P: Generated images violate user guidelines

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.

@CSI Productions I didnt do the entire curtain - just the specific area that @Jann Lipka had selected before. Those are just two examples the second does show a smooth curtain without a wrinkle in that specific area.

OK so not following tooltip seems to work best . 
( "remove wrinkles " prompt works - No prompt give me violation 
Screenshot 5 minutes ago ( I thought maybe AI learned from my tries ( 10 times " providing feedback" )
- I lost probably 50 credits on this .-) 
I have most recent Beta ( OSX )

Maybe I'm having better luck with generative fill more than others because I've only used it once to add something. Otherwise, I use it to remove things (with the exception of Generative Expand, and only then when I want to change the aspect ratio to expand an empty background). The only time I've used GF. to add something was to add a highway next to a hitchhiker and it required a good 20+ attempts to get something acceptable. 

Just an observation - Unless I'm missing something, the two images of the wrinkled curtain which you say worked doesn't look any different than the original (at least not noticibly). What am I missing?

@Jann Lipka When you have specific needs, adding a prompt is best. Otherwise I compare it to throwing dirt in a windstorm with the expectation that it lands all back in your hand. Users need to be detailed and descriptive with prompts when you have specific needs or leave it all to chance.

With Generative Fill 1.0 leaving it blank can cause false violations - as stated throughout this thread.

I had no problem with it, either, using a period as a prompt.

OK noted and indeed it worked OTOH 
"tooltip " dialog specifically mentions NOT to 
fill any prompt when removing things just making loose selection . So thats what I did