P: Generated images violate user guidelines

Have you seen how much of a mixed bag 'real' art is out there, whether in adverts, album covers, movie posters, packaging, in galleries. The average Joe doesn't care about it as much as you or I do, but the results I've seen with some AI are convincing, and more than good enough, that they'll more than do for whatever needs someone has. And most of the time, the user can keep generating until they get what looks better at no cost, except a bit more time, to them.

If a client is getting an artist to create an image that's taken many hours or days to create in the first place, and they then want to change things around, but it's going to cost them even more to do so - how many people are going to turn to AI instead where they may get similar results quicker, costs nothing, and can make changes to their heart's content?

For the time being, creators can capitalise on the fact AI isn't perfect and can use it as a USP for why they should be hired still, fix AI hands, touch up the seams, etc. but soon enough those issues will be ironed out. After that, either creators are going to lower their rates so much to still seem appealing and compete with AI, and/or only the most sought after/well known artists will get work from those that can afford it.

The average Joe will not have the vision, design knowledge, artistic taste, or expertise to manage the creation of something of quality. There is more to design and art than being able to create a cat with a top hat smoking a cigar. AI can be an amazing tool for creativity or for easy production of  tacky schlock.

sarkernournobe@gmail.com

Why would they do that? They're already featuring obese women as the epitome of fitness - to represent "real women", so that's the only reason I don't see them featuring 'unreal' women any time soon. But if they weren't heading in the woke direction they could easily fill an issue 1000s of times over with AI generated attractive women. Search youtube for 'AI cosplay' for examples.

I've also heard recently about AI models getting large followings on instagram or similar without people knowing they're AI, and they're making their creators a lot of money - that's at least one area where a creator is benefitting from AI - but give it a while when all people are able to create these pics themselves and why would they be following fake people on instagram?

Just some other examples of AI advancement: a guy on Youtube called Bradley Hall has a video called 'I Made An Entire MEGADETH Album In Just 1 DAY' where he live streamed it's creation and asked his audience for song subject matter and typed those ideas into an AI text generator and it generated lyrics for whole songs, in minutes, if not seconds, in the style of Megadeth/Dave Mustaine. He created the music for it, but AI has also done that too.

There's a youtuber called TmarTn2 with a few videos of a tech demo set in New York where the player can walk up to NPCs and speak through their headset's mic to talk to them, ask questions, etc. and the NPCs respond with AI generated thoughts and can hold full conversations.

You can just ask AI chat to write a poem based off this or that subject. Or ask it to write code for a programme. Or even generate cartoons based off text or a few source materials. There's software that you can enter a short recording of someone's voice then type whatever you want and it generates audio with their voice. I've heard of sites or software with AI generated girlfriends - I don't know to what level of convincing they are, but again, in the not too distant future, put on a VR headset and live in a virtual world with your virtual partner, doing whatever you want and no-one's getting hurt (except the user if they get too carried away - I mean both physically and mentally)

AI is advancing quicker and to an impressive level much more than what Adobe's results are suggesting. That's maybe why I was expecting better from Adobe, but also why I feel pessimistic about our futures and being surplus to requirements in not too long.

 This took me 5 minutes just now, I simply added the boats, church, waterfall & wildlife, pretty spectacular I'd say

You have some good points but let's face it: it will be a long time coming before we see an AI version of Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Edition. 🙂

But, when it's as easy as it seems it's going to be in the future, judging by the speed of advancement already, I don't share your optimism. Have you tried Bing AI Chat's text to image? You can get 4 results within about 10 seconds, and then ask for modifications and it keeps producing. Yes, the results are far from perfect, but the speed at which they're produced is impressive. Once the results are more realistic and convincing, why would the next David Bowie pay some artist to produce the next Diamond Dogs album cover when they could just type it in a prompt and there it is - I mean it's a shame hardly anyone cares about album covers these days as consumers download the digital song anyway and most don't care about the package like I do. 

AI will be great for consumers, not so great for creators in my opinion.

"When the average Joe can just type in what they want into a free, quick bit of software with perfect, realistic results (coming within the next few years at longest, judging from the speed of advancement so far) why would we be needed and/or paid to do what we do?"

For the same reason people still hire other people to design their websites, even with the slew of easy-to-use web design applications that are available online. They just don't want to deal with it themselves when they have other things to concern themselves with. Things will all pan out in the end. Models will still find jobs and photographers will still find work. 

Your image looks like the teenage version of my 30ish year old one. Maybe it's because it's lower res, but yours loses some of the flaws that give the face a bit of character, so I think the original looks more realistic.

I went from critizing Firely/Adobe quite heavily, to now defending my original image.

Maybe I'm just expecting great results a lot quicker with the user having to do far less to achieve it.

As someone who's been using PS for over 20 years and spending a lot of time learning as much as I could about it, some of the AI images I've seen in the past 6 months make me worried our time as image manipulator/creators is limited. Having these new advancements not work amazingly extends our stay, but for how much longer? When the average Joe can just type in what they want into a free, quick bit of software with perfect, realistic results (coming within the next few years at longest, judging from the speed of advancement so far) why would we be needed and/or paid to do what we do?

Even the best results when it comes to creating photo realistic images in any AI application requires running the results through facial restoration software. Even then, the ear would need some additional work or hidden under cloned hair or content aware fill.