AI images in stock.adobe

Good AI images take some skill and experience with various software tools; unfortunately, there's a lot of "bad AI" on the platform. 

I disagree. Yes, unfortunately, there are more bad AI submissions being accepted than there should be. But, as a former photographer who primarily submits photorealistic AI, I know what needs to be done in editing to give AI a photorealistic quality, which represents the majority of my submissions. And I'll spend two to three hours per image in order to achieve that goal. I've been submitting AI for over a year and a half and I have yet to reach 4000 images total in my portfolio, compared to individuals who have submitted (and have had accepted) 5 to 20 times that many in half the time. That should never have happened. I'm being facitious, but it could be said (in fact it HAS been said), that it takes zero talent to push a button on a camera. Not true by any means, but producing quality AI is not as simple a it might seem. 

I agree. A few other people suggested going to the filters and choosing the option not to show AI images. The problem is. Everytime you log into the site you have to go and click that filter again. It's a pain. 

It should be an option to add to the list not one that we have to remove. Again I feel AI images should be charged at half the rate since they took zero talent to create. 

I think a good solution could be to not show ai generated images as a default maybe? To give users the option to switch on ai images if they like that rather than having to look in the not obvious menu to filter it out.  I contribute vectors but for my actual design job I buy photos on the site. Presisely because I don't want sth I could generate myself, I want the work of pro photographers. And don't really want to have to report low quality of sth after purchase, I want them to be checked as it used to be a great and trustworthy platform.

@Haryanti ,

That's correct. but there is also a lot of trash that should not have made it into the database. Moderation is done by humans and humans make errors.

I've found that there are quite a few that are actually quite impressive and useful.

I can see there are many defenders of AI, but the more details in an AI-generated item, the more chances for error there are. 

Today I searched "healthcare theme" and got an image of a leather medical bag and a stethescope, that actually looks pretty nice, but upon closer inspection. The stethoscope has three ear buds there are too many cords. and the bag has no opening and it looks like no other bag I've ever seen. There is no clasp. 

 it is pic
824710885

The point is. Adobe is peddling rubbish. This is unusable, so why is it even on the site? and why should anyone pay for stuff like this? 

Hello! I'm using AI for 1.5 year from now. And I use it in Adobe Stock. The only thing I can tell you — if you just put 10 words in promt you will never get what you want (or what your customer wants). To create right promt is a real skill. But yes, sometimes you just get lucky (Look how much garbage they make. This will not help anyone without taste and skills!). I think when they started making shoes in factories, tanners also thought it was sacrilege. 

In promt (text for generate photo) the light and angle are set in exactly the same way, a color is chosen, a model is chosen. Just in virtual reality. Without good taste you won't succeed. The impression of AI was spoiled by millions of bad “fantasy” photographs of foxes and trees that have no commercial value.

AI is a huge driver for small businesses that can get themselves a photo shoot. Imagine when it will be possible to include a real product in a photo (this is already possible, but with complications).

As a result: no one person without taste and skills will be able to get rich from Adobe Stock any way. But some have talent and skills, but don’t have $5,000 for equipment, and they don’t live where the Whites and African-Americans live / Grown Green Grass (popular themes at Stock I mean). 

I see a lot of photographers switching to AI. Anyone who has a real passion for photography I think will ultimately appreciate this tool in some way. Plus, AI photography will go far beyond what we see now on stock. It will hack the system with incredible new features. What took 100 hours of graphic design now takes 2 minutes + 1 hour of editing. And if graphic designers don’t want to retrain, no one is forcing them, let them continue to spend their 100 hours. Its their choice actually which tool to use.

My opinion: AI will save us from drought, overpopulation, social and economic instability, and... lack of variety in photos! And the benefits for small businesses are, in principle, INCREDIBLY HUGE. Overall it also eliminates the gap between the poor and the rich just in the blink of an eye! The rich won't like it. The poor will like it. Just a fact.

The 7-fingered problem applies to those who do poor work without respect. This has no place for it on stock or anywhere else. This is not an indicator of the value of the idea, but simply the laziness of a particular person to make another shot.

Why is it a rip-off?

There appears to be a market for such assets.