Poor quality of AI-generated images

[tillt]

I would like to report some AI-generated images that are of poor quality or don’t make sense (not technically but visually).

Of course no one is “forced” to license such low quality images, but In order to maintain the overall quality of Adobe Stock, and to not make it more difficult to find good material by "cluttering" the collection with poor quality images, Adobe should be more strict when approving AI-generated images for the database.

Examples:

823810261

1053085418

1018049412

913274987

969153512

969153351

975920405

1018049412

…

Check also the corresponding collections for more similar poor results.

Best regards,

Till.

[Abambo]

@Contributor1 may be interested in your list, to check the assets and refer them to internal rechecking.

As for the rest, that is the reason I avoid generative AI assets when searching the database. And you are right, some assets submitted and accepted are awful.

[tillt]

Thanks Abambo! I know this is a community forum, but hopefully someone from Adobe takes notice. 

There definitely should be an easy method to report such issues diectly in Adobe Stock – the “report problem” function beneath the images is missing a “quality” or “other reason” option (you can only report IP infringement or names there).

And yes: I also always exclude AI generated assets when searching in Adobe Stock, since most of the generative images are poor quality when looked at more closely, and high quality can definitely be found in the premium collection, but the quality of the standard collection should be monitored more strictly, or Adobe Stock will become irrelevant for creative and business use cases.

[Abambo]

@tillt :

They are working on it (or not), to be able to report assets an easy way. For the moment, this is the way to report and @Contributor1  from Adobe is the person in charge to report those internally after an initial check.

As for the premium collection, I avoid that one too, as the quality of premium assets is not better than the quality of the standard assets. As with photographs, the checking is more consistent, as you do not have the additional errors of 6 fingers, bad geometry etc. But all assets get checked before adding them to the database, but for some generative AI assets, I doubt that the checking has been done by a properly trained moderator.

[Contributor1]

Hello @tillt, I've sent these details to be reviewed internally. Thank you for the report and sorry for the problem with the images.

[Eva36887359nzz2]

Yoúre quite right. Obv Technically reporting these is kinda doing someone else's job. It's ridiculous now. I wanted to download some nice food shots to for a project yesterday and I was wondering: since when do 80% of shots look so fake and plain awful. Then I remembered,  I have to intentionally go to menu and click exclude ai. I don't understand why they want to make it harder for customers to find  nice stuff and push these low quality assets to the first results. I mean prices are fair but I somehow expect it to be more high quality than a google search - which it definitely used to be. 

[Abambo]

@Eva36887359nzz2:

There is an idea (or even several ideas) in the idea section tat asks to get the AI exclude flag sticky. Please upvote those ideas. It will help to get the message to Adobe.

As for poor quality: We all would like to have better moderation of generative AI. Photographs get (correctly) thrown out for minimal defects, but six-finger Joe with plenty of other easy to detect defects passes.

Sometimes, however, I think there is hope, as generative AI contributors complain that their asset, with quite visible, but not that catastrophic defects, did not pass quality control.  

[tillt]

@Abambo thanks for the info on the ideas section!

For everyone else, this is one of the requests to upvote:
https://community.adobe.com/t5/stock-ideas/how-can-i-permanently-disable-ai-generated-images-showing...