We already HAVE open source Photoshop clones. Quite a lot of them, actually. Have had them for decades.

There's two types of people who use Photoshop. A: the ones who pay for it because they WANT to, because it gets them things like enterprise support. B: pirates who don't give a shit about all the valid open source alternatives that ALREADY exist. Neither are going to start using this, even if it WASN'T defective slop.

My review after like 5 min of testing:

It has the basic things imemented and they seem to work. At least I couldn't break them with basic usage. The performance has a weird bug. The proformance gets progressivly worse the more projects I open. But only the new projects have terrible performance. The first one still works normal.

It has only the most basic features implemented. Like things you could do on Krita as well, only that Krita can do more.

The ui has some oddities: on the top left there is a button with the current tool you are using and a chevron (idk what it is called) indicating a dropdown. Both do nothing. Or at least I couldn't figure out what they do or when they become active.

If you disable the ui elements on the right side it will still show their toolbar. The toolbar also remains active. This is a bug as switching modes removes them. if you enable and disable one then it is there again.

I cant rightclick on the empty space in the layers tab. Idk if that is a feature in PS, but I instinctively did it so there is some muscle memory there.

tldr: I kinda works. Very basic tho.

The settings are just as hidden here as they are in PS. So good job on that one?

My opinion: this is pointless

LLMs are stochastic regurgitators, but software can already be copy/pasted without cost.

Why should we be interested in an LLM clone of photoshop when there are already clones of photoshop (e.g. https://photopea.com/)?

If I want to use photoshop (or something like it), then I'll use photoshop (or something like it: i.e. photopea).

There's literally no point in favour of using the LLM copy, it's going to have less support and less security (since its training data will have also included prompt injection attacks).

It's just more of the same, but worse. Even for the sake of argument: if it wasn't worse, it'd still be more of the same.

I'm not interested in more of the same, I'm interested in things made by people that push the boundaries of what's possible: (e.g. graphite).

how can you describe it as a clean room implementation when it was made with LLMs?

jfc is that a thing now, people just ignoring the enormous theft that's wrapped up in LLMs and calling it clean?

I despise adobe, and considering their pivot to ai slop this is ironic - but not something I'd ever install.

People on Reddit reportedly tried it and it doesn't work properly it seems

AI slop that’s been developed in a mere 4 days (?)

I have been working on a project, with AI, for 4 months. When I see something done in 4 days that is supposed to be a large package, even more complex than what I am working on, I tend to be very wary about the quality.

i hate adobe, but also color science is hard. Can we say whether this would affect the actual color values recorded on sensors or film, even in subtle ways? what if the color matters for historical or scientific or medical purposes?

Whatever kills Adobe...

No idea how this works, sounds insane

I would personally prefer getting the few extra additions like automatic object detection into GIMP, or better PDF editing support for Libreoffice draw etc and use that

Cool, now do Lightroom too.

This kind of feels like Nintendo vs. Pocketpair all over again... It's a "written from scratch" situation so Adobe might struggle to get them there but they also have a ton of patents covering every inch of their catalogue. I think this one is going to get really messy because unlike Nintendo this is potentially existential for Adobe.