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

@Starsson it's not necessarily that it's considered "pornographic" - it's that the current algorithms cannot determine the differences yet. Once it is trained up enough I'm sure Adobe and others will lax some restrictions or users will start to find that bikini pictures (example) are suddenly allowed.

@Starsson no offense, but thats a very simplistic view of a complex issue which is why some solutions are limiting outputs. Unfortunately limitations like this affect everyone without exception. Until an AI can detect with absolute certainty and identify intent, algorithms will restrict erroring on the side of too limiting rather than allowances.

AI competitors to Firefly - Dall-E, Stable Diffusion, Topaz, CoPilot, Midjourney, even Canva are all cloud based and do not require you to build a local system to support or run them. Some require subscriptions but also have free-to-use options to test with.

The links I posted were examples offered through the Adobe Exchange - they aren't spam but also vary in support and updates for latest versions, etc. If you do your own research you can find stable plugins for Photoshop or use the competitor solution outright.

Either way, we all can debate the merits of "censoring" nudity in Adobe Firefly AI but until a realistic solution to prevent it's misuse beyond the "honor system" is avaible and flawless, I doubt things will change. Adobe has to limit their liability due to misuse both in training AND generative results.

Read up on the current lawsuits going on with other companies and you can quickly see why Adobe took the stance they did with their AI. If you don't agree with it - use one of the many competitors that still allow nudity.

I responded to this, but I think even the forum censored me, because I said something like ". . . urinating in the wind.", but I used another word for urinating.  It didn't post my reply.

Here's the gist.  These are half measures.  It's not using Adobe's AI and those specific links look very sketchy to me. 

This fight is noble, but I have many other hills I've got to go die on.  This is a sad day though.  I always thought Adobe was a different company.  I've used Adobe since the mid 90s and it's always been the best.  Maybe someone with decision making capacity and a backbone will see enough users reacting to this and make course correcting changes some day.

For now, my genuine thanks Kevin and all of you who took the time to look at my posts.  Seems like a good group of people.

@Dave28161132d2ux None of this would use your local hardware. All of it is cloud based. Stable Diffusion, Dall-E, Open AI, etc. are not local resource-driven AI. The plugins are connected to the cloud service to generate an image the same as Firefly.

Ok, but these are using my local hardware, right?  I don't have the kind of scratch to be able to do what I want to do by having to buy all my own stuff.

BTW, I just want someone from Adobe to acknowledge my disgust.  "If Adobe sees enough users jumping ship from Firefly to Stable Diffusion or Dall-E, then maybe . . ."  I don't have the bandwidth to jump ship and use my hardware.  Anything else isn't going to have the quality Adobe does either.  If enough people voice their opinion, maybe Adobe will wake up too.

I'll continue with the response I was writing before I saw the plugin bit:

"@Dave28161132d2ux the reality is while your intentions may be benevolent, others could use the service for malicious purposes. Companies have no way to determine if the AI edit/creation should be allowed (art) or if it should be blocked (creating nudes of an unwilling participant)."

- I'm not talking about using Adobe in a normal corporate environment. I'm talking from a personal use or more progressive business use standpoint. A super easy fix here would to have Adobe restrain a certain version of products for a corporate environment or for people who are easily offended and another version that only restricts things like hate speech and worse. You could even have individual companies control what criteria they will and will not allow.

"It's not choking creativity at all - there are other means to edit and create art using Adobe products long before AI was available. There are also services with plugins for Adobe products should you wish/need to use unrestricted AI generation."

-It is choking creativity. Not everyone has the $$$ to build a system that can seriously run these kinds of computations.  Plus, everyone knows Adobe is the best, there is none higher (at least that's the way I've always felt). I want that quality available in everything I do without compromise. I don't want to have to walk on eggshells on the off chance that someone who will NEVER see my work, might see my work.  I WANT TO USE AI.  Yes, I can use Photoshop and I still do.  This is a new tool though.  That's like saying "I'm going to use Photoshop, but I'm never going to use cut and paste or the rubber stamp tool."  "Use Photoshop instead." seems to be popping up a bunch and it's a terrible argument.

Both of those plugins seem to be scams. At least from the reviews. They either don't work. Or cannot be installed. Suport is reported to be imaginary.  

That no longer works.  Since the latest update. It 'see's' all the underlying layers. Including those turned off.  That's just crazy overkill in my opinion. 

@Dave28161132d2ux no - there are plugins from the different AI vendors that allow you to use their engine within Photoshop to create unrestricted images. Some are even available on the Adobe Exchange.

https://exchange.adobe.com/apps/cc/4be3e038/photo-stable

https://exchange.adobe.com/apps/cc/8c3dcbe7/flying-dog-for-stable-diffusion-and-dall-e-2

Are you saying there's some kind of code I can implement within Firefly, Photoshop, Premier, etc that will allow me to create whatever I want without restriction?

Not to have Adobe Firefly generate without restrictions. I believe what Kevin was referring to is plug-ins for third party AI generators.

    droopy