Latest news with #MidJourney
Arab News
22-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Arab News
A new artistic epoch or the collapse of meaning?
Some revolutions begin with a manifesto. Ours began with a shark in sneakers, a gorilla made of bananas, and a bomber jacket-clad crocodile. No, not a metaphor. Not a symbol. Just a digitally generated image of a shark wearing crisp blue Nikes, jogging through a neon jungle with a caption that read: 'Monday is a concept, Kevin.' Not a painting, not a sculpture, but a digitally rendered, golden-hued banana gorilla — smiling, no less — circulating wildly on social media. One minute, you are scrolling past wedding photos and baby updates; the next, you are face to face with a crocodile in a bomber jacket sipping tea at a Parisian cafe. Welcome to the new Renaissance, apparently. Only this time, the artists have silicon brains, limitless imaginations, and no regard for the difference between Salvador Dali and a children's cereal ad. The rise of AI-generated images has become the latest absurdity in our ongoing tango with ethical reason. Are we witnessing the dawn of a new artistic epoch — or the collapse of meaning as we know it? Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein once said: 'If a lion could speak, we could not understand him.' One wonders what Wittgenstein would say about a lion generated by MidJourney, wearing glasses and riding a unicycle through Times Square while quoting Plato. Is this communication, parody, prophecy — or simply pixels gone wild? Let us not pretend we have not seen this before. The memeification of art has been underway for some time, from deepfakes to NFT apes. But this new wave, this deluge of digitally conjured, hyper-real absurdity, invites more than idle chuckles. It raises deeply confusing and slightly horrifying ethical questions. Who owns an image that no human created? Who is responsible for its message — or its misunderstanding? And just like that, the age of AI image-generation brain rot was born. This term, now lovingly and ironically adopted by digital natives and reluctantly Googled by digital immigrants — describes the mental state induced by consuming endless streams of surreal, absurd, contextless AI-generated content. You know the kind: a goose in a business suit negotiating peace between planets; a Victorian child made of waffles; a platypus holding a sign that says: 'Capitalism is soup and I am a fork.' And yet we keep scrolling. We are enchanted. Philosopher Theodor Adorno once said: 'Art is the social antithesis of society.' In Techville, AI generated imagery is the social antithesis of logic. It is the philosophical equivalent of an espresso martini at 4 a.m. — confusing, unwise, but oddly invigorating. Let us take a moment to consider the rise of AI-generated nonsense. These are not merely strange pictures. They are surreal flashes of algorithmic creativity, trained on the deepest layers of the internet's subconscious. And they come with short, cryptic phrases like: 'Let the ducks speak.' 'Reality is just poorly rendered soup.' 'He who controls the cheese, controls the skies.' Somewhere, Franz Kafka is either applauding or suing. A generation raised on surreal, algorithmic absurdity risks losing its appetite for clarity, coherence, or even causality. Rafael Hernandez de Santiago We are not just talking about art. We are talking about a cultural shift — where traditional storytelling collapses under the weight of its own earnestness and is replaced by AI-generated absurdity that says nothing and yet, somehow, feels like it says everything. But what does this mean ethically? Who is responsible when an image of a bishop made entirely of spaghetti holding a flamingo whispering 'Free me, Deborah' goes viral and is mistaken for a political statement? And more urgently: if the shark in sneakers gets invited to the Venice Biennale before any human artist from an emerging country, what does that say about the role of merit, meaning, and memory in the digital age? Let us not pretend we are above it. Even the most hardened ethicist has giggled at the image of a courtroom filled with sentient toasters. There is something irresistibly clever about the stupidity of it all. But cleverness is not meaning. And meaning, in this age, is in short supply. Wittgenstein warned: 'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.' But in the AI era, silence is drowned out by a relentless stream of images of owls wearing Beats headphones, standing on Mars, yelling: 'I miss the smell of Tuesdays.' One might ask: is this art? Or is it something else entirely — a kind of digital dreaming, outsourced to machines, shared by humans, and celebrated not for depth but for derangement? The concern is not the images themselves. It is the passivity they invite. A generation raised on surreal, algorithmic absurdity risks losing its appetite for clarity, coherence, or even causality. Why analyze