Even if it works despite being AI slop that’s been developed in a mere 4 days (?) and somehow has all these contributors, I’m not sure I agree with the idea.

It’s cool that they went with Rust for it, but I would have much preferred if all that effort went towards improving GIMP and existing open formats.

If it works then I guess it’s the same end result at the end of the day, but it would suck if GIMP doesn’t end up being the one to put a nail on Photoshop’s coffin after all these years of serious development by humans.

Edit: I already see the kneejerk dislikes coming, I’m just interested in starting a conversation about the idea of it, I also dislike the fact that it’s AI slop as I already implied. I’d appreciate joining the conversation instead of dislike bombing with no argument.

  • okwhateverdude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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.

    • CameronDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

      • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        49 minutes ago

        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.

    • ferret@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I have to admit, “AI copyright laundering Mexican standoff” isn’t an angle I had considered.

        • pory@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 hours ago

          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.

    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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.”