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]

You have some good points but let's face it: it will be a long time coming before we see an AI version of Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Edition. 🙂

[Graham24508943nobd]

 This took me 5 minutes just now, I simply added the boats, church, waterfall & wildlife, pretty spectacular I'd say

[Encartauk]

Why would they do that? They're already featuring obese women as the epitome of fitness - to represent "real women", so that's the only reason I don't see them featuring 'unreal' women any time soon. But if they weren't heading in the woke direction they could easily fill an issue 1000s of times over with AI generated attractive women. Search youtube for 'AI cosplay' for examples.

I've also heard recently about AI models getting large followings on instagram or similar without people knowing they're AI, and they're making their creators a lot of money - that's at least one area where a creator is benefitting from AI - but give it a while when all people are able to create these pics themselves and why would they be following fake people on instagram?

Just some other examples of AI advancement: a guy on Youtube called Bradley Hall has a video called 'I Made An Entire MEGADETH Album In Just 1 DAY' where he live streamed it's creation and asked his audience for song subject matter and typed those ideas into an AI text generator and it generated lyrics for whole songs, in minutes, if not seconds, in the style of Megadeth/Dave Mustaine. He created the music for it, but AI has also done that too.

There's a youtuber called TmarTn2 with a few videos of a tech demo set in New York where the player can walk up to NPCs and speak through their headset's mic to talk to them, ask questions, etc. and the NPCs respond with AI generated thoughts and can hold full conversations.

You can just ask AI chat to write a poem based off this or that subject. Or ask it to write code for a programme. Or even generate cartoons based off text or a few source materials. There's software that you can enter a short recording of someone's voice then type whatever you want and it generates audio with their voice. I've heard of sites or software with AI generated girlfriends - I don't know to what level of convincing they are, but again, in the not too distant future, put on a VR headset and live in a virtual world with your virtual partner, doing whatever you want and no-one's getting hurt (except the user if they get too carried away - I mean both physically and mentally)

AI is advancing quicker and to an impressive level much more than what Adobe's results are suggesting. That's maybe why I was expecting better from Adobe, but also why I feel pessimistic about our futures and being surplus to requirements in not too long.

[Nour nobe31603624yrxd]

sarkernournobe@gmail.com

[Gregusaurus]

The average Joe will not have the vision, design knowledge, artistic taste, or expertise to manage the creation of something of quality. There is more to design and art than being able to create a cat with a top hat smoking a cigar. AI can be an amazing tool for creativity or for easy production of  tacky schlock.

[Encartauk]

Have you seen how much of a mixed bag 'real' art is out there, whether in adverts, album covers, movie posters, packaging, in galleries. The average Joe doesn't care about it as much as you or I do, but the results I've seen with some AI are convincing, and more than good enough, that they'll more than do for whatever needs someone has. And most of the time, the user can keep generating until they get what looks better at no cost, except a bit more time, to them.

If a client is getting an artist to create an image that's taken many hours or days to create in the first place, and they then want to change things around, but it's going to cost them even more to do so - how many people are going to turn to AI instead where they may get similar results quicker, costs nothing, and can make changes to their heart's content?

For the time being, creators can capitalise on the fact AI isn't perfect and can use it as a USP for why they should be hired still, fix AI hands, touch up the seams, etc. but soon enough those issues will be ironed out. After that, either creators are going to lower their rates so much to still seem appealing and compete with AI, and/or only the most sought after/well known artists will get work from those that can afford it.

[Gregusaurus]

Encartauk, You have good points. "Have you seen how much mixed bag'real' art is out there, whether in advertisements, album covers, movie posters, packaging, or galleries?" Yes, this has been true since the beginning of art. The task of the designer or artist who cares is to create something better. My own experience with AI creation is that it can take me hours to create something I am happy with. When I look at most of the examples of AI "art" they rarely rise to anything that makes me say "Wow". It depends on what the artist or designer is prompting and how they select and choose the elements that best convey their vision. The prompt becomes the magical words of creation.
But caution is advised. If it's now the age of anyone becoming  'The Sorcerer's Apprentice', drowning is a distinct possibility.

[MichaelCluff]

I'm getting this while trying to fill background for a totally G-rated candid photo of a woman with her adult son! 

