All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
Arguing such thing is "open source" is misleading as 1/ contributors can hardly call themselves "authors" of this code 2/ nobody can demonstrate that the plagiarizing engine they used did not plagiarize proprietary source code or source code published under an incompatible license.
as in "you cannot claim a room is clean if you have never been in it, haven't built it, and cannot even know what's in it"
Not to mention the hoard of software patents Adobe will unleash their horde of lawyers with if this becomes anything more than a bad joke. Although that would make for an interesting precedent.
Adobe would have to prove the model that generated this was trained on its stolen code. And Adobe's code contains zero Rust while the Craft suite is 100% rust, so it's certainly not simply regurgitating Adobe's code.
If you learn from others by studying their code, is the organic artisanal code you create also necessarily stolen?
Let Adobe prove AI is trained on their codebase. Fuck Adobe, and fuck the copywrite system.
even the people over on hacker news concede that they are unusably buggy so.. i think vibe coded slop is vibe coded slop - use gimp
It's really funny going back and forth between lemmy and HN to compare the reactions
Not really a clean room implementation. Source has been leaked. Plus GIMP and other FOSS tools that implement the same functionality are in the training data. Very likely this "clean room" implementation is just laundering code.
Clean room reversing is just laundering code, always has been.
Rewriting code into English/GGUF/Klingon/whatever, and then getting someone else to rewrite it back into code is just laundering it. Its been legally accepted for a while, and many projects we take for granted today started that way.
Whether this case is "clean" enough is up to the courts ultimately, but its laundering either way.
The difference is the original source code, and similar source code that is incompatibly licensed, was in the LLM training data, making it not a clean room.
God I wish one of these megacorps would bite on suing one of these projects, if only so there is precedent of punishment for AI code-theft. The fact that they won’t touch them for fear of damaging their golden goose means it’s de-facto fair use.
I have to admit, "AI copyright laundering Mexican standoff" isn't an angle I had considered.
Honestly it's one of the few scenarios I did consider at the start. On the one hand, your megacorps like Disney (for example) absolutely want to replace human artists with slopbots. On the other hand, Disney does not want Joe Rando to be able to type "make me a Spiderman comic" into the slopbot.
Same, and I'd love for copyright to die, except I need capitalism to die first
In this case the clean room is probably "We told Claude to write it and we don't care if Claude has a bunch of leaked Adobe source code in it's training data."
On the one hand, I am opposed to AI slop.
But on the other hand, I am greatly in favour of anything that makes life even slightly more difficult for Adobe.
This is a tricky one.
On the one hand, I am opposed to AI slop.
Me too. But what is Ai slop? To me it is either fully vibe coded, or partially. Either way the user of the Ai ends up not knowing exactly what is going on. That is slop. But if its very carefully used, analyzed, understood, iterated and tested, like a human code would be, then I cannot call it slop. But it doesn't take away the problems using Ai in the first place. There are inherent ethical issues, and questions if the licensing and copyright will become an issue one day.
In short, not every usage of Ai is slop. But every usage of Ai has ethical unanswered questions.
It's an interesting exercise. If agentic AI is capable of easily recreating commercial software, I wonder if that'll make some software companies change their stance on it.
Not interested at all in using it though. I'm sure it'll be buggy as hell and I much prefer using software developed with actual care and purpose.
From their own documentation:
opening and re-saving a document renders the same for 307 of the 309 files in the psd-tools test set and 169 of 170 in our mixed ag-psd/psd-tools set
Just what I want in my editing software, the assurance that my saved files will mostly render properly when reopened in the same program...
This is exactly what will sink any attempts to do similar things, it's not the broad functionality of the software, it's all the billions of edge cases.
The LLMs will be able to get all the general requirements mostly right, and that's where it will stop. The subtle errors and bugs will pile up steadily as the codebase grows too large and complex for even frontier models to accurately summarize, and the people who vibed it to begin with don't actually understand what is happening, so they can't troubleshoot effectively.
Automated bug reports will pile up, agents will be dispatched in greater numbers, leading to cost issues and further complicating and compounding the errors in a bloated and convoluted codebase. The leads of the project will get burned out and abandon the project, leaving a giant, rotting, husk behind. Software that was forever, "almost working properly."
They aren't saying that opening and saving their own files corrupts. They are saying their psd saving is 99% the same as adobe's.
It's AI slop. It's not worth a discussion.
Use Krita or Gimp.
