R C-R

If you are referring to generative AI algorithms, that is not what they do. They analyze existing works for training purposes so they can create original work that share some of the same or similar characteristics -- IOW, to create something that is like something else, but not a direct copy in whole or in part. This is why there is so much discussion about the material used for training & who has the rights to use it for that. John von Neumann was a brilliant polymath whose work is the basis for an amazingly wide range of theories & methods of analysis that shape modern thinking & fueled innovation in many different fields, computer science among them. But that aside, he is far from the only one predicting the inevitability of some form of technological singularity, all of which is based in one way or another on the idea that the only necessary & sufficient requirement for intelligence is sufficient neural network capacity & that unlike for humans there are no practical limits on how large artificial neural networks can become. As for understanding, in strictly objective terms, what is it other than the ability to form useful associations from what is perceived? If so, then how does this differ from what generative AI algorithms do when they are trained? Aside from that, do any of us have to have any deep understanding of how something works for it to be useful to us? Consider how many people drive a car, use a computer or microwave oven, watch TV, or do any of many other things without knowing much about how they work. So perhaps it is indeed something we will have to agree to disagree about, but I do think all these issues intrinsically & inescapably revolve around defining a clear legal unambiguous definition of what intelligence is & how to quantify it.

I think in this respect what it boils down to is how one defines intelligence, legally or otherwise, & I think there still unanswered questions about how to define non-human levels of intelligence, including but not limited to animals & ever more sophisticated & capable forms of machine intelligence. In fact, some highly respected people like John von Neumann argue that it is inevitable that eventually machines will become smarter than humans, some form of the so-called singularity.

I'm not sure how relevant that is to what I said since it is about AI-generated work created in the style of artists, not actually copying or modifying their work.

I'm not sure how much to trust Adobe about it but they claim their Firefly generative AI technology was trained only on the several hundred million images they own & from other sources that are not encumbered by license restrictions that otherwise would prevent their use for that purpose. I have to wonder if what if anything Canva will offer, either as something built into a future version of Affinity or as a subscription based add-on, will make the same claim & how much we could trust it....

But for generative AI, is there really any actual copying or modifying of existing work occurring? At worst, isn't is more nearly like 'in the style of' some existing work or artist? These are not rhetorical questions. I really do not know enough about it to say how it could or should be considered, ethically, legally or otherwise. Also, on copyright infringement, it is up to the copyright owner to actively protect & preserve his or her usage rights, suing the infringer if necessary to do so. When AI generated artwork is involved, it may be very hard to determine who the actual infringer is, who should be sued, & if there is much chance of getting a favorable settlement. So regarding scale, unless somehow the courts decide the infringer is the maker of the AI-powered tool or compiler of the source material used to train it, it may be futile to try to sue what could be dozens or hundreds of individual people who used the tools for any purpose that infringed on their rights. I do not think there will be any resolution of these or the other vexing issues surrounding the use of AI tools any time soon.

How would that help for printed material that is fully or partially created with the help of generative AI that someone then sells?

Hypothetically, if it were humans who wanted to train themselves to create better work & they did so by studying the work of other artists, should the studied artists get compensated for that, & if so, how? I think this is just one of the several issues that complicate if or how AI generated content can be regulated.

This seems to be an unintended consequence of the new V2 feature to link custom content across the apps. As I understand it (which may be totally wrong) edits made to linked content in one app should be updated in the other(s) immediately so if the other(s) are busy that can't happen.

So perhaps it is forlorn hope, but maybe they are paying decent money for the licenses for this material & a market will emerge for those skilled enough that they can make a living selling the licensing rights to the content they create specifically for training AI's?

If one takes a broad view of what AI is, particularly the idea of it being anything used to dumb things down to the point that it no longer requires hiring someone with special skills to do a job, I think that has long been something most of us actually want & accept ... as long as it does not impact whatever skills we might have to earn a living. Consider that once, just to start & drive a car with an internal combustion engine, one had to master the use of manual controls like spark advance & the choke. Automating those functions is not exactly AI but it does dumb things down to the point almost no car owner needs to hire a professional driver just to get around. A more contemporary example is the invention of the GUI that made it possible for almost anyone to use a computer with little or no training. i only mention this to point out that to get any meaningful measures in place to limit how & where AI can be used, the first thing that has to be done is to clearly define what AI is & what forms of it are to be regulated. I think generative AI should be the main focus of this, particularly as it relates to ownership rights. But the legal issues are complex so I doubt we will see anything substantive from any government about this in the short term.

