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.

[daniellei4510]

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.

[Graham24508943nobd]

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.

 

[JR Boulay]

The n*pples are missing!

😉

[Graham24508943nobd]

😆. maybe it's non binary 

[YipeePhot]

I just had a similar problem while repairing an old photo of myself and my younger brother and sister. I was using generative fill to replace a missing part of the photo. The photo is just a photo of the 3 of us sitting "fully clothed" in front of our old house.

[vketteniss]

This had me going crazy for days while trying to outpaint 100 images for a project on a deadline.

TODAY THE PENNY DROPPED! It's the skin colour...! So here's the hack:

Invert image >> skin goes blue >> do your in- or outpainting (without guideline warnings)  >> invert image again >> TADAAA!!!

<Moderator Removed link>

[daniellei4510]

I think it's even more complicated than this. When I have a rare issue with Generative Fill that I am unable to find a work-around for, I head over to firefly.adobe.com. You are correct. If I enter the prompt, "An old man smoking a cigar," I am told I am using a word that violates user guidelines. But if I prompt, "An old man smoking a cigarette," I get four images of four old men smoking a cigarette. So much for the issue being with regard to self-harm.

[Immaculens]

How does this violate a user guideline? I made a selection around a present to remove...

[stephen291894531ul1]

Well, at least you got some good results... I just prompted for a belly button and received an infringement notice. The AI made me suspect it was possessed by the ghost of a 1750 Puritan inquisitor. So I thought, let's just "select the stomach area" and leave the prompt empty. Logically, the AI will complete and add the missing navel. I'm amaze by the propose result almost as much has how these systems can even infringe upon themselves. So out of the three options, it only kept one, without a navel of course but at least, my theory about the Puritan ghost has now been upgraded to:maybe the  reincarnation of a photobombing computer geek freed from when the singularity was on floppy disk.....  🙂

[Graham24508943nobd]

Yesterday on adobe firefly.com I prompted for a cowgirl country singer. out of 16 generations more than half were men. NOT a good reslt by any means. I DO find the qulity online slightly better for humans although too many have that artificial plastic look to them.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

What prompt did you enter?

[Graham24508943nobd]

try the period or full stop at the end of your prompt.

[Graham24508943nobd]

cowgirl country singer.   was the prompt I used. I thought it's quite an easy straight forward one ?

[DSA30749307yozl]

I want to edit a sleeve of a man's shirt, since the edge of one of the sleeves of the arm is pixelated, however the generative filler tells me that it is violating the user guidelines, the same thing has happened to me removing imperfections of the face, like pimples, even, I wanted to remove a chair from the background and it told me that it violated the user guidelines.

[defaultuihgdjrwdrs3]

These guidlines are rediculous.  I work with fashion/boudoir, no nudity and generative fill could be SO helpful and  useful, but if a belly is showing I violate guidlines.  Please lighten up on this Adobe, let all of us creators/photogs get some use out of this feature.

[mixchal301227617w1b]

yeah, those limitations are killing AI features. 

[DarthVengeant]

One issue is that if there is even a hint of nudity in the image, it "violates terms". So, if I am expanding the background of an image, why does it matter if the person/subject in the image is half or fully nude? I am expanding the background, not the person. The person is utterly irrelvant to expanding the background. What is it Adobe's business? This is the kind of big brother nonsense we dont need as artists.

[Graham24508943nobd]

it's sad how many half naked women show up in generations. In fact once I had a pic of a woman wearing nothing from the waist down. Clear violation of their own guidlines I'd say

[Rejean Brandt]

Using Generative Fill will often result in a pop-up message saying "The generated images were removed because they violate user guidelines" when no guidelines were violated. This happens more often when using Generative Fill without a prompt but sometimes with a prompt too. 

[David30122720qek7]

Also a frustrating violation whilst trying to create a very PG13 image- I wanted to put a whelk on a rock on a beach. I  got the rock and the beach, but I can only assume that a whelk has another meaning these days, 'cos it triggers a violation every time. I tried a winkle instead. Same violation error. "Shellfish" gives entirely the wrong type of shell, so I cant work round it. This sort of obsessive word list banning, without context, is very very frustrating and counter-productive.

[Randalph]

Today, as always, I got so many times the same message of prompts being censored, God! Even the prompt of a sniper rifle is banned, yesterday it was "full blood moon"...this is ridiculous. Not to mention the sexism of only censoring women (or any female character) and not men, this is abusive. When is this nonsense going to stop ? How can adobe uphold a misogynistic and sexist policy ? I’m on my computer, how dare you restrict the use of my software that I'm paying every month ?

Fix this please, there's no justification for that censorship!

[Timfl]

I'm getting the same message for my wildlife images!

[frank31105296jt6p]

says it violates user guidelines

[Trevor.Dennis]

All we know is that Adobe are being super sensitive with its Ai because of it being such a contentious subject right now.  It's basically a case of being able to say 'Don't blame us' when Skynet sends the Terminators to toast our butts.  

Hmmm..  I wonder if the forum will let me post the word 'butts'?

[David30122720qek7]

That's my experience too. Constant violation errors when I cannot think of any reason why they'd occur. I got one yesterday for asking it to add a sheet to a bed!