P: Generated images violate user guidelines

Fitness photography - Bad

Sports photography - Bad

Beach photography - Especially Bad

What a miracle tool.  But the people who created this really went way overboard in trying to dictate terms of using photoshop for paying customers. I've never actually heard of a restriction of using photoshop prior to this tool. It's always been about free creativity based on the user's imagination. Now you can't even show a wrist or an ankle without getting flagged.  I know this is beta so I suppose perhaps for now this is just the place to be voicing certain opinions on the direction of this otherwise astonishing tool.

I hope when the official version comes out there's an option to identify us as adults. Adult paying customers should not be governered by puritanical guidelines of certain devs. Otherwise the technology will advance and you will just be directing it towards open source.

Furthermore you're marketing photoshop for photographers who have businesses but you're arbitrarily deciding which photography businesses are allowed to use it. There needs to be more thought behind the implications of these guidelines because ultimately people will fall in love with these features, be restricted from using them, and then go look for alternatives elsewhere.

😅😅😅.  

Any skilled Photoshop artist. Exactly. To sharpen my point: I'm willing to bet that all of world's skilled Photoshop artists combined produce a considerably lower number of seriously ill-intended deep fakes than the troll armies of the dark and grey areas of the interwebs, who would be able to do the same thing, only without any Photoshop skills at all, in literally 5 seconds.

Any skilled Photoshop artist can ALREADY accomplish any kind of fake image you can possibly imagine. How is the introduction of a new tool changing this in any significant way? 

[information removed as per forum guidelines]

https://community.adobe.com/t5/using-the-community-discussions/adobe-support-community-guidelines/td-p/4788157

Apologies to partake in the derailing of the bug report, but since it's already going there: content filtering isn't just about dodging legal consequences. Any big player in the AI field has a moral obligation to act responsibly with AI like Firefly. Just think about the sheer amount of deep fake we would live amongst if a company like Adobe would lift content filtering. Artistic freedom is one thing, and a priority to Adobe I'm sure, but another, massive thing is creators who don't give a rat's patoot about artistry, and have entirely different motives to use tools like this, that produce realistic imagery while require zero skills and creativity.

@alfred531 As stated many times in this thread, please try entering a basic prompt for now.

Was bitte soll bei diesem Bild gegen die Benutzerrichtlinien verstoßen?

WIN 11

PS Beta/24.7.0

I think a better solution, for both Adobe and artists, is to set up the generation to happen without saving anything to their servers. And then remove all restrictions and leave all legal liability on the users, where it belongs. This is the model that has existed for the last 30 years and has worked well. 

I agree. We're all ignoring the fact that Adobe have now established themselves as some kind of arbiter of virtue and purity with the "guidelines." Since when does the paintbrush dictate what art the painter can create? We've been conditioned to accept this as "normal" but it is so far from normal it actually defies belief. A design software company is dictating what artists can and can't design? In any other context, the solution would be to use a different tool.