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.

[PB28]

"Generative fill violating community guidlines" is a constant problem for me.  Nothing I work on violates guidelines.  I just got a warming on an image with a girl peeking out of a door!   Is Adobe working on this issue? 

[David30122720qek7]

It would seem not. There's a constant stream of frustrated PS users, and little to no response from Adobe. I asked for a girl swimming yesterday, and got a string of adult women. I tried , dangerously, young girl swimming... And got a man. So I tried again and got a violation. Apparently a girl swimming, in a photograph of a beach, is just far too immoral. Sigh.

[Graham24508943nobd]

it doesn't seem like it at times. With each update it just gets worse.

[Graham24508943nobd]

try asking for kid swimming

[Graham24508943nobd]

I asked for nothing for a laugh and some of the images were simply vomit inducing

[Graham24508943nobd]

God knows how many times I asked for a woman posing on a beach and got some geezer with a beard. Sheeeesh

[Graham24508943nobd]

The bot won't even allow humanoid robot. It's way beyond a joke

[Graham24508943nobd]

NOW THAT's not on, somebodys' head needs to roll for this 

[Layla30674757fnau]

Out of interest which alternative generative AI systems are you looking at?

[Graham24508943nobd]

I'd a look at stable diffusion and some of the human generations were worse than Adobes.

[Encartauk]

The word 'kinks' should make your post blocked!

Joking of course.

But really Adobe, I was trying out generative fill with the lizard pic you provided, decided to add a jet fighter plane for it to be looking at and asked the prompt to add 'jet thrusts' and it blocked it because of a 'violation'! For the word 'thrusts'! I mean, I know it could be used in a sexual context but really! If your AI was smart enough it could tell it was being attached to the back of a plane - or even the fact the word 'jet' proceeded it.

Also, while I'm here, before I decided on a jet I was asking for a dragonfly, then asking it to be 'looking left', 'facing left', 'flying left' and no matter what I typed only about 10% of results had the thing facing left. Is your AI not smart enough to know left from right? Or if it's me, then it's not intuitive enough. It'd be good to have a 'flip' button on the Generative tool bar that flips the image easily - horizontally or vertically.

Also, why are the images not cutout by default? The new layer creates an area of opaque pixels that copy from the background, but if I change background I've then got to spend time cutting it out.

What you claim is going to be quick and save time, ends up in reality being us spending as much time trying many different prompts, with most results being unuseable or blocked, then having to tidy up/ cut out the result. I'd be better off sourcing my own jet or dragon fly than the monstrosities that get created.

I'm just getting tired of all the time Adobe claim their new feature is the best thing ever and works flawlessly and it clearly doesn't.

[Encartauk]

I wouldn't say they are any way near 'developed', but yeah it's a bit dodgy.

[Graham24508943nobd]

That's putting it mildly, I've had loads of women in my generations, shame they were ALL hideous

[abuse removed by moderator]

[Encartauk]

I tried generating a woman from scratch using the Firefly web app version to creat a character from a game - and yes, hideous is an apt description. Even when I put 'attractive' or 'beautiful' it didn't get much better. I know looks are subjective, but looking like they were created by Dr. Frankenstein, and then hit by the back of a bus, and then the hospital they were recovering in collapsed in an earthquake... 

Considering the results I've seen people make using other products, where the results were like photos and incredibly good looking women (with usually only the hands an issue occasionally) Adobe has to up their game if they think they are the premiere image creation software.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Adobe has to up their game if they think they are the premiere image creation software.

Image editing software. 

[Encartauk]

But Adobe shouldn't be using Urban Dictionary to decide it's list of forbidden words, or there'll be no words left. Why can't people create almost (as in, no child-prn or images involving defaming real people) anything they like? You can't use these for commercial purposes anyway. The only problem is the furore the main-stream media might throw at Adobe if their software is used to make certain images - but why can't a company stand up for once and say something like 'we provide software for people to use, what they do with it is up to them' and leave it at that. No one blames a car company if their car gets used to mow people down, a phone company if their phone is used to commit a serious crime, or Windows if their software was on the PC someone used in a hack.