the 'Iliad' when you can generate an image of Achilles as a grumpy cat in a trench coat yelling at a holographic Helen? And yet — ironically, tragically, wonderfully — some of these AI creations do resonate. Like dreams or parables, they bypass logic and tap into something weirder and older: our deep love of surprise, of nonsense, of fractured truth. Kierkegaard, of all people, might understand. He once wrote: 'The most painful state of being is remembering the future, particularly the one you'll never have.' Maybe that is what the AI duck in a spaceship is trying to tell us. But we must not look away. Because behind every absurd AI image is a real question: who shapes our imagination? Who owns our attention? And what happens to a society that forgets how to ask why, as long as it keeps saying 'wow'? It is tempting to laugh and move on. To repost the image of a minotaur doing taxes under a disco ball with the caption: 'He files, therefore he is.' But we are in dangerous waters. Or worse, dangerous milk. Because the cow now has laser eyes and speaks French. And it is trending. In conclusion, though in this genre, conclusions are entirely optional, the AI brain-rot phenomenon is not just a meme. It is a mirror. A funhouse mirror, yes, one cracked and sprayed with digital nonsense, but a mirror nonetheless. We must reflect, not only on the images but on ourselves. Why do we laugh at a shark in sneakers? Why does it stay with us? Why does it feel truer than the news? Maybe that is the real concern. That meaning has been replaced by mood. That critique has been swallowed by consumption. That we are all just raccoons in suits, holding signs that read: 'Context is cancelled.' • Rafael Hernandez de Santiago, viscount of Espes, is a Spanish national residing in Saudi Arabia and working at the Gulf Research Center.
Mint
12-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Mint
Can AI replace children's book illustrators?
In the late 1990s, when Sudeshna Shome Ghosh was working with Puffin, the children's imprint of Penguin Books India (now Penguin Random House India), she had an opportunity to publish one of the most exciting books of her career. 'The Puffin Book of Magical Indian Myths (2000) by Anita Nair was a big book for us—one of the first of its kind to retell Indian mythology for young readers," says the editor and writer. She commissioned Atanu Roy, one of India's finest illustrators and cartoonists, to illustrate it. 'His approach was 'old school', he took no shortcuts, and worked on each illustration for as long as he needed to," Shome Ghosh adds. 'Anita would lose patience once in a while, but then, Atanu would send an image, and it would be mind-blowing." The piece de resistance was the depiction of Lord Vishnu's matsya (fish) avatar for the cover, which remains iconic to this day. 'It was a different era," Shome Ghosh adds. 'If you needed time to produce good work, you could afford to take it." Cut to 2025, and you can write a children's book in a weekend and publish it. All you need to do is compose a prompt for an artificial intelligence (AI) tool, provide a skeleton of a plot, along with a few references for illustrations, and you will have your illustrated book ready in a few hours. All in all, AI can do a passably good job— but more often than not, it is hit and miss. 'Although AI-generated images often have a highly finished and rendered quality, I am yet to see an AI-enabled book that offers consistency of style and design throughout," writer and illustrator Pankaj Saikia says. 'But considering the speed at which it is evolving, it won't be long before AI is able to produce better quality books. Also read: Art in children's books comes of age GEN AI AS AUTHOR In 2022, Ammaar Reshi, a product designer in Silicon Valley, was one of the first people to publicly put out the idea of using AI to write and illustrate children's books. On 9 December last year, he posted a thread on X, starting with, 'I spent the weekend playing with ChatGPT, Mid Journey and other AI tools… and by combining all of them, published a children's book co-written and illustrated by AI!" The finished product was called Alice and Sparkle. It is a story of a girl, Alice, who creates her own AI, Sparkle, and together they embark on an adventure to make the world a better place. In a feel-good pitch, the blurb described Alice and Sparkle as a story that 'hopes to inspire children, encourage their curiosity and learning, in one of the most technologically exciting moments in our lifetime." Since then, the impact of AI on the livelihoods of artists and illustrators has become far more palpable. Writer, educa tor and illustrator Parismita Singh, best known for her graphic novel The Hotel at the End of the World (2009), remarks on the ease with which AI-generated images are being used in textbooks and educa tional content. 'Some of my friends are using AI to create teaching materials," she says. 