Participant

P: Generated images violate user guidelines

Forum|Forum|2 years ago
May 23, 2023
1084 replies
302924 views

So as you can see, it's a PG-13 relatively inoffensive image of a woman in a bunny outfit. The top worked fine, and I was able to complete the top ear, which is cool. When I tried to extend the bottom with generative fill, though, I got this warning. They're just a pair of legs wearing stockings, and I wanted to extend it.

It feels like a false flag - though I could be wrong? I find myself thinking it would do the same for women in swimsuits.

Figured I'd share here.

Show previous replies

Graham24508943nobd

Known Participant

😆. maybe it's non binary

J

Jason Toemmes

Participating Frequently

At the advice of Adobe Chat support and a upper level manager I spoke with on the phone, I am posting this issue here.

The problem isn’t technical or a bug in the software, the problem here is Adobe Policy. I will explain.

I was excited to hear Adobe has integrated AI tech into future releases of photoshop, as I have been experimenting with AI generated imagery in some of my projects over the past 3 months from other developers.

I do not consider myself to be a PS expert but I am a professional who has been using Adobe software since the early 2000s and a paying nearly $50 to $60 per month for Adobe CC since 2010.

Here is the policy issue. I realize Adobe Generative AI is only in Beta form, and I’m aware the images I create using this AI is purely for personal use. I assume it’s for users like myself to test and get a feel on how the software works and for Adobe to gain insight on my use. Fair enough. Then the question is, will these user agrements be the same for when it’s officially released?

When I opened my first image to edit using Adobe Generative AI , and was told by the software that my request went against Adobe User guidelines. I thought this was odd and perhaps it was a error or bug, so I tried again, and received the same error. I then saw a view guidelines link and clicked on it. I read them and the additional terms, and concluded under no certain terms did I violate the user guidelines, so I contacted the chat support and together we ran some tests, I even gave them access to my screen so they could watch, and this is what we discovered.

Apparently Adobe is playing with some WIDE interpretations of what dangerous or harmful is, especially without context to what the purpose of the image is being made.

The image we were testing is an image I generated in another AI image generator. As most people experimenting with AI art know, when creating AI images with people often the hands come out warped and deformed. What I was attempting to do was replace the empty mangled hand of a gentleman in a 1920s white suit in a Cuban cigar bar. The prompt I gave the AI tool was as follow:

"replace empty hand with hand holding a cigar” and boom I received the error : Generated images were removed because they violate user guidelines.

The next step was to see would it give us the same error if it was a different object? The answer is NO! I was successful in replacing the empty hand with a hand holding a glass. Although it still looked a bit rough, it was impressive it did it. So now I thought OK lets see what happens when I replace the empty hand holding a revolver. And boom we got the error again: Generated images were removed because they violate user guidelines.

We tried some other images totally unrelated, some with background swaps, some with inserting objects and it worked as it was suppose too. So we concluded that Adobes AI is biased against guns and tobacco and probably a number of adult oriented things. So here is the BIGGER problem. Nothing I was trying do promoted or depicted violence, gore, sex, nudity, or anything provocative or most importantly an illegal activity in the United States.

One of my accounts is a cigar company. The other is a high end old Model Ship and Miltary Aircraft and Artillery company. Thats how I make my living by using Adobe software to make print and digital marketing material for these companies. In my professional opinion I think the policy of censoring art and creativity to this degree is insane. I just can’t believe another billion dollar company thinks it is ok to impose their bias on its paying customers.

I was told by an upper level manger or engineer that the AI decided my request was harmful to ones self to which I replied, " Oh yeah what if the hand was holding a bottle of alcohol or giant cheeseburger? It’s left me wondering a number things I could put in his hand that might be harmful yet corporate approved as acceptable. What if the dude holding a gun is for the cover of a crime novel? What if the pirate smoking tobacco was a requirement for the job I was assigned? Is Adobe telling me I should I just go use some else’s software? There are other options out there.

Where will this end? Will Adobe one day adjust the user agreements on the other products I use and deactivate my account, or not let me save the files because they feel it is harmful to others?

I do not think I’m being hyperbolic, there is a big problem with tech companies deciding what others aren’t and are allowed to do. I’m a grown adult with 20 years in the graphic design business thinking this is some really dystopian level policy that must be corrected immediately.

D Fosse

Community Expert

If you ask me, the AI takeover is genuinely frightening. The fact that someone is willing to put some restrictions on it, is slightly reassuring that maybe this monster we've created won't eat us all.

This needs to be controlled and restricted, urgently.

That something is possible to do, doesn't mean we should do it. That something is fun, doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do.