[Encartauk]

Do they not think they're the best image 'creation' software anyway? If not then who is? I'm not saying they are the best for creation, but I'm interested who is - because I've heard of most, and not many else spring to mind - so I'm wondering what I'm missing (not that you're probably allowed to mention it here).

I also said Adobe, not Photoshop - Illustrator is more a 'creation' tool, and I'm talking about Adobe overall, not just PS.

[Graham24508943nobd]

 

 

 

 Here's a few of the women I've created with relative ease. Other times it takes dozens of attempts to get a nice face. Try placing an object in front of a persons hands OR, crop the image so's the hands aren't in view

[Tom Charmel]

Had the same trouble working with pictures including womens in swimsuits.

Even if I just try to extend the background, without text prompt like legs etc...

[JosephOComm]

Hi, Yes, the Generative Fill takes a very long time to generate now with v25. And when it does finish, it says I violated a guideline which I'm 100% clearly NOT. It does this most of the time.

I have:
PS Beta v25
Win 11 x64 22H2 (build 22621.2134)
i7 12th Gen
1Tb NVME SSD
RTX 3060

Internet:
500mbps DL/UL

Situation:
I just delete some part of the image with a selection tool and did the Gen Fill.

Screenshot confidential, work related.

[Encartauk]

They're not too bad, the first one's the nicest (imo). But you can tell they're not real once zoomed in slightly if there was any doubt. I've only used the Firely web app for people creation, so I'll give PS Beta a go, but the results for Firefly were like settling on the best of the bad bunch and then selecting different facial features and trying other prompts to see if something better turned up. In fairness, looking again now, the result is convincing, but it took maybe hours to get there. 

[daniellei4510]

Even the best results when it comes to creating photo realistic images in any AI application requires running the results through facial restoration software. Even then, the ear would need some additional work or hidden under cloned hair or content aware fill.

[Encartauk]

Your image looks like the teenage version of my 30ish year old one. Maybe it's because it's lower res, but yours loses some of the flaws that give the face a bit of character, so I think the original looks more realistic.

I went from critizing Firely/Adobe quite heavily, to now defending my original image.

Maybe I'm just expecting great results a lot quicker with the user having to do far less to achieve it.

As someone who's been using PS for over 20 years and spending a lot of time learning as much as I could about it, some of the AI images I've seen in the past 6 months make me worried our time as image manipulator/creators is limited. Having these new advancements not work amazingly extends our stay, but for how much longer? When the average Joe can just type in what they want into a free, quick bit of software with perfect, realistic results (coming within the next few years at longest, judging from the speed of advancement so far) why would we be needed and/or paid to do what we do?

[daniellei4510]

"When the average Joe can just type in what they want into a free, quick bit of software with perfect, realistic results (coming within the next few years at longest, judging from the speed of advancement so far) why would we be needed and/or paid to do what we do?"

For the same reason people still hire other people to design their websites, even with the slew of easy-to-use web design applications that are available online. They just don't want to deal with it themselves when they have other things to concern themselves with. Things will all pan out in the end. Models will still find jobs and photographers will still find work. 

[Encartauk]

But, when it's as easy as it seems it's going to be in the future, judging by the speed of advancement already, I don't share your optimism. Have you tried Bing AI Chat's text to image? You can get 4 results within about 10 seconds, and then ask for modifications and it keeps producing. Yes, the results are far from perfect, but the speed at which they're produced is impressive. Once the results are more realistic and convincing, why would the next David Bowie pay some artist to produce the next Diamond Dogs album cover when they could just type it in a prompt and there it is - I mean it's a shame hardly anyone cares about album covers these days as consumers download the digital song anyway and most don't care about the package like I do. 

AI will be great for consumers, not so great for creators in my opinion.