[joel15A9]

Well from my experience Photoshop beta has policies about the content that can or cannot be edited. I am a boudoir photographer and I suppose this is also true for artistic nudes. If you want to use generative fill, community policy prevents you from doing so. My question is if this makes sense, or even if it's even ethical because apparently adobe has access to my photo while I'm editing it (which even makes some sense as to make the generative fill you need to analyze the photo ). But regardless of whether or not they have access to the photographs as we edit them, what is utterly ridiculous is the fact that I can't use the tools because some enlightened puritanical mind thinks I shouldn't work on photographs of people in their underwear. I sincerely wish other boudoir, artistic nude, fine art and other photographers would add their voice to mine so that Adobe hears that it's not just landscape photographers who need artificial intelligence as a tool.

[RoundRocks]

Who does Adobe think they are, giving a warning about violating guidlines when trying to generate with the prompt "finger" or "tsunami"? There are so many reports about these false possitive warnings, but it doesn't seem to get any better.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@RoundRocks They are a company offering a public beta for users to test on a voluntary basis and report issues to help make a better product.

[RoundRocks]

@Kevin Stohlmeyer I know. Adobe doesn't offer discounts for people helping with beta feedback, so we have a right to vent. Additionally, the venting here is another type of "feedback" for Adobe to pay attention to.

The primary reason people use the beta GF is not to help Adobe - they are using it for work and providing feedback as a bonus. These flags make it very hard to work.

For months, I, along with many others, have uploaded false warnings to the Dropbox they suggested. If Adobe wished, they could make the necessary changes faster.

A word that is searchable in Adobe stock images should not have been trained to get flagged in the first place. If you can search "tsunami" on Adobe stock, and get many results, GF should allow generating them.

[Monty.T.rex]

Hi, I got a message that generated images were removed for violating user guidelines while I was trying to edit the picture (attached, child's face is blurred out). I did not enter any prompts, I was selecting slides on the left and on the right to edit out the dirt marks. Please address this issue, this is a little concerning. 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@RoundRocks GF is not to be used for "work" (Commercial). Not disagreeing with the terms you posted, but needless venting gets us nowhere forward. If it frustrates you to the point of anger, again this is a voluntary program you chose to participate in and can also choose to step away and calm yourself.

[3Hounds]

Adobe also clearly states that it's not to be used for commercial use at this point.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Adobe doesn't offer discounts for people helping with beta feedback, so we have a right to vent.

You expect a discount for participating in the Beta phase but you are not offered one?

Then the logical conslusion would seem to be: Don’t participate in the Beta programm. 

[angelo3162148699yx]

well, we're in the same situation.

but this happens using generative fill even on rocks, plants, censorship appears and block every results

this is an heavy bugged and bad trained AI

almost not usable in my experience a real shame. stable diffusion inpainting give 1 million times better results.

thank you adobe for your blind censorship making your AI not worth at all.

[Graham24508943nobd]

Well pointed... WE SHOULD be at least getting the product free that we're helping to test. Maybe admin reading this could mention this point to upper management ?   Personally, I've spent MANY MANY hourse since the beta started i've reported back on hundreds of poor results and also good ones via the app

[3Hounds]

You're being charged for using PS Beta, you don't have other apps or plans?

[daniellei4510]

Yes...and I should get a free iPhone and MacBook and Mac and an iPad for beta testing they're next OS. Ain't gonna happen, folks. 🙂

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Graham24508943nobd you are volunteering to participate in the beta. Discussions about reimbursements or freebees are distracting from the purpose of this thread. Please stay on topic.

[RoundRocks]

@Kevin Stohlmeyer Thanks for at least not disagreeing. You're right that it's a beta program, which naturally has some flaws. For a Photoshop user with 25 years experience, stepping away from GF isn't an option. Quitting smoking might be easier.

When we are asked to provide feedback, and do, but don't see any changes, anger can occur. Who knows, perhaps the fixes are already in place when the stable version is released.

Regarding those replying with "commercial use," I will not discuss that. "Work" does not have to be commercial. My work is not commercial. It's doing many daily free edits in a 43K-member Facebook Photoshop group I admin.

[daniellei4510]

Playing devil's advocate, how would you propose they go about doing that? Would everyone downloading the beta be granted a free version of Photoshop? Would they have to supply feedback at least once to quality? Two times? Two dozen times? Not to mention we'd probably be asked to beta test the software involved to make sure the right people are getting their free version of Photoshop. And once the give-away was over, we'd probably still have people screaming that, since they participated in the beta program, don't they have the right get Photoshop free forever. It would be a nightmare.

[Graham24508943nobd]

I quit smoking when the price of tobacco went up.  I was a pipe smoker and threw all my pipes in the bin.

I'd better get back on topic in case I get a slap on the wrist😅 😅😅

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Monty.T.rex enter a prompt - even a period. This has been well documented in this thread.