'They send me their work from time to time to check if the art looks alright." Apart from sabotaging the careers of professional illustrators, the AI invasion may diminish the trust of organisations and NGOs that are funding projects to make children's books more diverse and accessible through translations and wider dissemination, Singh adds. That's why not for-profits, especially, have to be vigilant. 'As a not-for-profit organisation, we curate our books very carefully. We want to find humans who have a unique story to tell," says Canato Jimo, writer, illustrator and art director at Pratham Books. 'I haven't yet encountered AI-generated images in my field. There is a trust I share with the artists I work with." At the same time, it's not unwarranted for a textbook publisher to improve the bottom line by using AI-generated images, Canato admits. Why pay for the labour of human illustrators, when it is more expedient as well as cost-effective to get AI to do the job? Yet, it is not easy to take a black-and white view of the role of AI in children's books. For Reshi, generative AI was a tool for personal innovation. Excited by the possibilities he had opened up, many adopted AI to breach the gatekeeping of mainstream publishing. Even a child aspiring to write a book could get on to an AI-enabled self-publishing platform like BriBooks to fulfil their dream. If you want to correct historical wrongs, you can use AI to create stories that don't smack of gender biases, as illustrator and author Karrie Fransman and her partner Jonathan Plackett did in their 2020 project, Gender Swapped Fairy Tales. Such egalitarian uses notwithstanding, these trends forecast an uncertain future for professional illustrators. Also read: Isn't it time that Snow White learnt stranger-danger? A NEW VOCABULARY Rather than giving in to alarm, Saikia, whose recent work includes illustrations for Shome Ghosh's middle-grade novel, A Home to Haunt, takes a different stance. 'As a professional for almost a decade, it feels like the time has come to re-evaluate my approach to illustration as a practice," he says. 'I do not feel threatened by AI art. Rather, it feels like an important juncture in art history, similar to the rise of photography that led to newer movements in the visual arts." Indeed, illustrated books for young readers have evolved significantly over the few last years, becoming sophisticated tools for cognitive, behavioural and social development rather than didactic instructional manuals. Think of the work of writers and illustrators like Oliver Jeffers, Julia Donaldson, Quentin Blake. Or closer home, of Prabha Mallya, Priya Kuriyan, Rajiv Eipe and Adrija Ghosh, to name a few. Instead of lamenting the rise of AI, a more useful response may be to bring the human hand strongly into the creative process. Shome Ghosh gives the example of Tsering Namgyal Khortsa, whose novel, The Tibetan Suitcase (2024), she has published at Speaking Tiger. To provide a reference image to the book's cover designer, Khortsa had asked AI to create the imaginative suitcase he had in mind. But the final result, beautifully illustrated by Mohit Suneja and designed by Maithili Doshi, not only superseded the AI version but also had nothing to do with any AI tool. Even for the smartest AI tools, it is still hard to rival the richness of observation and lived experiences that humans bring to the creative process. That's why, as AI continues to improve, it is key for artists to 'get their hands dirty, rediscover the joy of creating illustrations by hand," says Canato, instead of relying heavily on digital tools like PhotoShop. In the days when Roy was illustrating Nair's book, illustrators had to go out into the world to collect ref erences, be it of a leaf or flower. 'With the coming of the internet, we became armchair artists, sitting in our rooms and drawing based on the visuals available on the internet," says Saikia. 'In the process, we have become the mythical snake eating its own tail." Also read: What artists' childhoods can tell us In the end, the survival of any form is linked to what its audience expects of it. 'The crux of the matter is visual literacy," Singh says. 'As writers and illustrators, our job isn't to simplify narratives for readers. To be able to read a graphic novel, you'll need to understand how visual lan guage works." With their subjective access to the joys, sadness and wonder of the world, artists can thus become the conduits of precious knowledge. 'Recently, I was in an interior village in Arunachal Pradesh to research a project. ...I realised that no amount of pre-existing material on the internet could have told me the way I needed to engage with the community," Saikia says. 'I had to be present there to understand the lives of the people, which, in turn, will inform the work I'll go on to make. No AI tool I know can do the job of an artist going out into the world and feeling things."