I suppose so, but even if Affinity abandoned whatever plans Ash hinted about being developed for the apps back in B.C. (Before Canva) times & Canva suddenly ceased to exist, continued aggressive development of AI tools of the type widely considered to be a threat to professionals of all types will not stop. So I think the best we can hope for is some sort of legislation being enacted in the UK, US, Australia, & so on to put limits on how those tools can be used.

That's why I said it just resembles fisheye distortion.

On the 2 (?) occasions I got that message AFAIK both of the other 2 apps were open & hidden but no files were open in either of them -- no evidence of anything hanging.

That is what happens for me as well almost all the time. The 'register or log in' thing has happened only once, the 'can't connect' thing once or twice. I can't see any pattern to it.

So then is it fair to say that to you "the bottom" has something to do with too much focus on AI tools? If so, then if Affinity adds few if any AI tools would you consider it out of this race to the bottom, so to speak?

Regarding the title question, every time I launch one of the AD V2 apps after I have quit it, I get a brief 'checking license configuration' message at the bottom of the splash screen. I do not know if this checks in with a server or not -- the delay is usually so brief that I can't see any evidence of that on the router I use to connect to the web. However, today AD V2 crashed & when I restarted it, it asked me to register the app or to supply my account ID & password if I already had registered it. I did that & all was well, but it was more than a bit upsetting that I had to do so. I must point out that this has happened at least one other time in the past, long before the Canva buyout, & I've also at least once or twice gotten the 'can't connect with the other apps' error when starting one or the other of the V2 apps. Just food for thought....

What can you point to that is any substantive evidence that Affinity is or will somehow be ensnared in a race to the bottom, & what specifically do you mean by "the bottom"?

FWIW, on my Mac it looks the same as in your screenshot & in the top image that @David in Яuislip posted, so no vignette that I can see but a small amount of what resembles fisheye distortion but I think is just a consequence of the shortish focal length of the lens setting.

What makes any of you think Canva has any good reason not to continue to, as you say, support & cater to you professionals by continuing the development of the Affinity apps, including but not limited to adding features both pro & hobby users have requested, & by eliminating the many bugs that plague us all? This is not the either/or, all or nothing thing that some seem to think it is. It is entirely possible, as it was from the beginning, for the Affinity apps to cater to the needs of both pros & amateurs. In fact, arguably it is one of the things that has helped make Affinity so successful. Canva seems to be run by people who understand this -- otherwise why would they have paid so much to acquire Affinity? As for the whole 'woe is us, these easy-to-use tools are killing our profession' thing, disruptive technology is something that professionals in many different industries have had to deal with for a very long time. A few examples are automobiles, electricity, radio (which in turn was disrupted by TV), & more recently by what is perhaps the most disruptive technology of all, the Internet itself. All these things presented opportunities for those willing to learn & adapt. This is no different.

I could be wrong but I suspect there are lots of 'pros' (however you want to define that word) who use either iPads or small-screen laptops or both at least some of the time.

Even for professionals sometimes there may be a need for a portable device they can work on away from the desktop environment. If say, you are publishing a book about farming or gardening, or anything else that you can't experience while sitting at a desk, working 'on location' from time to time may be more important than the size of the screen you are using.

They developed the iPad Affinity apps because an increasingly large segment of the market (both pro & hobbyist) wants (& sometimes needs) to be able to do their work anywhere, not just at their or their company's desk. It's the same reason Adobe & others invest in apps that run on laptops.

Admittedly, it isn't a very strong trend but I think recently there has been a gradual easing of concerns about Affinity's fate.

Good to know ... but do you have any idea why somebody like the Shizzle creator would want to do that?

I agree, but I would like to add that it is a good idea to to make sure the title of any topic you start about typesetting is descriptive enough to let others know what it is about typesetting you are commenting about.