general has incorporated a TON of AI-assists into features that were already present and well-used.
AI is pretty buzzy, and I think as this all progresses there is going to be questions over how we refer to certain things and what actually qualifies as “AI.”
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
And that last point is why I have disagreed with the term's use since the start. It's not AI. It never has been, and likely never will be. It appears like it is, because, as Clarke once said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." It's amazing and powerful, but if every advanced piece of computer code that does or does not use a transformer model is "AI" then the words lose all meaning. Which is what has happened.
So now the reason you can't distinguish a position is because the category is basically everything people are amazed by that a computer does. Being for/against AI is now largely meaningless, because the term has no meaning.
"I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a Supply-Chain Risk to National Security. Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic." - Defense Secretary Hegseth
Why is this happening? The trump admin/defense dept demanded Anthropic’s AI be able to kill things for it without human approval and also do mass surveillance.
Anthropic said no, and now the admin is trying to destroy the company in retaliation.
Last edited by puffnstuff; 02-27-2026 at 07:22 PM.
Reason: Context
Ya, because they were the one AI company that refused to remove safeguards that prevent it from being using for evil #### like killing all humanity. Although, on second thought, maybe they are the evil ones for not allowing humanity to be exterminated. We've kinda earned it.
"I am directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic a Supply-Chain Risk to National Security. Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic." - Defense Secretary Hegseth
Why is this happening? The trump admin/defense dept demanded Anthropic’s AI be able to kill things for it without human approval and also do mass surveillance.
Anthropic said no, and now the admin is trying to destroy the company in retaliation.
Anthropic was founded by former Open AI employees who were upset with the direction Sam Altman was trying to get it, and the founders wanted to build with a much safer approach. They were well known for their rather insane safety rails especially in the early days.
They have easily the best coding LLM on the market and in many ways one of the most advanced models in Opus 4.6. They are bigger than OpenAI as a result on the enterprise market, having overtaken Chatgpt in the past year. (not surprising considering how much talent has left them and the brain drain). Chatgpt just has name recognition for being the first, and that's all your mom and pop knows (like Kleenex).
