Skip to main content

Filter by idea status

10000+ Ideas

jamesh35847281
jamesh35847281Participant

Your AI will only work half the time it sucksOpen for Voting

I am writing to express my extreme frustration with the current state of Adobe’s generative AI content guidelines and filtering systems. As a professional creator and a long-term Adobe subscriber, I am increasingly finding the platform unusable due to over-zealous AI flagging that hinders legitimate, non-violating workflows.The current system is failing professional users in two primary ways:1. False Positives on Non-Violating Content I am frequently blocked from generating or editing content that does not violate Adobe’s stated Terms of Service. My work often involves professional documentation and educational content that requires specific technical imagery. The AI appears to be "playing it so safe" that it has become hyper-sensitive, flagging prompts that are entirely benign in a professional context.2. Lack of Actionable Feedback When a prompt is flagged or an image fails to generate, the error messages provided are vague and unhelpful. Simply stating that a prompt "may violate guidelines" without specifying which guideline or what part of the prompt is the issue is a waste of my time. As a professional, I need to understand the "why" so I can adjust my workflow.The Impact on My Workflow: The unpredictability of the Generative Fill and Firefly tools is reaching a breaking point. I cannot rely on a tool that treats professional creative work with the same restrictive lens as bad-faith actors. I am paying for a professional-grade suite of tools, but I am being met with a "walled garden" experience that assumes the worst of my intent.I urge Adobe to: Refine the sensitivity of the AI to better distinguish between professional/documentary contexts and actual policy violations. Provide specific feedback when a prompt is blocked so users can meaningfully correct their input. Implement an "Appeal" or "Professional Use" verification for accounts with long-standing history to allow for more flexibility in specialized fields. I hope to see these improvements soon, as the current environment is making it difficult to justify the continued use of Adobe’s AI features in my professional pipeline.

fannreiInspiring

Improving prompt handling and rerendering logicOpen for Voting

I am writing to request improvements to the UI/UX regarding prompt management and credit consumption. Currently, the system's behavior leads to significant accidental loss of credits. 1. Auto-Clear Prompt and Prevention of Accidental Re-executionCurrently, when I press the generate button, the prompt remains in the input field. If I accidentally press Enter or refresh the page, the same prompt is re-executed, consuming credits for the exact same image. Furthermore, even after closing the window, returning to the site sometimes triggers an automatic re-execution of the previous prompt.I know this save time for executing the same prompt again, but as mentioned in No.2 below, 90% of the images are similar, and more of the time user wont be using same prompt again and again, compared to trying out other text-to-image. Everytime i have to delete all the words in the prompt bar and this’s kinda stressful. Request: Please implement a feature to clear the prompt field after execution, or add a confirmation dialog to prevent unintentional re-generation that consumes credits. 2. Improved Variation Logic for "Regenerate" (Model: Nano Banana 2)The current "Regenerate" function produces images that are about 90% identical to the previous one. This feels like a waste of credits. Request: When using the regenerate/variation feature, the AI should be smart enough to provide distinct variations rather than near-identical copies. 3. Implementation of a "Copy Prompt" ButtonLonger prompts are currently truncated with "..." in the UI, making it impossible to copy the full text manually. Since the "Regenerate" function (as mentioned in point 2) does not provide enough variation, I often need to copy the prompt, tweak it manually, and run it as a new generation. Request: Please add a dedicated "Copy Prompt" button so users can easily reuse and modify their prompts without them being hidden by the UI. Thank you :)

amanda_8187Participant

Report inaccurate descriptions or allow reviews on Adobe Stock assetsOpen for Voting

I’ve been extremely frustrated by misleading Adobe Stock graphic descriptions. This probably just applies to vectors. The platform is starting to be OVERRUN with AI-generated graphics claiming not to be AI. These typically look great on the preview, but once you download them, zoom in, and try to edit them it’s extremely obvious that they’re AI. Mostly because they’re always put together in a sloppy way that’s hard to edit, and don’t look nearly as good close up. I have on numerous occasions downloaded 20+ assets before I could find one that wasn’t AI, despite having the “exclude generative AI” filter on. Additionally, I’ve downloaded a ton of icons that claim to have editable strokes but don’t, and various graphics claiming to have editable text that don’t. I can’t even imagine how frustrating this must be for people who buy download packs rather than having a subscription. I understand that your team probably doesn’t have time to review every asset that gets posted, but it seems that stock artists are using that to their advantage to get downloads from people who wouldn’t actually want to use the asset. I always want to report these inaccurate descriptions, but you can only report copyright infringement. The assets I’m referring to do not need to be removed from the site, just labeled correctly. I imagine that adding a report option for “inaccurate description” would be the easiest way to handle this, but alternatively I think allowing reviews and/or ratings could also help with this issue.