Fellow AI generative contributors. Please head the call.

Good generative AI is not the problem. The issue is that some people cannot see that their asset is exposing multiple errors. But that is not especially different from some photographers here.

And as beginners get caped at 51 submissions in their waiting queue, they can't be responsible for the long waiting times.

"tell tale signs of being ai generated" are not reasons to avoid uploading Generative AI assets, nor are they reasons for rejection. There are >25 million Generative AI assets in the database now, and, while some are "photo realistic", most are very obviously Generative AI. Buyers do want, and are licensing such assets, or Adobe would not have dedicated vast resources to hosting such assets in their database.

Don't submit anything that has tell tale signs of being ai generated, it wont be accepted and customers arent interested in that.

By @MindGems

========

I don't agree.  Telltale signs of AI are not in and of themselves bad.  Just look at Trump's NFT cards— obviously AI generated but that didn't stop fans from buying them.  

I think what you actually mean is there's GOOD artwork and BAD artwork.  That applies to ALL assets, not just AI.   Artifacts of any kind are bad and should be corrected before submitting.  But that doesn't change the fact that Stock receives hundreds to thousands of submissions per week.  And some seasons are much busier than others.  

The review process is just one small part of being a successful Stock Contributor.  The bottom line is how much you sell.

• Work on other projects.
• Take courses & do tutorials to improve your skills. 
• Experiment with new techniques.
• Market yourself on social media. 
• Add collections to your personal Portfolio website and sync Portfolio with Behance. 

There's no shortage of things you can work on while you wait for assets to be reviewed.