skeaker

That's an odd thing to say given that there hasn't been any word on if they even used LLMs. Presumably this update has been in the works for some time.

Could not disagree more. Ask anyone art inclined, anyone at all, and they will lay upon you their passionate hatred for Adobe and all it stands for. That Adobe continues to exist is only thanks to the billions it accrued from past good will that they have long since burned.

Notably they were able to, in one update, essentially double performance and cut load times to a quarter of what they were while also maintaining both backwards and forwards compatibility for save files and without breaking 99% of the mods on the workshop. Genuinely impressive feat.

They are covering the entire Adobe suite, not just Photoshop.

Very late to this but for what it's worth I stumbled upon this and tested their release from earlier today and it seems basically fine. Everything I've tried works except for popping out panels (like the history panel, layers panel, etc) which doesn't appear to be supported. Not sure what was broken for you since you neglected to elaborate, but if things weren't working for you right up front then it must be iterating quickly. Not saying this to brag or to take a stance on it or anything, just observing.

Those things aren't at all equivalent, so I'm not sure I understand your point.

There being a market for something does not justify its existence, at least morally.

Hmm. I gotta say I do see these though. Especially Claude...

Yes, because it's a matter of scale. Napkin estimate that you can do at home is that there are about 2.7b buildings, and half of them use concrete. 8/1.35b = 0.000000001~%. Compare that to 12,000 data centers polluting 0.1% of us. 0.1/12000 = 0.000008~. That's 8 zeroes past the decimal vs 5, so right off of the bat we can see that a completed data center is thousands of times worse than a concrete pouring.

The buried ledes here are firstly that a concrete building is a one-time thing, where once it's built it is built and that's that. (The 8% of pollution is a yearly recurring thing from the production of concrete, but an individual concrete building is done polluting once construction is finished.) On the other hand, an AI data center contributes its pollution every year continuously forever.

Secondly, the matter of scale. Concrete took billions of buildings to get to its share of the pollution done. You will be hard pressed to find anything in the world period that can be produced at that scale without causing significant pollution. It's almost miraculous that it's only at 8% globally, especially when compared to AI data centers, of which there are only 12,000. You could build a dozen buildings out of concrete every day for the next 40 years and on a global scale you would not move the needle on how much pollution concrete is responsible for. Do the same with data centers and while the math is a bit harder you will wind up being responsible for ~30% of the pollution on Earth.

This site literally has a user powered ranking system so dissenting opinions get downvoted. It is an echo chamber.

That's for all cement in the entire world, not one data center. This math is not hard. Plastic is roughly 5% of our emissions but you would not point at one straw and say it is worth 5% of all emissions.

This would still pollute less than the usage of the center. You're underestimating how much energy they use once active.

On paper you can't do this, but in practice the fines for doing so (if they ever even reach your mailbox after you've bribed the local politicians, which you've done to get your center built in the first place) are just a cost of business. There are plenty of videos of people who live near data centers who now have sputtering water from their sinks, or water that comes out brown and unusable.

Exactly, you can't compare them and they should therefore be treated differently.