Business Journals
25-04-2025
- Business
- Business Journals
AI skills valued by hiring managers; child-care support sought by working parents
In this edition of The Playbook, we look at how working parents are trying to offset child-care costs, why managers are thinking differently about AI skills and more. Editor's Note: Welcome to The Playbook Edition, a look at stories, trends and changes that could affect your business. Want more stories like this in your inbox? Sign up for The Playbook newsletter. Hiring managers value AI proficiency but struggle with candidate authenticity The days of solely boasting Excel proficiency are over as more hiring managers are prioritizing skills around artificial-intelligence tools to fill job openings. A recent survey from Resume Genius found 81% of hiring managers now favor candidates who have AI-related skills, with Generation Z hiring managers ranking AI proficiency as their top hiring factor. The report, which surveyed 1,000 employees, shows how AI continues to transform the recruitment process, along with challenges that can come with selecting the best candidates. Using AI tools like ChatGPT, MidJourney or automation software (36%); problem solving and critical-thinking skills for AI-related challenges (35%); understanding and applying ethical AI use (33%); and integrating AI into workflows or systems (31%) were among the AI skills hiring managers said they value the most. Key quote: "Ten years ago, Excel was a marketable skill that gave many job seekers an advantage over others vying for the same role. Now, it's knowing how to creatively use AI. Being comfortable with tools like ChatGPT, MidJourney and automation software isn't just a novelty — it's something many hiring managers expect. They're looking for candidates who can go beyond the basics and actually use AI to speed up processes and create more impactful work." — Geoffrey Scott, senior hiring manager at Resume Genius FULL STORY: Hiring managers value AI proficiency but struggle with candidate authenticity. Managers are changing their tune on a big aspect of AI Workers worried about being completely replaced by artificial-intelligence tools may be able to breathe a sigh of relief –– for now. The Playbook's senior reporter Andy Medici writes the second-annual manager survey from AI-powered presentation software firm found 54% of managers do not want to replace employees with AI tools, a big jump from the 39% who said the same in last year's survey. Additionally, just 30% of managers said it would be financially beneficial if they could replace large numbers of employees with AI, down from 48% last year, Medici notes. Medici writes that 63% of managers said they do not believe multiple employees they manage could be replaced by AI tools and still operate well without them, up from 43% in 2024. Key quote: "While many managers still have concerns about job security, pay cuts and employee resistance, fewer are viewing AI as a direct replacement for workers. Instead, companies are using AI to enhance productivity, streamline tasks and foster collaboration." — Jordan Turner, senior content strategist at FULL STORY: Managers are changing their tune on a big aspect of AI Working parents seek child-care support from employers as costs surge Given the surging costs of child care across the country, many working parents are willing to be flexible on pay raises if it means getting employers to subsidize their child-care expenses. That was among the key takeaways from a recent KinderCare Confidence Index report, which found 59% of respondents share that sentiment. The survey, which polled 2,504 parents with children age 12 and younger, highlighted how some parents are putting more pressure on employers to help address the national child-care crisis. A Business Journals report last year that looked at the nation's child-care shortage found growth in child-care costs has outpaced other daily expenses and the cost of child care keeps growing. The average national price for child care annually rose 3.7% between 2022 to 2023, to $11,582 per child, according to Child Care Aware of America. Why it matters: Issues around the cost of and access to child care disproportionately impact women. While 79% of women and 84% of men without children participate in the labor force, only 67% of mothers with young children are active in the workplace, compared to 94% of fathers, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. There's also a growing disconnect between the benefits employees want and the ones Chief Human Resource Officers believe are important. FULL STORY: Working parents seek child-care support from employers as costs surge The blitz: The pricing game: How to set prices in the tariff era without costing customers … Trump announces 90-day tariff pause. Here's what it means for businesses. … Some six-figure jobs are drying up as corporate titans change course … The SBA is tweaking its loan process. Here's what businesses can expect — including higher fees. … These CEO salaries are surging to new heights … How to spot predatory small-business loans … New college grads are rejecting workplace norms. Hiring managers aren't happy.
The Sun
21-04-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Who are we in the age of AI?
