When Adobe Inc. released its Firefly image-generating software last year, the company said the artificial intelligence model was trained mainly on Adobe Stock, its database of hundreds of millions of licensed images. Firefly, Adobe said, was a “commercially safe” alternative to competitors like Midjourney, which learned by scraping pictures from across the internet.

But behind the scenes, Adobe also was relying in part on AI-generated content to train Firefly, including from those same AI rivals. In numerous presentations and public postsabout how Firefly is safer than the competition due to its training data, Adobe never made clear that its model actually used images from some of these same competitors.

    • SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Correct. To a certain extend one can add AI data into AI, too much and you add noise, making the result worse, like a copy of a copy.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yes, though that’s not what they’re doing. They train on images uploaded to their marketplace and, of course, some of these are AI generated.

          • Balder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Data augmentation is a thing since a long time, but of course if the majority of your data is synthetic your model will suck on real world data. Though as these generative models get better and better at mimicking real world data and we select the results we want to use (removing the nonsense and hallucinations, artifacts etc.), we’re still feeding them “more data”.

            I guess we’ll have to wait and see what effect it’ll produce on future models. I think overall the improvements on LLMs have been good, even at slow steps we’re still figuring out how to better turn them into useful tools. I don’t know how well the image generation models have improved in the last 2 years though.

            • General_Effort@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              we’re still feeding them “more data”.

              Yes, that’s one way of putting it. What gets into the Adobe stock database is already curated. They also have the sales and tracking data.

              Though as these generative models get better and better at mimicking real world data

              Also yes on this. It doesn’t matter if your data is synthetic but only if it’s fit for purpose. That’s especially true in this case, where the distinction between synthetic and real is so unclear. You’re already including drawings, renders, photomanips, etc. I have no idea what kind of misconception people have that they would think it matters if some piece of digital art is AI generated.

            • General_Effort@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              It doesn’t matter how the image was made. It only matters what it is like and how it is used to affect the model.

              • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                That’s what I’m saying. Synthetic images can help your model look better, but if you’re aiming for “realistic” output, but synthetic images are fundamentally not real images and too many will bias your model in a slightly different direction.