Yeah, I'm an old bore. But I'm genuinely worried. You're not getting any sympathy from me.

JR Boulay

Community Expert

The n*pples are missing!

😉

Acrobate du PDF, InDesigner et Photoshopographe

Graham24508943nobd

Known Participant

Imagine my surprise when THIS generated for me a couple of days ago ? Nose & mouth were badly distorted but I left everything else apart from the background which suits her outfit. I typed in beautiful woman posing and got this.

daniellei4510

Community Expert

Say what you will, but Generative Fill in Photoshop is breaking new ground and I suspect it will be another six months to a year before it is released in the "working" version of Photoshop. As a retired photographer (fine art nudes) and now an AI designer well aware of the short-comings of AI (no AI result is ever perfect), I have been able to save at least two to three dozen AI images that I would have tossed had it not been for Generative Fill and other AI applications. I've been using Photoshop since it was first released and while I'm fairly good at editing and retouching, there are occasional results beyond my expertise (both with respect to the time it would take to fix the issue, and whether it is worth my time to do so even if I could).

I've attached an image that I believe, for now, Generative Fill SHOULD be used. Not to create entirely new subjects or add objects that were not in the original image to begin with (use a dedicated AI application for those purposes), but as yet another editing tool within Photoshop.

I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it again: Forget what YouTubers are showing you about how powerful Generative Fill is. They are cherry picking their images and editing the daylights out of failed results to gain clicks. Or just being extremely lucky.

Anyway, here is the image in question. Generative AI fixed the rose in her hat, and extended the top and bottom of the image (Oh! And look! Skin was involved!) I also did some traditional Photoshop editing with regard to skin tones, the brightness of the eyes, mild vignetting, etc. But you get my point. I hope. Be patient. It's a beta.

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.

daniellei4510

Community Expert

Take the time to do a search on stock.adobe.com for nudes. There are plenty of results. If this is in fact a censorship issue, there are other factors involved here that involve very complicated programming issues. This is a beta.

Also, with respect to copyright issues--and as I understand it, since a lot is still unknown or up in the air right now--Adobe's eventual plans are to only allow uncopyrighted material and stock contributors' images to be used for AI, for which the latter will eventually be compensated. Stock contributors who don't agree with this can simply stop contributing to Adobe Stock.

Adobe Community Expert | If you can't fix it, hide it; if you can't hide it, delete it.

jane-e

Community Expert

@J-D-F Wrote:

It's hilarious that Adobe is triggered by Ai nudity in photo editing software to the point of absurdity for content warnings, but completely unconcerned by copyright infringement from the same tool.

The two points that you bring up are addressed in #1 and #3 of the user guidelines:

https://www.adobe.com/legal/licenses-terms/adobe-gen-ai-user-guidelines.html

Please read the entire page — it's short.

Also note that while GF is in beta, it is for personal use only and cannot be used commercially. (#4)

J

J-D-F

Known Participant

It's hilarious that Adobe is triggered by Ai nudity in photo editing software to the point of absurdity for content warnings, but completely unconcerned by copyright infringement from the same tool.

Graham24508943nobd

Known Participant

🤣🤣🤣

E

Eric30148995ldmy

Participant

Question: Why is there one stringent standard for using generative AI to edit vs say manually editing your photos to add new elements - or even just using content-aware fill?

Photoshop has never, ever had restrictions for usage and has never had tracking implemented for editing. Now that generative AI is a new additional tool for editing, all of a sudden now there needs to be restrictions and monitoring? But those restrictions and monitoring disappear the minute you decide to edit by hand instead? The logic doesn't make sense. It amounts to saying because the editing tools got easier to use there needs to be a restriction.

Having guidelines dictating how you're allowed to use photoshop is unheard of in the history of using photoshop. If the warning is popping up because the software uses it as a crutch to hide the fact that it's incapable of generating an image that's one thing. But if it's popping up because a decision has been made that devs will now have greater control over the type of images that are allowed to be edited via photoshop I think it goes against the very purpose of this software.

jdavidbuerk

Participating Frequently

@Gregusaurus It's not outlandish at all. Such digital watermarking utilities and services already exist for still images, video, and audio, and are commonly used for tracing and enforcing copyright protections. "Against the rules?" Yes, the rule of law - the reason the filtering is in place at all is to prevent laws from being broken; Adobe has to protect itself from liability of their services being used for illegal activity, and I hardly think it should be controversial to pursue people creating illegal imagery.

Show more replies

Sign up

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Sign in to Adobe Community

To post, reply, or follow discussions, please sign in with your Adobe ID.

Scanning file for viruses.

This file cannot be downloaded