P: Generated images violate user guidelines

I agree as well and have said the same thing.  We are all adults in the room.  If you want to retard creativity with this new tool, you have succeeded.  We will find a way around your fence. 

A valid point with respect to the sample image posted. My comment was based on "me" shooting "my" own video and the company making the equipment not being responsible for or restricting it's features based on what "some" people may chose to do with it.

Regarding GF, I agree with you - if it isn't your original art. If I took a photo with my own camera and after the fact want to see what my model would look like in various outfits, some being some what risque', I should be able to do that (IMO) without the software company restricting my creative freedom based on "their" input.

That being said, it is their software and their company and they can do whatever they want. You'll get no complaints from me if they want to be the software that keeps imoral imagery from being generated with their products. In my opinion there's too much of that already (oldschool I guess) and as another comment stated, there are plenty of other software companies (and will be more I'm sure) that let you create whatever demonic crap you want so have at it if that's what you're into.

As I mentioned before, I'm an adult and chose to look at what I do and do not care for. Same goes for social media banning "whatever speech" they feel is offensive. Back in the days of real true freedom, if you didn't like what was being said or written, don't listen or read it. We don't need corporations being our parents but then, this is a whole different world. If you don't like the restrictions, don't buy the software.

@gadget13769, not at all the same thing... pen and pencil manufaturers don't create the image or part of it, just like Canon, Nikon, Apple or Samsung don't. Or Ford, Toyota and other vehicle manufacturers don't plow your car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk when you don't agree with the signs they're carrying. Adobe and the other artist's work become part of your work when ai GF is used.

@3Hounds   So, on that basis, you'd be happy to be banned from buying a Bic biro, Caran d'Ache pencils, or Daler paper, on the basis that you might use someone else's product to write or draw something illegal, or that some other unaccountable entity deems 'improper'?

Best take our cameras and computers off us too, then.....

I've been following many of these "morality police" and "freedom of expression" arguments for a while and have stayed out of the fray.

What I'm seeing that I don't think many others are, is that, yes, you can take an image with your camera or your phone. It may be decent, indecent, immoral or even illegal... but it's your image alone. If you use generative fill to augment that image, you're involving Adobe and any of the users whose images are pulled to help create that image. They have every right to protect themselves from any harm that may come from your "creative vision". Until there is a fail safe way for them to do that, you should expect some restrictions...

Well thought out and well written. One of the things I use my cell phone for is to video tape my grandchildren, others use it to shoot less "family friendly" content. Is it the phone company's responsibility to limit it's features because some people have lower morals (in one person's opinion) than others? I think we're all adult enough to look at imagery we appreciate and avoid content we don't. I'm old but we used to call that freedom of expression. Something that has almost dissapeared in one lifetime. What's next?

Agree! As I expressed these exact same concerns here before. 

I appreciate Adobe's commitment to an ethical approach to artificial intelligence, and I take pride in volunteering for them.

However, when I read,
'Generative AI is the next step in the decade we've devoted to developing Adobe Sensei, and as we harness its power in our cloud technologies, we are more committed than ever to thoughtful and responsible development,' by Jane,
I couldn't help but express some reservations.

Forgive me, but what are we really talking about here? As far as I understand, we're discussing Photoshop, a program that has revolutionized the world by offering incredible tools for image creation and editing.

Thanks to Photoshop and its tools, artists have created genuine masterpieces and stunning images that have circled the globe. I can't even fathom its impact on the planet. It's such a comprehensive tool that it has been used for various purposes, both creative and, admittedly, for illicit activities. However, I'm not aware of any legal action against Adobe for this. No court has demanded restricting Photoshop's features to prevent misuse. That would be absurd.

It appears that we are now in an era where tools are being limited based on potential misuse, which seems contrary to 'developing something thoughtful and responsible.' Instead, it feels like preemptive and restrictive anti-development. To develop means to enhance or strengthen, and this approach is doing quite the opposite—it's limiting usage for all users due to fears or ethical concerns about potential misuse.

Let's face it; people will find ways to do these things, with or without Photoshop. I have no doubt that some Russian hacker is already working on a way to crack any limitations or censorship in Photoshop.

Ironically, I just conducted a test to see how well Photoshop's content generation tool works by altering the expiration date of a license, and it did so effortlessly, without any restrictions. So, I'm left wondering: is this genuinely a thoughtful and responsible development?

I'm trying to understand the logic behind censoring a breast or buttock as 'irresponsible' and 'thoughtless.' Every word, element, or object added to the list of prohibited items that cannot be generated with your tool only serves to encourage users to seek alternative methods, stifling artists' creative expression.

Why take away from Photoshop or, better said, what makes it great? What is the motivation or goal behind this?

If someone intends to create something negative or illegal with your tool, they will do so, and it shouldn't be your concern, much less mine. Moreover, this approach may negatively impact my work.

Shouldn't I be able to offer this tool without any form of censorship and with vastly superior results compared to a website that doesn't shy away from buttocks or other objects?

I hope this perspective can contribute to a more open and thoughtful discussion about these issues.

@Jann Lipka @daniellei4510 Also I've been able to confirm that violations/false errors will not count towards credit usages.

@Jann Lipka you arent charged for credits yet 😉

After Nov. 1 being as specific as possible and not "wasting" credits on chance/random AI results will be what separates users going forward. Those who "learn as they go" with descriptive prompting will quickly spend credits while those who take the time to add in details and descriptors will get the wanted outcomes more effectively.