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.

[pocketd]

I think the guidelines are way too strict. I absolutely hate that the tech overlords want to censor and babysit their users. I have a client who is an avid hunter and of course, the word gun is banned. More arbitrary rules that ultimately won't stop people from doing what they want. 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Hi @rb16826567 did you enter any prompts when trying to remove?

[gina238]

Sorry I intended to upload the psd file with saved selection. Since I made 6 different selections I honestly cant remember  which selection I  had the issue with now. I used healing brush to fix it. However I will upload a photo with circles around the areas that was an issue. One of the circles didnt work but the others did. There were people leaning over the edges and removed them all. The other five areas worked perfectly. 

[Owerwild]

Yes, this is very frustrating. During a photoshoot, the model was still feeling uneasy, despite producing stunning poses. It was evident on their face that they were nervous.

On some of the photos, Photoshop Beta's generative fill gave them a beautiful smile, but on the rest, it displayed a message stating that it violated guidelines. After that, I tried using the neural filter, only to receive a response that it was currently not operational. I expected more from a market-leading company that develops professional standards.

[gina238]

Just to be clear when I started this feed I saw a glitch in the generated fill tool. I am not against restrictions.  AI needs restrictions. Adobe has every right to decide to restrict copyright issues and offensive AI.  I just want to help it work better.  That's me. So save your time and don't send me petitions. 

[Bob5E9A]

If gen fil can not generate a decent fill you get this notice.

[Fine Art P]

So Adobe is now policing what we can generate with software we've purchased? As a photographer working with the nude figure, I would need to switch to another provider. What is the context of this censorship? I can see censoring images uploaded to Adobe's site for public view, but thell me Adobe isn't planning to monitor and make moral jugements about what we make on our own machines? 

[Graham24508943nobd]

Daft thing is, if you type in posing, posed, poser, or pose in the prompt box, 90 % of the images are featuring scantily clad ladies, which adds to the irony of it

[williamh53049808]

I agree, I am running Stable Diffusion locally. Yeah it is not nearly as fast, but at least its local. What I am wondering is where can I read the guidelines? I don't remember seeing any. I just loaded it up for the first time today, and tried extending an anime picture, obviously sexual but not nude (i was just trying it out to test the feature out), it extended it no issues and I got no warnings (no text prompts were used). From the sound of it, i should have. So it sounds as if the warning system is not consistant. 

[Graham24508943nobd]

Havn't seen the guidelines either

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@williamh53049808 its a beta. Most users are getting warnings by not adding a prompt and leaving the field blank.

[ArtrBok]

I experienced the same issue on several pictures of antique pens. Adding a prompt solved the issue. I've been trying to upload an image to the dropbox folder but it always stalls at 10% uploaded. It's a picture of an antique pen on parchment. I think it mistook it for something else. I added the prompt "fill in the style of the image" (probably more than I needed). All good. Thanks for the solution.

And - I agree with generating locally. I'm traveling and have been in an area where wifi and cell coverage are minimal and intermittent. I spent a lot of time this morning trying get get a couple of very simple fills done. Not critical work, but telling if you're in poorly connected area. I have SD/Automatic1111 running and it clicks along nicely. But, this photoshop featur is awesome! It's right where I need it to be - in the workflow.

Cheers,

[Graham24508943nobd]

When I get the dreaded orange error, I usually type in remove object. Works for me every time 

[Graham24508943nobd]

I posted this in another thread a couple of days ago, but not sure if it was the right one.   THIS is what CAN be done using the new AI tool right now !  This is a musical video I made up using entirely generated images from the AI. I added a few bits and bobs  but so far the comments have been very satisfying. I recorded the music myself playing my Yamaha Tyros 5 keyboard and mixed it all using Captracks... I think it's nice to give credit to the team for a change instead of whinning all the time.

https://youtu.be/7pt0Wn3xKA0

[powerful_Captain5C9C]

This has happened on several occasions and is becoming frustrating. 

