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

Considering it is Adobe AI and one of the industry's leaders, it shows how poorly they have trained the AI if it can't differentiate between red marks on a shirt or blood. Or they have the filters cranked up way beyond what they have listed in the TOS.

Indeed !

Well said.

Very good, @rayek.elfin 🙂 I'd sign off on that.

I normally don't get into these dicussions, but now that I'm here, I'd like to specifically point out one thing: what kids do to each other on social media. That alone should make it obvious that you can't simply let this loose.

@DdavidChung

First, I actually am in favour of full freedom of information and art. If people here want to use genAI to create nudes in their art, then it is simple enough to install open source tools that are available for free and do not censor the output. Get a good Nvidia GPU, and you have full creative control!

Secondly, it is impossible to separate the tools from the actors and vice versa. It is well researched and documented that a tool will influence the actor's behaviour, thoughts, intentions, and interactions in the external world. It is an extremely naive worldview to think otherwise. Context is everything. And everything is connected, nothing is truly separable.

What is happening in the world right now only proves that the average human being still needs supervision. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned that only children need to be watched over. Obviously many adult humans require the constant threat and supervision of the law and societies policing to behave "nicely". And unfortunately this works on both micro and macro levels: give a country nuclear weapons and their behaviour changes dramatically on the world stage.

If it were true that human adults require no supervision we wouldn't still have wars, strife, and untold human and non-human suffering all around our small and fragile planet. We would work together instead and nurture every single human life and non-human life. This, unfortunately, is not the case. 

So while I hope for a better future in which humans can be allowed full freedom, reality tells us otherwise at this point in time. Controls and supervision need to be in place. GenAI's threshold for destructive purposes is too low. The proverbial monkey could generate "art" with it.

Now, I do agree that it would be possible for Adobe to put firewalls and paywalls up for those who want to use its genAI tools to create nude art. It is however a cost-benefit calculation, and it seems Adobe management decided against potential litigation and a large extra financial overhead to maintain these.

Anyway, the tools are out there to do what you @DdavidChung want to do. Redirect your attention elsewhere instead of butting heads with a corporate wall that will not and cannot budge (for good reasons).

@rayek.elfin 

No, your argument is blurring the line between tools and actors, deliberately attributing a person's crime to the tool.

Unless a tool is totally, specifically designed for committing crimes, the responsibility for a crime always lies with the person who misuses it, not the tool itself.

Yes, some tools are indeed more prone to misuse. In such cases, the proper approach should be implementing more thorough user qualification reviews, rather than restrict all users to a limited version.

Regarding the claim that creating nude art is illegal in certain countries, the proper approach should be nationality verification - implementing restrictions only for users from countries where such content is illegal. The solution should not be imposing a global restriction just because it is illegal in one country. Otherwise, basic tools like Photoshop or even a painter’s brush should also be restricted, which would be an unreasonable double standard.

You don’t need to defend Adobe. Based on your argument, the best approach for Adobe should be to establish different user tiers, for example:

• Limited - For those countries does not allow nudity or something.
• General - Allow most uses, except some contents with age limitation or obvious illegal content.
• Advanced - Requires verification of age, nationality, and allows the generation of any content except obvious illegal content, under stricter usage commitments (to legally exempt Adobe from liability).
• Pro - for the users with artistic technical skills, under strictest usage commitments and can generation almost anything.

It is obvious that Adobe has taken the lazy route by making everyone use the limited version with a high-rate-misjudgment moderation, without considering age, nationality, or with/without any artistic technical skills. Adobe is the one who doesn't consider the context.

Of course, this isn't called a mistake - it's Adobe business decision.

Making counterfeit money is illegal.

 

Making nude art is not.

... Using nudes to extort, bully, emotionally intimidate, abuse others is, however.

GenAI is very, VERY good at that.

So using money in art is legal. Making counterfeit money is illegal.

Making nude art is legal in some countries, and illegal in other countries. Using nude art to extort, etc. others is illegal.

See? Not so simple. Nothing is ever black-and-white. It depends on the context.

If I were Adobe I'd think twice before allowing full "creative freedom" and enabling ANYONE --without any artistic technical skills-- to generate photo-realistic offensive and illegal imagery within seconds anywhere in the world.

It's all about context.

Making counterfeit money is illegal. 

Making nude art is not.

End of discussion.

Unless something has changed in which case a lot of art galleries and museums are going to have to be getting rid of a whole lot of their art.

Perhaps they can replace it all with pictures of puppies and kittens since that’s all Photoshop appears to be any good for these days.

And there’s the problem. Adobe isn’t concerned about people making offensive issues they are concerned that their poorly programmed, loose-cannon software will create a pornographic image when a kid is trying to change a picture of a bug.

So their solution seems to be a second nanny-type program that reviews the images produced before showing them to the creator and stopping them from being shown just in case the request wasn’t for something pornographic. This is why it gets so far into the generation process before saying no.

That is not the solution.

If more accurate programming isn’t possible at this time the most logical solution is to allow control if that nanny program by the user along with a disclaimer that by turning it off the user understands that it’s a new type of software that still has some control issues and random unexpected potentially very offensive results are possible.

Alternatively if the generation software can’t be improved, then improve the nanny filter so that it can be set to different levels of acceptability (like Google image search) so that on “safe” setting doesn’t show images at all (as it currently does for everyone), on “moderate” setting gives a warning of violence or nudity that requires 18+ approval before showing or blurs out anything potentially offensive with approval required to unblur and then on “low” setting shows everything except perhaps anything that is truly illegal.

This would be very easy to do properly. It exists for just about every image search program out there.

Come on Adobe, you represented a giant leap forward in art and art production when you came on the scene decades ago (I was around for it), now you represent a giant leap backward.

You're better than this. If it's a software reliability problem, let people know, they'll understand, don't hide behind this censorship [cursing removed].

I had no problems with it myself when attenpting gen expand. Well...yes, the first two tries resulted in a violation notice. Then I moved the image to the left about a quarter of an inch and it worked. Then I just attempted it again, as is, without moving it, and it worked. In this case, at least, it's a bug, not a censorship issue. P.S.: the results were horrid. Weird lamps, a toilet that could rival Dali, etc.