Adobe Lightroom's AI Remove feature added a Bitcoin to bird in flight photo

Why this AI error drew attention

• Some see “AI made a mistake” stories as useful counterexamples to AGI/singularity hype and as future training data.
• Others argue they drive engagement by evoking mixed emotions: relief that AI is fallible and frustration about product “enshittification.”
• Several note it’s notable because Lightroom is a serious professional tool, not a toy app.
• There’s criticism of the broader pattern: large companies shipping half-baked AI features and normalizing poor quality.

Hypotheses on how the Bitcoin appeared

• Likely use of a circular selection: the model may over-associate circles with coins, especially Bitcoin, given Adobe Stock has a huge number of Bitcoin images.
• Possible training-data skew from大量 crypto/Bitcoin imagery, including low-quality AI-generated stock.
• Technical guesses:
  • Generative inpainting that “leaks” signal from the selected area instead of fully removing it.
  • Feathered mask edges causing the system to perceive a “light circular object” rather than “hole in the sky.”
• Linked examples on Reddit suggest this is not an isolated quirk.
• Some are puzzled that a “remove” tool would insert a more obvious artifact instead of matching the blurred ocean background.

Perceptions of Adobe’s AI strategy and quality

• Mixed views: some say classical heal/remove tools already work well and generative fill can be useful when guided by a skilled user.
• Others argue AI features are unreliable for high-end work, no better than old tools for small edits, and damage trust in Adobe’s brand.
• Concern that Adobe focuses heavily on generative AI while neglecting core bugs and pro workflows, drifting toward competing with consumer tools.

Server-side processing and possible compromise

• AI remove appears to be server-based (Firefly); traditional heal/remove can run locally.
• This centralization benefits anti-piracy and control of features.
• One user wonders if a compromised or “trolled” model could be responsible; others lean toward poor QC and normal model failure but acknowledge compromise is theoretically possible.

UX gripe: app deep-linking

• Side discussion about Bluesky links opening apps instead of the web, especially on iOS with Universal Links.
• Some see this as “creeping non-consensual computation”; others say it’s device configuration and offer workarounds (long-press, uninstall apps).

Image quality and photographic technique debate

• Several prefer the original photo; the processed one is said to have “AI shimmer” or an HDR-like, phone-camera look.
• Disagreement on whether highlight clipping in digital images can be “rescued” from RAW or is fundamentally lost information.
• Tips mentioned: underexpose bright scenes, use polarizing filters on reflections, and avoid relying on ML to fix blown highlights.

Content filtering and censorship

• Complaints that Adobe’s AI often refuses fills when women or body parts are visible, even clothed.
• Users report workarounds (temporarily censoring with black squares).
• Some argue paid pro tools should allow all legal content, comparing over-censorship to banning knives because they can be misused.

Broader AI/crypto/culture remarks

• Jokes about AI “mining” Bitcoin and crypto imagery dominating AI art.
• References to earlier AI hallucination incidents (e.g., upscalers inserting celebrities).
• A few allude, jokingly and seriously, to “Butlerian jihad” and skepticism about opaque AI “black boxes” in critical workflows.