P:Limitation of Adobe Generative AI user guidelines [merged thread]

Ich verstehe nicht warum Begriffe wie vollbusig oder großes Dekolletee nicht erlaubt sind. Das hat nichts mit Sexismus, Po-n- oder ähnlichem zu tun. Ich wollte ein Model erstellen mit großer Oberweite für einen Modeflyer, sämtlich Begriffe wurden nicht angenommen. Dann habe ich ein Bild aus einer Datenbank gekauft. Wofür Firefly wenn ich dann doch wieder zukaufen muss?

Platform: firefly.adobe.com

Bug: I created a human male reference image to use as a pose reference. His genitalia are covered with the equivalent of swim trunks or briefs. The image is instantly removed when I submit the prompt with a pop-up stating it violates user guidelines. I'm constantly running into this sort of problem with both reference images and prompts with zero feedback on what the filter found offensive. I'm 100% behind Adobe's ethical practices, but these filters are ridiculous and render the product nearly useless for a production environment. Simply too much time is wasted on what seems like random and arbitrary "no nos."

[Edit: Had to remove the reference image from this post because the filters here state that it contains naughty-bits. Even though the entire area was painted over from hip to hip with opaque flat white.]
[Edit #2: Had to remove the more common English usage of the same "g" word I used in my bug description in order to submit the post. The error was message was hilarious: "The message body contains g*****ls, which is not permitted ..."]

@Rangga36724153lvwy , what do you want to communicate? 

I generated AI images in fashion segment. Unfortunately, I suspect that on the Internet and specifically on Adobe there may be different concepts about permitted nudity in advertising photography. So what are the rules regarding nudity? I have those questions.

Can you be specific about the categories?
1. Female nipp 
2. Male nipp
3. Girl in bikini or underwear (regular design, nothing visible, just sport style)
4. A girl in slightly see-through underwear (skin visible but not nipp, lace is always see-through, I repeat that we are talking about an advertising photo for clothes)
5. A girl in see-through underwear (where you can see the kinds outline of the nipp, but nothing at the bottom of course). For example bra / or crop top but without bra, theres nipp shape
6. A girl with a completely bare breast, but with some kind of decorative detail covering the nipp for 100%. So the entire shape of the breast is visible, but there is a decorative heart or mini bikini on the nipp.

7. The naked back of a woman (from behind, but it is clear that she is not wearing a bra, bottom is normal clothing, for example, imagine a photo of a back massage).

8. There are different policies in photography about what the bottom of pantie should look like. If we are talking about advertising of the 00s, then there is, let’s say, a straight line (which in reality does not exist in life almost in any clothings types). If we are talking about advertising in the 2020s, then there is already a more realistic picture with a visible form. What does Adobe think about this?

Each question talks about advertising of swimsuits, underwear, summer clothes in different forms (crop tops, bikini tops, mini-bras). In general, there are two categories: romantic lingerie for 30s 40s women / and bright, rich summer colors for 20s 30s girls. 

Thank you in advance!

He was.

As an artist, he was quite obsessed with chance and randomness, but by putting it into a much larger context he was able to turn it into valid artistic tools. And that points to a possible way for artists to approach AI.

He worked on the Large Glass for 8 years, so maybe there are people busy at work out there now...

»If Marcel Duchamp was alive today, I'm sure he'd get right on it.«

Wasn’t he deeply into chess in his later years? 

So AI might have been doubly interesting to him … 

Yes, Adobe is the adult in the room. A company that caters for artists knows that AI is way to easy to be used by any bad person to hurt another than by artists to please others.

Absolutely. Adobe emerges as one of the most responsible operators in this field.

They're also invested in the Content Authenticity Initiative, which may just be what can save credible journalism. Every AI generated image is clearly watermarked. Even if you do have to look it up, it's there if you need to know.

I think that Adobe decision is very wise, the possibility of misuse of unrestricted AI for nefarious purposes is way too dangerous, and as a publicly traded company, not worth litigation costs. 

Yeah, that's my point. There are good uses. But as we all know, the road to hll is paved with good intentions.

What worries me is the way it undermines the basic concept of authenticity, in a totally unprecedented way. People compare it to the invention of photography, but that doesn't hold at all. AI is a whole new category, never before seen in history. "Authentic" is by definition a premise for "creative" and "artistic". That's the whole foundation of our conception of art. So that raises the interesting question: how can AI be, or be made, authentic?

This is a deep rabbit hole.

I'm waiting for artists to put this to a serious test. If Marcel Duchamp was alive today, I'm sure he'd get right on it. So far it doesn't seem anyone has taken it on, but it's probably just a matter of time. What we can be sure of, is that it will involve a lot more than just typing in a prompt in a text box.

In the meantime, by all means, have fun with generative fill and firefly. But I think nudity is the least of our problems.