WHO we are at work is deeply tied to how we see ourselves. Our identity is shaped by what we do, where we work, and how well we perform. These factors influence our job satisfaction, motivation, and overall well-being. When we feel aligned with our work, we thrive. But when our professional identity is challenged, we risk losing our sense of purpose. Today, the creative industry is undergoing a transformation driven by artificial intelligence (AI), automation, and digital collaboration tools. For designers, artists, and creative professionals, these changes redefine how work is done and what it means to be a creative expert. Whether you are a graphic designer, architect, or UX/UI specialist, the question remains: 'How do you maintain your creative identity when machines can generate designs, edit videos, and compose music?' AI tools like MidJourney, DALL·E, Adobe Firefly, Runway ML, and Canva's AI-powered design features can now generate logos, website layouts, and 3D models in seconds. This technology offers efficiency, handling repetitive tasks so that designers can focus on bigger ideas. However, it also shifts their role from creators to curators, raising fundamental questions about identity. Traditionally, creative professionals have taken pride in originality and craftsmanship. But when AI can produce near-instant results, some may ask: 'Am I still the artist, or just someone refining what the machine generates?' This shift can be unsettling, especially in an industry where individuality has always been a marker of success. At the same time, digital collaboration tools like Figma, Miro, and Adobe Creative Cloud have changed how teams work together. Designers, developers, and clients can now collaborate in real time, making the creative process more dynamic. While this improves efficiency, it also blurs the boundaries of expertise. Previously, designers led the creative process, blending aesthetics with functionality. Now, with multiple stakeholders weighing in, they must navigate competing opinions and justify their decisions more than ever. Some may feel their expertise is being diluted, reduced to executing rather than envisioning. This shift affects how designers perceive their own value. If an organisation prioritises collective decision-making over individual creativity, professionals may struggle to see their contributions as unique or essential. When work is defined by consensus rather than creative vision, does the designer still have authority, or are they simply another voice in the crowd? How can creative professionals embrace these changes while preserving their sense of identity? The key lies in redefining their roles. For those working with AI, the focus should shift from execution to creative strategy. AI may handle the technical aspects, but human designers provide vision, meaning, and refinement. Rather than competing with AI, professionals should guide its use, ensuring that technology enhances creativity rather than replacing it. Organisations must also recognise that true innovation is not just about speed, but about depth and originality. In collaborative environments, designers need to establish themselves as creative integrators. While teamwork is valuable, their expertise should remain central in balancing aesthetics, functionality, and user needs. Companies can support this by giving designers a clear leadership role, ensuring their voice is not lost in the crowd. The architects in my research illustrate this balance. Instead of resisting change, they adapted by expanding their roles beyond traditional architectural services. Rather than being confined to rigid professional boundaries, they embraced diverse identities, voluntarily taking on non-architectural scopes of work to maintain their influence. This flexibility not only reinforced their presence in projects but also ensured that their creative vision was upheld until completion. By broadening their contributions rather than retreating from change, they sustained their professional identity in a shifting landscape. Likewise, creative professionals today must adopt a sustainable mindset, integrating AI and digital tools without compromising their artistic integrity. The ability to evolve without losing one's core values is what will distinguish those who thrive from those who struggle to adapt. As we navigate the Gen AI era, it is worth reflecting on what truly defines us in our work. Is it what we do, the skills we master, or the outputs we deliver? In my research, I have observed a growing emphasis on performance-based identity, where success is measured by efficiency rather than creativity. But is this shift sustainable? Perhaps the answer lies in redefining creativity itself. Instead of seeing AI as a threat, we should harness it as a tool that amplifies human ingenuity. The future of creativity is not about choosing between humans and machines but about finding ways to let technology enhance humanity. As AI continues to reshape industries, we must ask ourselves: How can we use these tools to enrich our work rather than diminish it? And how do we ensure that our professional identity remains a source of pride, purpose, and fulfilment in this new era? Dr Syafizal Shahruddin is a senior lecturer at the School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Comments: letters@
Globe and Mail
16-03-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Adobe Stock at 2020 Levels Is A Rare Buying Opportunity
