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.

[Ro3099016059zj]

every time I try to use the generative tool I get a message saying that the images generated were deleted because they violate user guidelines. I was initially tying to delete a shadow but I've tried different commands and I get the same message over & over again. 

[Graham24508943nobd]

Latest word that violated user guidelines is.........

Wait for it.......

LEEK

In the name of the wee man, how incredibly stupid is THAT ?  Even a full stop ( period ) after the word didn't work this time. Also Strip Light brought the violation notice. yesterday too

[Graham24508943nobd]

No problem on my side.

 

[ArnelGonce]

If this is NOT a bug, then what good is it?  Im editing a wedding, and have had MULTIPLE issues with this (expletive) wonder software.  Currently I'm trying to clear an area between an Ice bucket and a champagne glass, with the existing background that is green foliage.  It says I'm voilating the user agreement.  It's hard for me to type this without bad language. Its supposed to help my workflow, not hinder it.  This is ridiculous.  Other issues, much of anything skin toned.  They need to get on this, or people will stop using it.  The first instance that happened, the message said if it kept happening I would lose access to adobe.  REALLY?????  That instance I (same wedding) I was trying to clear the ministers notebook for the top of the grooms hand, which my selection included maybe 20 pixels of his hand (not much at all, I actually tried to line the edge) If it won't speed my workflow then ITS NOT HELPFUL.  And yes, I did report it.  How much more time do I have to waste reporting something they should be addressing already, given the number of complaints?  Rant over.

[J E L]

LOL @Graham24508943nobd. I had to try it.

[Graham24508943nobd]

Never thought of leeks 🤣

[higurashiwillow]

This is mostly the kind of thing I've been trying to use generative fill for (to varying degrees of success). I can see how some of the things people are posting are triggering flags even if they're unwarranted, but it also seems to be a pretty common issue with bokeh, small blemishes, streaks, shadows etc. When it works it does a much more efficient and better job at cleaning up an image then other healing tools (and don't even get me started on the remove tool which is straight up unusable) except it's extremely unreliable and when I do get it to work it's usually taken a lot of fiddling and failed attempts prior. Hopefully this gets solved because I think the potential is definitely there. 

[higurashiwillow]

I meant to reply to the person posting about removing reflection with a fully clothed person 

[jane-e]

@zvi_t wrote: Violation for "large" and "spacial"?

Can you tell us what happens when you try using "spatial", the preferred spelling of the word?

Jane

[bjornlarssen]

Hello,

I regularly get the "generated images were removed, because they violate community guidelines"... when I am filling in blanks or removing small blemishes with blank prompts.

Should I be worried? Because I would not like my account to be deleted for trying to remove a white stain from red background…

Greetings!

[jane-e]

@zvi_t 

I'm glad "spatial" worked for you! I've been noticing the misspellings that cause errors and have on-purpose misspelled words. Several folks have wondered why on earth "elefant" would cause an error, for instance, and I agree that spell check would be a good addition. Also, there are many folks who are writing in English when it's not their native language. That has to be tough.

Adobe has been moving all of these posts into one thread so they can be reviewed while GF is still in beta.

In addition, see Pete's pinned reply for sending files with false flags to the Photoshop team.

Jane

[Graham24508943nobd]

Latest disallowed nonsense is sporran. Admin, please pass on and correct. Sporran IS correct spelling and a main accessory to a Scottish outfit.

[daniellei4510]

Sporran works fine on adobe.firefly.com. It is not a banned word.

[Graham24508943nobd]

well it doesn't work at all on the beta

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Graham24508943nobd Generative fill is US English only at this time. Sporran is a Scottish word.

[davescm]

'Sporran' on its own resulted in a violation but 'sporran on kilt' was accepted here

Dave

[Graham24508943nobd]

Thanks for that Dave, big help !   I just imported one from an old image I had removed background and used that. Didn't faff about as much as I could have with this of course.  The two lassies had horrible defects so it took ages tweaking, the hands were the worst to correct.

 

[jdavidbuerk]

Reminder to those following this issue; it's been said quite a few times already, but there seems to be some confusion about the "violation."  This generally is not an issue of the words you're using being "censored," but instead it's the AI's output image that is flagging false positives via the overly-restrictive image monitoring that is in place prior to the output being released to a user (likely due to CSAM concerns, but as obviously demonstrated, the filtering is much too strong for typical usage).  Yes, a word filter is surely in place, however that's not what's causing the problem for most cases shown in this thread, where people are inputting innocuous prompts such as "wall," "arm," "background," and so forth.  The reason changing your input terms will frequently help avoid the percieved violation is not becuase of the words input, it's becuase the AI's output has changed and is no longer being internally flagged.  This is the same reason even a blank input prompt on an innocuous image can still be flagged as "inappropriate."

I think most people talking about the Generative AI problems agree that the filtering in place is currently much too stringint for regular, practical use, so this is the real core issue at hand: balancing useful flexibility and expression using the AI with reasonable safety and legality.

My reccomendation to solve the problem of balancing artists' freedom with safety from nefarious use is to employ a digital watermarking function linked to a user's Adobe ID (and presumably the history of their use of Generative AI) on files that have been output using Generative AI, and remove all the server-side filtering except for input keywords of illegal acts.  This way, users are not limited in their use of Generative AI to much more freely work on their images, and Adobe is free from the liability that their service is not being used for illegal activity.  And should someone be using the software to create illegal images, real or fictional or otherwise, the embedded watermark would be able to be looked up by Adobe, their access to Adobe services banned, and their identity shared with the proper authorities.  My understanding is such watermarking technology has existed for quite a long time, and can be employed in a combination of both embedded metadata (which Photoshop of course already does), and inperceptible pixel patterns embedded in exported images (essentially like an imperceptible QR code); printers and scanners for example include similar such countermeasures to trace criminal activity, such as forgery.

[Gregusaurus]

That is one frightening recommendation. For a watermark to be implanted that can be used by the "authorities" to track down the artist who dared to create something that is deemed "against the rules" is so horrible that I am shocked it is being proposed.  Maybe you are being sarcastic? 

[jdavidbuerk]

@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.

[Eric30148995ldmy]

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.

[Graham24508943nobd]

🤣🤣🤣

[J-D-F]

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. 

[jane-e]

@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)

[daniellei4510]

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.