I make a selection inside an image, go to generative fill and hit submit. (no prompts input) 

I want to remove an object from a picture. Then I get a notice stating this violates community policy blah blah blah. 

I have done this before with no problem. Why all of a sudden would it violate anything? This continues to happen. Very frustrating. 

[shoshishine]

All I've been using it for is on mock-up images of a plain wall and a picture frame. Sometimes I'll resize the picture frame and to smooth it out I'll use generative ai. It works a lot of the time, but also a lot of the time it says the generated image is prohibited. It's literally a plain wooden picture frame, with nothing in the picture,  on a white wall. Scandalous 🤣

[J0ker666]

Yeah, I ran into a similar roadblock while using the generative fill feature on a clothed photo of me flexing my biceps (I'm a bodybuilder) and received the same error. But I stumbled upon a workaround that could tide you over until Adobe rectifies this glitch. Here's what you need to do: pinpoint a part of the image that's not sexually explicit (or that could potentially be misinterpreted as such), and form a new duplicate layer from this unexplicit area. After that, select this newly created layer and use generative fill on it. So, if you're trying to modify the mouth, for instance, just make a separate layer of the face, select the mouth, and use generative fill on it. I found this technique effective. You can also select everything that is explicit, invert the selection to everything that is not explicit, and create a duplicate layer of that.

That being said, I'm pretty annoyed at Adobe's decision. It doesn't make much sense, especially when a lot of us Adobe users (myself included) often work with stuff that can be seen as sexually explicit. Some folks even use the software to edit proper adult content. I don't get why this would be a problem. The AI certainly doesn't mind.

I guess the only reason that makes sense is that this wasn't really Adobe's own choice, but a decision they had to follow. It's kind of like how ChatGPT doesn't write sexually explicit stuff; the limits probably come from the people who built the AI that Adobe uses to recognize patterns in pictures. They might have put in rules to stop people from using it with sexually explicit content. Even though this still seems like a weird decision by the developers, it suggests that Adobe might not be the one to blame for this.

[barışy29210892]

Whenever I need the smoke effect I see the "violate" warning.

[robk76980083]

CONSTANTLY getting the "generated images removed because they violate user guidelines" message for things that clearly do not come close to violating any guidelines. This definitely needs work. 

[CShubert]

Hi @robk76980083 would it be possible for you to share the .psd file with the GF prompts/layers for the team to look into?  Send to shubert@adobe.com

[Graham24508943nobd]

Yep, it worked for me a coupl of times but it just doesn't create smoke lately at all. 

[Graham24508943nobd]

I prompted pose in the box and got a lady that had no top. Boobies clearly visable, BUT, horribly distorted.😅

[MontyWales]

New update today 

[zevendesign]

Most designers and artists ARE against any kind of restrictions because we are adults. We are not more or less qualified than the other adults at Adobe at deciding what we want to create. What makes people at a software company in San Jose qualified to restrict what designers and artists can create? On the plus side, it opens the door to a lot of competition, which is always healthy. If Affinity Photo or Gimp implement a generative fill without restrictions, they will quickly take a lot of Adobe's marketshare. Just look at this thread. Hundreds of artists and designers being stopped from their daily work because Adobe decided they have the right to dictate what people who have paid for a product can do with it. And it's not lost on me that the petition posted here to end the restrictions was quickly removed by Adobe. 

[robertp90358595]

What is going on with the constant community violations when trying to gen fill? This is happening a lot on very obscure things. Currently it is happening when trying to fill a spot on a wall as shown here

I have tried various selection shapes and tried using words like wall or nothing and it always fails. This is just one example, but there have been many over the past couple weeks. I can of course reomove this manually, but what is the issue?

Is it because the system thinks it is a bodypart or something? I mean what is it about some of these fills that no matter what is done does not seem to get around the false violation?

Frustrating that this is even a problem or that it is attempting to censor in the first place.

*edit: I do like the gen fill a lot, it works great when it works. I just don't understand why there is so much violations happening, and what it is that I can possibly do to avoid it (legitmately).