Sometimes, the market's collective mind can shift in counterintuitive ways. This seems to be the case with Adobe (ADBE), which has been beaten down by Wall Street's skepticism for the better part of the past five years despite consistently delivering excellent results. Its shares have now drifted back to the lows of April 2020, and you'd think the world had turned upside down all over again. One look at the headlines explains the anxiety. They are all about fresh competition, the looming promise (or threat) of AI, and a less-than-explosive Q2 outlook. But is this really the end of Adobe's dominant run, or just another chapter in its long history of turning challenges into catalysts? Light Up your Portfolio with Spark: Easily identify stocks' risks and opportunities. Discover stocks' market position with detailed competitor analyses. Competition and AI Jitters Competition is the first big worry here, and it's pretty obvious why. Canva and Figma have snagged millions of users, some who once counted on Adobe, by offering simpler interfaces and free or super-cheap plans. Canva's drag-and-drop style has really hooked the small-business crowd, while Figma has made UI/UX design collaboration mainstream. Adobe's attempt to buy Figma in 2023 was thwarted by regulators, ensuring the rivalry remains fierce. Then there's the AI wave. You have probably already seen various demos of exciting projects like DALL·E and MidJourney that produce high-quality visuals from mere text prompts. Runway ML is driving AI-enabled video editing, proving that generative AI can tackle complex creative tasks once reserved for power tools like Adobe Premiere. If these platforms keep evolving, the bears argue, why would anyone pay for a Creative Cloud subscription? Add to these concerns Adobe's recent guidance miss for Q2, with projected revenue of $5.77 billion to $5.82 billion coming in marginally under the analyst consensus of $5.8 billion, and it's no wonder some shareholders are second-guessing their positions. And who would argue against them? When you stack competition, AI uncertainty, and cautious revenue forecasts, it's easy to form a dim view of the road ahead. But There's Only Half the Story On closer inspection, however, Adobe's actual performance remains enviable. Investor sentiment on the stock appears to have reached rock-bottom. Yet, the company posted record revenues of $5.71 billion in its latest report, up 10% year over year (at an even stronger 11% when adjusted for FX swings). Its Digital Media segment, including Creative Cloud and Document Cloud, expanded 11% to $4.23 billion. Surely, these aren't numbers you'd expect from a business on the brink of collapse. Honestly, I'd say AI is more of a boost than a threat for Adobe. Their Firefly platform, now baked into Photoshop, Illustrator, and Premiere Pro, shows they can totally blend generative AI into their usual workflows. And if you're a pro looking for serious creative control, standalone tools like Firefly Web and Firefly Pro give you all the AI power without giving up that creative control. I want to stress 'creative control' here, as none of the exciting AI tools we have seen over time have shown they gave creators full control over their work. Meanwhile, Adobe's Digital Experience division continues to attract major enterprises. In Adobe's report last week, revenues climbed 10% to $1.41 billion, showing that big names like IBM (IBM), AT&T (T), and PepsiCo (PEP) remain in Adobe's corner. In an era when integrated platforms for content, marketing, and analytics are increasingly valued, it makes total sense that 'One Adobe' resonates with companies hungry for efficiency, consistency, and data collection. Putting Slowdown Fears into Context As I mentioned, Adobe's continued growth disproves ongoing market sentiment. One could argue that Adobe, however, missed Wall Street's estimates, and that management's target of roughly 9% revenue growth for fiscal 2025 marks the first time in over a decade that Adobe anticipates single-digit top-line growth. Still, this is hardly a concern in the proper context, especially considering that currency swings alone reduced Adobe's Digital Media ARR by $117 million from 2023 to 2024. The dollar remains quite strong, meaning that the reason management guides for high-single-digit growth is due to FX. If it were not for a strong dollar, revenue growth would once again come above 10%. Importantly, I feel like both retail and institutional investors are actively ignoring Adobe's capacity to consistently grow earnings year after year against all headwinds. To add some context here, analysts expect EPS to hit $20.41 in 2025, an 11% uptick YoY, despite all the market concerns and heavy AI investments. In other words, Adobe seems set to keep delivering double-digit earnings growth. Yet the stock's sitting at about 19.3 times this year's EPS, which honestly strikes me as way too low, especially given its dominant spot in the creative software world and, by now, a proven moat. To me, this screams opportunity for anyone who's willing to tune out the short-term noise. Is Adobe Stock a Buy or Sell? Even with what seems to be all-time-low sentiment for the stock, Wall Street analysts still seem relatively optimistic on Adobe from its current price levels. Specifically, ADBE stock now has a Moderate Buy rating among 26 Wall Street analysts who cover the company. This is based on 16 Buy, nine Hold, and one Sell recommendations assigned in the past three months. The average price target for ADBE stock of $520.21 suggests an upside potential of 31.79%. See more ADBE analyst ratings Summing Up To sum my thoughts up, Adobe's prolonged decline to 2020-era levels might make for catchy headlines, but in no way does it erase the company's strengths. Among these strengths, I would definitely highlight its consistent growth, top-tier creative and marketing tools portfolio, and management's (thus far) productive focus on AI innovation. Indeed, competitive pressures and macro tensions are present, but every corner of tech is experiencing similar headwinds today. Therefore, if you believe in Adobe's knack for transforming challenges into fresh growth engines, then now, at these price levels, could be the perfect time to lean in rather than shy away. Disclosure
