Like the good ol' days of viruses and anti-viruses. I wonder if there's two sides that will play out; many agents across many users doing things at scale for their users, thereby creating an admin burden for someone else. However because the task is known there's a framework for how to solve the task, might Meta then provide an agent on the other side for the business owner to use.

Regardless of how automated parts of society become, there will always be a need for someone to do something.

You should always tinker and experiment with new things, that’s where you find opportunity.

Things will always change, there will always be jobs. AI will be a tool to use, good robots will be expensive, cheap robots will breakdown, everything will require some form of sales, management, maintenance etc.

Anything created in an Adobe product has a hash and is synced to their cloud. Opening any asset in an Adobe product without Adobe content credentials is blocked entirely as it’s ‘not verified’.

Any real business that uses Adobe software will be locked into it and it will shut out things like this from competing in a commercial sense.

It enforces the idea that only Adobe can validate the authenticity and origin of an asset, as well as builds a moat.

They could easily roll it out, it introduces more friction from a creative production point of view but they may have no choice now…

Photoshop has been around for around 35 years, fraud has always been an issue. There are plenty of reports of people selling things via Facebook marketplace and the ‘buyer’ showing them sending a payment on a fake baking app. Fraud will always exist and I don’t think tech will make it worse, everyone needs to be more cautious and tells friends and family to be the same.

You could almost draw a comparison between that and inexperienced consultants making business changes, claiming glory and then disappearing before the thing falls apart.

If that’s the case in a way its a similar delusion that average people are experiencing with their own AI use.

I’ve pasted an extract from a UK guide on legal responsibilities of cat ownership below, which to me sounds similar to AI. If the inbuilt behaviour is ‘it’s nature’ then perhaps there is less legal repercussions if the tool does something outside of its known guardrail/guidelines to meet its goal.

“Cat owners are generally not responsible for the 'normal' behaviour of cats because the law accepts that cats tend to wander into other properties and have instincts which, for example, lead them to prey on small birds. So cat owners should be reassured that the simple fact of their cat trespassing onto a neighbour's land would not make them responsible if, for example, the cat kills a pigeon or garden bird, urinates on plants or flowers, or defecates in a neighbour's soil. These would be 'normal' cat behaviours that would be expected”

https://www.gccfcats.org/ownership-health-welfare/owning-a-c...