Adobe Research

Agree. It will be like text, which has always been trivial to conjure or alter. It will be a blip in history that that there was a period in which producing a particular image required its contents to have existed in reality. What we need going forward is a way to know provenance, where an image came from and what edits have been made. Then people can trust particular sources, as they do with text. The Content Authenticity Initiative is working on that. https://contentauthenticity.org This use case is a compelling use for blockchains https://research.adobe.com/news/content-authenticity-and-image-fingerp…

> Adobe has been unable to find technological innovation organically… In-house innovation is not the problem¹. What Adobe hasn't been able to replicate with XD or Illustrator is Figma's success with network effects related to collaborative editing and review. https://research.adobe.com/research/

In fact I did a bit of research after I started working on this and it turns out Adobe did exactly what you're describing: https://research.adobe.com/publication/playful-palette-an-interactive-… (the "learn more" button links to a detailed pdf with pictures of the interface)

> It’s not to say the developers and scientists at Adobe are lesser adobe research scientists are crazy-strong in the area of deep/neural graphics[1]. Perhaps we should disentangle adobe research from photoshop? [1] https://research.adobe.com/publications/

See the PatchMatch research project and associated papers[1] for more detail. They are different tools in presentation and implementation within Photoshop but are based on similar concepts of randomized correspondence. [1]: https://research.adobe.com/project/patchmatch/

This would combine well with an in-painting algorithm-- or the video equivalents: https://research.adobe.com/project/content-aware-fill/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3uCV0JYMJ4

You're obviously being sarcastic when you say "I don't care." Otherwise you would have let the topic drop a long time ago. The timeline proves how idiotic it was for you to complain that Scott's dissertation wasn't as good as Photoshop (while his stay at Xerox PARC was SPONSORED by John Warnock, president of Adobe). Again: Photoshop was released AFTER Scott's dissertation. And a commercial product developed and supported by thousands of full time people over decades is in no way comparable to a PhD dissertation written by one person that is clearly labeled "Caution: this is basic research, not a proposal for a practical piece of software." Do you also attack Scott's thesis advisor Donald Knuth, because Metafont isn't as powerful as Adobe Illustrator? You're baselessly attacking Scott for his "exploratory research" that was completed BEFORE Photoshop was even released. So your indefensible position is that it was wrong for me to post his thesis to this discussion because his exploratory research wasn't better than a product released AFTER he received his PhD thesis from the guy you claim not to know, Donald Knuth. It's ironic you'd criticize Scott for his exploratory research not being better than a commercial product from Adobe that was released later, since Adobe respects him enough to invite him to give distinguished lectures like this: https://research.adobe.com/distinguished-lecture-series/ >The Adobe Distinguished Lecture Series brings our industry’s most eminent…