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]

Oh dear.

[Jay Matthews]

Thank you for the experimentation (with Adobe) I can concur that there are benign requests that Adobe will fault you for, even threaten to terminate your account over. In one of my 'experiments' I tried to increase the bust line of a dressed woman in a test photo I took where the outfit we were trying was a bit too large. Nope! I received my first error. Then I attempted to darken the skin of a light-skinned subject because the image was slighty over exposed... I asked to 'darken skin.' Adobe AI decided I needed a completely different woman, now dark skinned (but still blown out) corn rows/braids, and her bust line was huge and displayed < this was perplexing. So WE cannot violate terms (including if misperceived) but Adobe reserves the right to do so? I haven't had the luck that others have in their online demonstrations of getting something that looks realistic. It's alway some really bizarre face or object that doesn't match what I asked for. Perhaps this is Adobe AI's way of punishing me for it's failure to identify true violations and projecting its AI bias on me in very passive aggressive ways... lol

I've had the same issue with Instagram: I reported offensive ads and then got 40 weeks of twice-daily notifications reminding me that they removed an offensive ad that violated their terms. When that finally resolved (on its own - no human assistance) I got temporarily suspended for reporting a 'pornographic ad' that Instagram threw in my face! The point being that Instagram (and Adobe) are using 'bots' to do their dirty work; but, their bots are dirty and too simlistic to make the right choices and not harm others. The are a bit like goons. There are NO humans involved in the review process anymore - This is terrifying.

[Subversive309078915uqr]

He said a museum of CONTEMPORARY art. So no, those types LOVE censorship - just as long as it's not their art being censored. Anyone who works within the iron lung of the state, or megacorps, applaud this stuff.

The reality is guidelines should be bound by law. And we need to legislate accordingly to bind the hands of companies before they bind our hands of all civil liberties.

This may be harder in the US given you guys treat companies as people. In my country there's sensible legal challenge to this stuff; specifically because megacorps EULA always try to enforce patently illegal demands rendering their contracts void ab initio. (For clarity, I'm a lawyer, not an art museum curator - so this stuff is interesting to me as it's dystopian nightmare fuel that we need to severely punish corporations for.)

[MontyWales]

But Possums and Opossums are different animals 

[MontyWales]

Well if they don't hurry up and sort it they will be left behind. Theres a lot more places offering AI tools now and free.

[daniellei4510]

Agreed. and that is what you should be using. Despite what YouTubers are trying to tell you, and to some extent Adobe, Generative Fill is not a full-fledged AI application. It is an editing tool. While I do on occasion get the "against user agreement violations," I can get Generative Fill to work for me 100% of the time. But I don't use it do create things...I use it to fix things. To extend borders. To remove objects.  To fill objects (but rearely to replace them with a different object. If you want to experiment with REAL AI apps, there are plenty choose from, including Firefly (athough it is in beta and I suspect it will remain so for some time.

I know YouTubers, to get their kicks and clicks) are touting Generative Fill as the be all and end all of photo editing. It is not. Nor should it be. It is one among an arsenal of tools to edit photographs. Adobe Photoshop is not going to be left behind.

[neart45822646]

Maybe we are all not having the right "kind of hands optimal for using Photoshop"!

They look something like this:

[default4c7teg4y5oux]

Yes, I did that already.  No dice.

[Graham24508943nobd]

Dunno how many times yesterday I'd hands with 6 fingers, and 19 out of 20 were terribly distorted

[J E L]

I'm happy to report that I've reinstalled Beta 24.7.0 (Windows 10 Pro), and this time, it has been working fine and I haven't had a violation yet! I just tested using penguins (highlighting them here, so you can see the area selected) but I'm not sure if I'm going to give possums a whirl just yet, lol. 

[default4c7teg4y5oux]

I know they are both different animals.  Both still cannot be create no matter what type of photo background is used.  Also, cannot create an Elk animal.  Same error;  "The generated images were removed because they violate user guidelines.  That's 3 animals not in the A.I. database that can't be rendered for some reason.  A major glitch.

