P: Generated images violate user guidelines

[Hematita]

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.

[Graham24508943nobd]

What I wonder frequently is WHAT kind of machines do they have NOW that we DON'T know about ??

[Punceka]

Hello,

I have been using AI image generators for work and business for a long time. Then, just recently I gave a try to PS Beta AI. I fully understand that there are many things not to expect, but I am very satisfied with the results. If it's about nature, flowers and the sky. Everything else is strictly prohibited. I am a photographer, and I mostly capture subjects related to the military and the army things. And basically, everything related to that is prohibited. Even if I select a tiny area in the whole photo which won't make any difference, I still can't process it because the photograph itself falls under the prohibited subject matter.

Fire, smoke, black smoke, bare legs, soldiers, weapons, grenades, attack helicopters, military rocket launchers, and so on. These are just a few keywords I have tried. There are numerous other foolish restrictions that seemingly have no connection to the used keyword.

Also, I have been using MJ for a year now, and I haven't had as many rejected keywords/prompts as I have had in a week with the Beta AI. It's unbelievable.

I understand that there is currently a war going on in Ukraine, and Russia could exploit AI for spreading propaganda, as seen in the recent case with the burning Pentagon. But maybe you should disable this AI function for Russia instead of launching a semi-functional AI?

Even if that's the case, there should be a warning before installing this program stating that the Beta AI is not suitable for journalists/photographers who have a hobby/job of photographing/editing images related to the military, police, firefighters, rescuers, and other dangerous professions.

I apologize for the emotions and for being sarcastic, but my patience simply has run out when I see that yellow warning dozens of times a day.

Thank you.

[ThayneW]

The warning of violating guidelines is absolutely terrible. You don't even have to be in the same world of possible violations. It pops all the time over absolutely nothing. And which part is in violation? Who knows. 

[Graham24508943nobd]

If we knew which friggin words were violating the poor innocent bot it would be a big help. Sadly, we continue getting them even with a blank prompt, if anything it's gotten worse 

[Ingrid282567719n6d]

Nude art is as old as humanity, it's ridiculous patronizing paying Customers (that are age verified by the credit card they used to pay enormous subscription fees) as if every creation was curated by some preschoolers and therefore need to be family friendly. 

[Ingrid282567719n6d]

Who are you to decide what I create for my own eyes to see? The only thing that needs to be stopped are entitled wannabe moral apostles forcing their bigotry on others as if they are in any form better than others. Shame on you, fascists like you did and still do more harm in this world than p0rnhub ever could.

[O. Inha]

I am constantly facing this issue when leaving text prompt blank (trying to fill without text prompt).

[Shane289354640if9]

D Fosse you are missing the point. If some (i make an analogy) takes from your world and brings you to theres, and says you need to forget your world, you now live in mine. Is that okay? You now must think and act like we do, in this new world (order). You can cesnor art, even if it is used for wrong intent. It is up to the viewer to understand morals and judment, not the artist. The artist shold be free to express ones mind, even if it is hateful and negative. Have you seen the cover of Ice T "Home invasion album" The FBI tried having that album removed from stores, because of the album cover. They didnt because it went against the artists intent, it was not to show negative acts to reproduce them, but to show this is the violence experienced by many living in the NYC. The work around they did to partially censor it, was to place a sticker over it. Once you purchased the album, the art work was yours to do with whatever you chose. This should be the same for AI. If you sensor it, i should have the option to appeal your biased views on what i think versus you think should be cesnored. If not, you have a biased and non inclusive app. Almost like how churches and catholic shchools try to convince you that if televsions and music is not in the word of God "praising him" it's a sin. Well, did Jesus know about Netflix? I dont think so.

[Graham24508943nobd]

Hi folks, here's my latest creation.....Idyllic country scene. I prompted a calm river, and generated the house, garden, wildlife table, chairs etc....bit by bit, even the water drop. I find it a relaxing thing to do. I also create music for my own enjoyment so this is a nice change......

 

 

[Chris30252734pxah]

I have found a solution to the overzealous guidelines errors!  Generate your AI content using another piece of software or website, and then import it into Photoshop and work on it as normal.  In essence, don't waste your time trying to use Photoshop's generative fill, as it's completely broken and unusable.

I mostly work on editing photos of singers and musicians, from rock and metal bands.  Many of their outfits are quite revealing, with an abundance of torsos and cleavage on show.  the ONLY way I have had any success, is by chopping the source image up, so I can select just an arm to fix a missing elbow, or just a head to fix bad hair.  Any attempt to use a complete photo gets rejected.

I see 3 possible options for making GenFill work: 1, completely remove all restrictions (why are Adobe suddenly censoring our creations anyway?). 2, Fix the guidelines (this seems like an impossible option, without several more years of training for the AI). 3.  Just add an age requirement to the software, if you are over 18, there should be no restrictions to what you can create.

