What Do We Owe the People Whose Work We’re Suddenly Able to Replace?

A dude with some serious AI chops built a small image editor with the features you’d find in Photoshop and shared it with the world. Suddenly everyone grabs a shovel and starts digging Adobe’s grave. And I start to wonder…

Now, don’t get me wrong, I love this creativity. Someone used AI to make something useful that takes up less space on your computer, runs faster, is less bloated, and gives you stellar results. For free. What’s not to like?

And hell, I use AI to make stuff too. I make tools to make my work easier and more efficient, and I’ve built my own scheduling, bidding, pitching, and brief-building tools. They work, and while I could be paying a lot of money for them, I run ’em off my desktop through Claude or OpenAI, and they make my life easier.

But I am not feeling that warm and fuzzy about cloning other companies’ stuff and sharing it openly. I am still wrestling with that feeling of betrayal.

I see photographers who’ve spent the last couple of years bashing AI because it’s taking jobs from them instantly decide that shutting down Adobe and its 30,000+ workforce is great fun. There’s a word for that, and I hate that word and what it stands for.

When I first saw the article and visited the Repo, I was impressed. I may have even shed a little sparkling tear after seeing what was packed into 8MB. But after the initial euphoria of realizing bloat was no longer a constant companion, I looked a bit deeper.

I realized I had multiple issues wrapped up into one, like a burrito holds both chilis and spicy Carnitas. (Yep, I compared myself to a burrito.)

Let me be emphatically clear: I’m not sure about this.

Compositor is a program made by Robbie Tilton. It’s photo-editing software you can download for Mac, and it’s free. As in no money. As in investment=$=nada.

Similar to Photoshop, it’s an application with most of the same editing functions. It supports some PSD files but not all of them. For whatever reason, it’s not all of Photoshop stuffed into a square.

I don’t know that he took Adobe’s code, and I’m not saying he did. Creating something similar by using AI and prompt engineering isn’t stealing on its own.

And that’s an important distinction.
We can’t build a moral high ground based on a lie.

But that doesn’t comfort me completely.

We’re at a point in time where we can duplicate long-existing programs. We just can. The gap between “Gee, I wish this program would do this thing,” and “Build a tool that will do this thing,” has narrowed.

Dramatically. Actually, it is dramatically dramatic.

This is really cool for people without big budgets. Sometimes you need a specific tool that isn’t available, and big companies may never get around to making it. I like having the option to make it myself. (Like my weekly idea/todo list that turns into content ideas I made for my desktop. Want one? Become a member and get an entire suite.)

But I worry about our base motivation. Is it to make cool products we can use ourselves, or does it turn into a vendetta against perceived predators?

Adobe has 30,000+ employees. Programmers, developers, truck drivers, and a whole host of workers who allow us to do what we do by making the product better.

Most of them never raised the price or wrote a cancellation policy. Or decided to change the default on the square selection tool… I mean, really…

They work hard and give us the tools that let us make a living. Keep that in mind when looking for alternatives.

What bothered me is hearing someone say, “they should understand the human cost of replacing photographers,” then cheer the possibility of replacing thousands of developers and programmers.

It just feels icky.

Yes, our creative lives are important. Just don’t forget about the others who may be facing a challenge never seen before.

I’m starting to tie myself in knots in this argument.

I know: Just because you’re spending less money doesn’t mean you want someone unemployed. If you’re a photographer, saving money is a valid reason to switch. It may be more than a valid reason; it may be imperative.

And we aren’t really loyal to companies. I mean, we can be fanboys, and I love my NiCaSoFu camera so much my teeth hurt. But show me a Leica or a Hasselblad I can afford, and it’s ghost time, baby.

I often recommend Affinity for people seeking a less expensive tool, and feel OK about it. Yes, I’m showing you an alternative to Adobe, and it would be hypocritical of me to call that ethical while not recommending an alternative that someone simply created by themselves.

Hypocrite, that stupid H word.

How do I determine the difference?

Can I honestly say I am not sure?

Some things to consider are how it was created.
Did they use others’ protected work?
Do they abide by licensing laws?
Are they honest about what they’re creating?

And remember where we all started? I remember my first Photoshop: Adobe Photoshop 2.1. How many hours did it take to build Photoshop from scratch? Probably more than we could ever count.

Then we come along and say, “Hey AI, create me a tool that does this,” and viola… it appears in our folder along with an .md file and an API Key.

That’s part of the ick.

Of course there’s another question. Can I trust a program without a big business behind it to protect me?

Because it’s open source, lots of people can add to it and see what code they are using. That doesn’t mean that any non-coder can read it and understand what is in it, but it is inspected and signed off on.

That said, how would I, or most any other user, know if malware or malicious tracking software was inserted into it? And what could I do about it if something was and I had damages? Nada, baby… It’s open source, and when you use it, you own all the problems that come along with it.

There have been cases of viruses inserted in open source programs. One was found in the XZ Utils backdoor in 2024. Just sayin’…

None of these are associated with Compositor. From my research, there are no signs that any malicious code or keyloggers built into this program. Their release list shows notarized and signed files. That isn’t a guaranteed way to know it’s safe.

My original headline was “open source can be an open ticket to your wallet.” But that’s not the main issue, is it?

Who maintains it?
Will it save all your needed file types?
What if an update breaks something during a paying project?
What happens when something goes wrong?

Spoiler: something always goes wrong.

Keep these questions in mind when you see the fascinating demos and have an urge to “finally break free from Adobe and find yourself again with the unicorns and the rainbows and those yellow flowers that grow everywhere in unicorn land.”

“Because we can,” isn’t the answer I want to hear from anyone using AI.

And yes, I love to find cheaper alternatives to help others create. Opening up the possibilities for more people to make a living off of their skills is a noble cause.

And when we collectively can remove people from jobs and careers, remember that there are real humans behind it all.

Maybe I’m loyal to the programs I’ve used for so long.
Maybe I’m being triggered by everyone being so damned excited.
There’s something bigger I can’t put my finger on.

I’ll keep thinking about it until my head hurts too much and I start hankerin’ for some single malt.

Thoughts from you guys?
Do you think it’s unethical to create something similar to a paid program?
Or is it easier now that you can?
How can we protect our jobs while allowing others to do theirs?

Images from Highway One, Oregon Coast.

I’m Don Giannatti. I write for people who would rather think than follow. Photography brought me here. Curiosity keeps me here. These days, I explore creativity, AI, independent work, and the ideas that help us build better lives and better work. You can also join me at DonGiannatti.com or on Substack.