Nudity and other issues which appear to violate Adobe Generative AI Guidelines [merged thread]

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.

I think I read last year that some AI model achieved a reliable prognosis of protein folding (deducing the spatial structure of a protein based on the sequence of amino acids), something that had eluded biochemists and/or the other scientists concerned with protein-creation and -properties for ages. 

So as far as I am concerned AI has proven to be good for something. 

But I would not be surprised about people making terrible choices about how to utilize it otherweise … 

" it seems you might be confusing »AI-based image generation« and »art«. "

Ah, yes, I love that 🙂 Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm still convinced AI is what's going to bring it all down eventually. We've been flying higher and higher, but this time we flew too close to the sun. And with that said 😉

This isn't Adobe's fault. They had to get on board. And I have no problem accepting that AI can be a useful tool for some purposes. But the emphasis is on tool. There's a lot of creative's and artistic's in this post, and that instantly raises a flag with me.

OK, this is just my opinion. But if we're going to discuss, this is what we should be discussing. Not some technicality in the implementation.

I'm reaching out today to spark a conversation about an issue that touches the core of our creative process using Adobe Photoshop: the censorship implemented in the generative fill feature. This isn't just about the restrictions we face; it's about the fundamental principles of artistic freedom and responsibility.

@ujokasjdflkjawkfjasdf , it seems you might be confusing »AI-based image generation« and »art«. 

A certain AI implementation not readily creating the imagery one wants does not hinder one in creating that imagery as artists have done pre-2023 (or thereabouts) and one can draw, paint, photograph, search stock images, create 3D-models, … just as before or use non-Adobe AI-based image creating applications. 

Hello Adobe Team and Fellow Creatives,

I'm reaching out today to spark a conversation about an issue that touches the core of our creative process using Adobe Photoshop: the censorship implemented in the generative fill feature. This isn't just about the restrictions we face; it's about the fundamental principles of artistic freedom and responsibility.

Art, in its most profound form, allows us to explore the depths of human experience, pushing boundaries and challenging perceptions. However, the current censorship on generative fill curtails this exploration, imposing limits that are not only unnecessary but also counterproductive to the ethos of creative expression.

Responsibility for the art we create lies with us, the artists. It's essential that Adobe recognizes this, ensuring that tools like Photoshop serve to extend our capabilities, not constrain them. The censorship of content, such as the depiction of scars from battles or surgeries, restricts our ability to tell stories that are meaningful and impactful. Art should confront, console, and celebrate life in all its complexity, and for that, artists need the freedom to depict reality as it is, or imagine it as it could be.

Moreover, the nuances of human form and condition, including aspects like nudity, are foundational to various art forms. The current restrictions hinder not just the creation of art but also the representation of the human experience in its authenticity.

While the intention behind implementing an appeals process is appreciated, it doesn't address the root issue. The process is a workaround, not a solution, and it introduces unnecessary barriers to creativity and expression.

In closing, I urge the Adobe team to reconsider the censorship policies associated with the generative fill feature. Let's empower artists with the freedom to create responsibly, without undue censorship. Adobe has always been at the forefront of creative technologies, and this is an opportunity to lead by example, championing artistic freedom and integrity.

Looking forward to a constructive dialogue and hopeful for a resolution that aligns with the values of our creative community.

For Feature Requests (»Idea«) and Bug Reports this Forum is the correct path to address the Photoshop team/Adobe, otherwise this is essentially a user Forum (though thankfully some Adobe employees do occasionally chime in).

But if you want to make sure your concerns register at Adobe please post a Feature Request.

Even then feedback by Adobe personnel is not guaranteed. 

If this strictly concerns the backgrounds you could, as a work-around, add a black-out-layer and work atop that, then remove/hide that layer afterwards. 

As a dedicated wedding and boudoir photographer, I greatly appreciate the innovative features that Photoshop offers, particularly the AI functionality. It has been an invaluable tool in my workflow, allowing me to efficiently remove unwanted items from the background of my images, thus enhancing the overall aesthetic and ensuring a seamless final product for my clients.

However, I keep encountering a significant limitation with the AI feature that has hindered its usability in my line of work and I am really frustrated. It has come to my attention that the current guidelines restrict the use of AI when processing images containing women's bodies in lingerie. According to these guidelines, AI will not generate any edits in such cases, effectively rendering the feature unusable for a significant portion of my photographic work.

While I understand the importance of responsible usage guidelines, I believe that the current restrictions are unnecessarily limiting and fail to account for the diverse needs of photographers working in various genres and styles. Boudoir photography, like any other form of art, deserves to benefit from the technological advancements that software such as Photoshop offers, without arbitrary constraints that inhibit its creative potential.

What are you guys going to do to fix this?