[MontyWales]

You already have to be over 18 to use it. No idea why though 🙂 

[zevendesign]

I agree. We're all ignoring the fact that Adobe have now established themselves as some kind of arbiter of virtue and purity with the "guidelines." Since when does the paintbrush dictate what art the painter can create? We've been conditioned to accept this as "normal" but it is so far from normal it actually defies belief. A design software company is dictating what artists can and can't design? In any other context, the solution would be to use a different tool. 

[zevendesign]

I think a better solution, for both Adobe and artists, is to set up the generation to happen without saving anything to their servers. And then remove all restrictions and leave all legal liability on the users, where it belongs. This is the model that has existed for the last 30 years and has worked well. 

[alfred531]

Was bitte soll bei diesem Bild gegen die Benutzerrichtlinien verstoßen?

WIN 11

PS Beta/24.7.0

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@alfred531 As stated many times in this thread, please try entering a basic prompt for now.

[O. Inha]

Apologies to partake in the derailing of the bug report, but since it's already going there: content filtering isn't just about dodging legal consequences. Any big player in the AI field has a moral obligation to act responsibly with AI like Firefly. Just think about the sheer amount of deep fake we would live amongst if a company like Adobe would lift content filtering. Artistic freedom is one thing, and a priority to Adobe I'm sure, but another, massive thing is creators who don't give a rat's patoot about artistry, and have entirely different motives to use tools like this, that produce realistic imagery while require zero skills and creativity.

[MontyWales]

[information removed as per forum guidelines]

https://community.adobe.com/t5/using-the-community-discussions/adobe-support-community-guidelines/td...

[zevendesign]

Any skilled Photoshop artist can ALREADY accomplish any kind of fake image you can possibly imagine. How is the introduction of a new tool changing this in any significant way? 

[O. Inha]

Any skilled Photoshop artist. Exactly. To sharpen my point: I'm willing to bet that all of world's skilled Photoshop artists combined produce a considerably lower number of seriously ill-intended deep fakes than the troll armies of the dark and grey areas of the interwebs, who would be able to do the same thing, only without any Photoshop skills at all, in literally 5 seconds.

[Graham24508943nobd]

😅😅😅.  

[E250916993jnw]

Fitness photography - Bad

Sports photography - Bad

Beach photography - Especially Bad

What a miracle tool.  But the people who created this really went way overboard in trying to dictate terms of using photoshop for paying customers. I've never actually heard of a restriction of using photoshop prior to this tool. It's always been about free creativity based on the user's imagination. Now you can't even show a wrist or an ankle without getting flagged.  I know this is beta so I suppose perhaps for now this is just the place to be voicing certain opinions on the direction of this otherwise astonishing tool.

I hope when the official version comes out there's an option to identify us as adults. Adult paying customers should not be governered by puritanical guidelines of certain devs. Otherwise the technology will advance and you will just be directing it towards open source.

Furthermore you're marketing photoshop for photographers who have businesses but you're arbitrarily deciding which photography businesses are allowed to use it. There needs to be more thought behind the implications of these guidelines because ultimately people will fall in love with these features, be restricted from using them, and then go look for alternatives elsewhere.

[daniellei4510]

OK...at the risk of spamming the board, since I've already posted this once (although I can't find it and I was on my third glass of wine, so maybe it never got posted), this is a cropped image of a before and after AI image of a woman's chest that was edited entirely with Generative Fill. By making a second, small selection far removed from the main selection, Generative Fill did an excellent job without having to rely on the cloning tool, spot removal tool, remove tool, etc. The issue is a bug and there are work-arounds. Yes, there are words that Adobe has banned, and probably not purposefully. "Tank," for example, which, besides being a military vehicle, also has a variety of NSFW definitions on Urban Dictionary. Things will improve going forward.

[Graham24508943nobd]

did a beach scene yesterday. Result is ok. Still has MAJOR problems generating mountains, even hills and grass. Several times I asked for mountains and got either birds or objects that were not of this earth. Today I prompted for water in a small circle selection and got everything but

[ddv84]

Hi,

i use the PS Beta 24.7.0 on Windows 10 and constantly get the error "The generated images were removed because they violate user guidelines." The images, however, do not violate the community guidelines. They are mostly photographs of a woman wearing a red sommer top and a summer skirt.

What can i do?

I do understand that this feature is still in beta, so im posting here with the intention to help identifiy mistakes.

[Andreas254530901626]

The test of guideline violations is way too sensitive. I found this with numerous astro images like the one of the Moon attached. I simply wanted too remove the writing SINUS IRIDUM, by selecting it with rectangular marquee  tool and applying Generative Fill. This triggered the message that the results were removed because of violating the user guidelines. 
Of course, the old Fill / Context aware did the trick.