[jiveaces]

I had a picure of a cow I took near Stonehenge. I added a party hat to it because why not (don't ask)? I then wanted to add a kazoo in the cow's mouth. I wrote the word kazoo in the generative fill box and got the following error back.

Now, I have never heard of the word kazoo to mean anything other than the (allegedly) musical instrument. , The only thing I can possibly think of is that some eejut doesn't;t know what a kazoo is or thinks it is a euphemism or something. I mean, what if someone genuinely wants to generate a big pair of jugs? Or maybe a giant pair of balls? Are you going to ban every possible innuendo? That's basically 80% of the English language!

[kglad]

@jiveaces 

kazoo is also slang for *ss in the usa, used as, to "take it up the kazoo" ( meaning to suffer something undesired).

[daniellei4510]

This issue kind of confirms what I've always theorized. I went over to Firefly and typed "a cow playing a kazoo." Granted, the results were odd in that the instrument themselves looked nothing like a kazoo, but Firefly did in fact make an attempt to create the prompt and I received no violation warning. What I believe is happening with Generative Fill is that the bot creates a result that the bot itself determines is a violation of standards. In other words, it is censoring itself, not you, even though the warning is written in such a way that it blames YOU, and not itself, for attempting to circumvent the standards. But since we aren't able to see those results, I note again that this is only a theory. In short, it's a bug, not censorship, at least in this particular instance. 

[phil bauch]

Just as a suggestion, this would provide a much better user experience and help fixing bugs a lot faster. Not that unimportant while in beta...

[Joe Dugdale]

I hope this is a bug in the system.

I am testing out the gerative fill, attempting to create a background using 'Meare, Somerset'. It is telling me the background was removed as it violates the user guidelines.

I live in Meare, Somerset and don't see how requesting my village violates any guidelines. To be hinest, this is worrying that my village would be considered a violation of guidelines.

[daniellei4510]

Something else I would like to add. A lot of people seem convinced that anything involving human skin is the reason they get these violation notices. First, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I have always been able to circumvent this issue by making an additional small selection elsewhere far removed the main selection itself. Secondly, I'm guessing the reason this happens so often is beause the majority of generative fill requests involve human skin, even though the same thing can happen when trying to remove or add other objects in areas that have no resemblance whatsoever to human skin. I also get the impression that people taking advantage of generative fill have no previous experience with other AI applications. It will be a long time, even after Gen Fill is out of beta, that hands and feet will be an issue. This is the case with most AI programs and even those that do it well only do it well 50% of the time and usually still require ediitng in Photoshop.

[aleksandart99760007]

It flags me for the most ridiculous images!!! Literraly trying to entend a pink wall. So frustrating.

[uging30866256ig47]

Hi, i'm a food photographer and i found that i cannot generate smoke effects like it used to, this is hillarious since the "The generated image is removed because they violate user guideline" warning keep popping which mean they banned the word. Can these user guidelines get more hillarious?

[Graham24508943nobd]

I like making images of old cottages in the countryside and a chimney with smoke  is somthing it won't generate. It's pathetic really

[J E L]

@Graham24508943nobd, what happens if you try “trail of smoke from chimney” as a prompt? I got something to start with.

[Graham24508943nobd]

Never thought of trail of smoke. Will give it a shot 

[J E L]

@JoeDugdale, I tried using this prompt, “scene from village of Meare, Somerset in England” and got a few choices. I don't know if this looks like your town, though, lol. Let us know if you get any results trying the same.

[Graham24508943nobd]

beautiful country cottage with large gardens & trail of chimney smoke was what I typed into prompt.😆😆😆

 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

So it did what you asked but you werent specific enough with where the smoke is coming from. AI's can't make assumptions.

One thing I'm starting to notice is creators are going to need a primer for creating accurate text prompts to gain better results from an AI.

This article touches on that with some great resources:
https://creativepro.com/generative-ai-for-designers/