If the authors used the same method to improve GIMP, they'd be introducing a bunch of slop code to GIMP. This code is not going to be of GIMP quality.
I also doubt this will hold a candle to GIMP for the aforementioned reasons. It might appeal to a small audience, but I do not expect it to dethrone GIMP any time soon.
To be honest, I think these things will be abandoned very quickly. Therefore I don't think that there will be any competition to the "flagship" FOSS projects anytime soon. However, in the proprietary world, it's money above all else, and I think that we're going to see the quality of proprietary software degrade very quickly. Because why pay engineers to do work if you can have a text generator that does it cheaper and gets there 80% of the way, and then just release it.
I would have much preferred if all that effort went towards improving GIMP and existing open formats.
Well... if it was a 4-day vibe-coding project, then that's not a lot of effort, and I don't think GIMP wants to deal with that scale of AI contributions anyway.
To me this is on the list of acceptable uses of AI: to fuck over asshole corporations.
I will be extremely surprised if this comes anywhere near gimp. AI is not at the stage were is can create amazing software all by itself. It will likely be buggy and/or feature incomplete.
It would be okay, if it wasn't Ai. I think using LLMs cannot be guaranteed to be a clean room implementation.
Let's grab our popcorn and watch Adobe fight AI companies on this. Because if this isn't legal, then what does that say for everything else generated by AI?
What effort? Having an LLM churning on a problem isn’t effort.
Utterly doomed licensing. I mean rule #1 of a clean-room reimplementation is to not openly admit you're ripping off another product.
Secondly, as others have said, "AI did it" is not a clean room. Otherwise I can make the next pokemon game and just say that I got AI to reinvent the word pokemon and to generate all the pictures of pikachu therefore I'm good.
Thirdly, the amount of horrible AI verbiage makes the documentation alone awful to read, I have no temptation to try this.
I don't know how anything developed by an LLM can be considered a cleanroom reimplementation. The AI has almost certainly seen the source code of the project it's reimplementing, even of it's proprietary because the developers of said software are likely using the AI too
On one hand, fuck adobe, use gimp. On the other, fuck Ai slop, use gimp.
As I have said many times: license washing works both ways, this is the end of proprietary software as we know it, no more would I have a need to install a sketchy driver inside a windows VM just to use some crap USB microscope
I think this is a nice test to see, if license washing machines can defeat adobes lawyers.
the room can be spotless, but if your reagents are all tainted you'll only ever get slop plagiarized from other projects. but sure, enjoy your "clean room re-implementation of Photoshop" XD
I'll just keep using GIMP, thanks
I would have much preferred if all that effort went towards improving GIMP and existing open formats.
If it's AI slop I'm glad they didn't shit up gimp with it
Oh yeah my coworker was walking about this. Someone spent about $2k in tokens recreating the Adobe suite on windows, macos, and linux. Crazy what AI is able to do nowadays.
I don't think I will use it but I feel like in a year or two, software written like this will be everywhere
I think there are good reasons to be wary of slop that don't involve animorphing into an MPAA lawyer and parroting screeds about how you shouldn't download cars or whatever.
But also fuck Adobe
I don't think it's a great idea to use vibe coding on an existing project like GIMP unless you want to fully convert it to vibecoding. The moment you start vibe coding major features you lose all oversight of what the code does.
That's why I think this is a great way to use vibe coding. Just clone the entire Photoshop project and re-implement it all with vibe coding in Rust.
Rust is a difficult language to write compared to something like JS, but at the same time it's memory safe and can prevent a lot of bugs. That's why it's a great language for AI to use.
My concerns for LLMs, despite numerous, do not outweight my hatred for Adobe.
I mean that shit is legitimately funny. Personally, I don't care that much that these people are using the current fad* to (potentially) destroy the business model Adobe popularized. The real questions are this:
I will never trust something genetated by llm and barely reviewed by human. Ai agents already showed they are willing to cheat, lie and then cover it up. No no no.
I'm interested in where it goes in regards to legal drama. It can't be used to improve gimp or anything else really though. I don't think it actually meets the definition of clean room which would cause issues if anyone sought legal action, and many foss projects don't take AI contributions at all anyway.
It's funny to see corpos get mad but honestly a project this big, spun up this quickly is almost certainly an unmaintainable mess.
Just more bullshit hype. This project will go nowhere.
AI slop.
Do they even say which version of Photoshop they're mimicking?