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]

Could you provide the original image in its entirely? I'd like to give it a try. 

[Jann Lipka]

As expected AI is easy to manipulate - 
Moral algorithm is sensitive to all red tones . 
Workaround is to invert image ( so it becomes cyan - ish ) then use Generative Fill ( it works ) 
Invert the image again - and You are back into " forbidden tones" area. 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Jann Lipka what prompt were you using and what was the expected outcome? There is no "bias" for red tone images at all.

[Jann Lipka]

Zero prompt - i just wanted to remove creases in the fabrics 
You can download my file - and check - 
when red - No go - violation 
Inverted to cyan  - it works . 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Jann Lipka So this is not a case of "AI Paranoia" - as noted extensively in here, leaving the prompt blank can lead to false flag errors. Selecting the same area you noted and adding a prompt "Smooth fabric" worked just fine with your original image. No need to invert a reddish image.

[Jann Lipka]

OK noted and indeed it worked OTOH 
"tooltip " dialog specifically mentions NOT to 
fill any prompt when removing things just making loose selection . So thats what I did 

[daniellei4510]

I had no problem with it, either, using a period as a prompt.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Jann Lipka When you have specific needs, adding a prompt is best. Otherwise I compare it to throwing dirt in a windstorm with the expectation that it lands all back in your hand. Users need to be detailed and descriptive with prompts when you have specific needs or leave it all to chance.

With Generative Fill 1.0 leaving it blank can cause false violations - as stated throughout this thread.

[CSI Productions]

Just an observation - Unless I'm missing something, the two images of the wrinkled curtain which you say worked doesn't look any different than the original (at least not noticibly). What am I missing?

[daniellei4510]

Maybe I'm having better luck with generative fill more than others because I've only used it once to add something. Otherwise, I use it to remove things (with the exception of Generative Expand, and only then when I want to change the aspect ratio to expand an empty background). The only time I've used GF. to add something was to add a highway next to a hitchhiker and it required a good 20+ attempts to get something acceptable. 

[Jann Lipka]

OK so not following tooltip seems to work best . 
( "remove wrinkles " prompt works - No prompt give me violation 
Screenshot 5 minutes ago ( I thought maybe AI learned from my tries ( 10 times " providing feedback" )
- I lost probably 50 credits on this .-) 
I have most recent Beta ( OSX )

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@CSI Productions I didnt do the entire curtain - just the specific area that @Jann Lipka had selected before. Those are just two examples the second does show a smooth curtain without a wrinkle in that specific area.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Jann Lipka you arent charged for credits yet 😉

After Nov. 1 being as specific as possible and not "wasting" credits on chance/random AI results will be what separates users going forward. Those who "learn as they go" with descriptive prompting will quickly spend credits while those who take the time to add in details and descriptors will get the wanted outcomes more effectively.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Jann Lipka @daniellei4510 Also I've been able to confirm that violations/false errors will not count towards credit usages.

[Okydoky]

I appreciate Adobe's commitment to an ethical approach to artificial intelligence, and I take pride in volunteering for them.

However, when I read,
'Generative AI is the next step in the decade we've devoted to developing Adobe Sensei, and as we harness its power in our cloud technologies, we are more committed than ever to thoughtful and responsible development,' by Jane,
I couldn't help but express some reservations.

Forgive me, but what are we really talking about here? As far as I understand, we're discussing Photoshop, a program that has revolutionized the world by offering incredible tools for image creation and editing.

Thanks to Photoshop and its tools, artists have created genuine masterpieces and stunning images that have circled the globe. I can't even fathom its impact on the planet. It's such a comprehensive tool that it has been used for various purposes, both creative and, admittedly, for illicit activities. However, I'm not aware of any legal action against Adobe for this. No court has demanded restricting Photoshop's features to prevent misuse. That would be absurd.

It appears that we are now in an era where tools are being limited based on potential misuse, which seems contrary to 'developing something thoughtful and responsible.' Instead, it feels like preemptive and restrictive anti-development. To develop means to enhance or strengthen, and this approach is doing quite the opposite—it's limiting usage for all users due to fears or ethical concerns about potential misuse.

Let's face it; people will find ways to do these things, with or without Photoshop. I have no doubt that some Russian hacker is already working on a way to crack any limitations or censorship in Photoshop.

Ironically, I just conducted a test to see how well Photoshop's content generation tool works by altering the expiration date of a license, and it did so effortlessly, without any restrictions. So, I'm left wondering: is this genuinely a thoughtful and responsible development?

I'm trying to understand the logic behind censoring a breast or buttock as 'irresponsible' and 'thoughtless.' Every word, element, or object added to the list of prohibited items that cannot be generated with your tool only serves to encourage users to seek alternative methods, stifling artists' creative expression.

Why take away from Photoshop or, better said, what makes it great? What is the motivation or goal behind this?

If someone intends to create something negative or illegal with your tool, they will do so, and it shouldn't be your concern, much less mine. Moreover, this approach may negatively impact my work.

Shouldn't I be able to offer this tool without any form of censorship and with vastly superior results compared to a website that doesn't shy away from buttocks or other objects?

I hope this perspective can contribute to a more open and thoughtful discussion about these issues.

[Jason Toemmes]

Agree! As I expressed these exact same concerns here before. 

[CSI Productions]

Well thought out and well written. One of the things I use my cell phone for is to video tape my grandchildren, others use it to shoot less "family friendly" content. Is it the phone company's responsibility to limit it's features because some people have lower morals (in one person's opinion) than others? I think we're all adult enough to look at imagery we appreciate and avoid content we don't. I'm old but we used to call that freedom of expression. Something that has almost dissapeared in one lifetime. What's next?

[3Hounds]

I've been following many of these "morality police" and "freedom of expression" arguments for a while and have stayed out of the fray.

What I'm seeing that I don't think many others are, is that, yes, you can take an image with your camera or your phone. It may be decent, indecent, immoral or even illegal... but it's your image alone. If you use generative fill to augment that image, you're involving Adobe and any of the users whose images are pulled to help create that image. They have every right to protect themselves from any harm that may come from your "creative vision". Until there is a fail safe way for them to do that, you should expect some restrictions...

[gadget13769]

@3Hounds   So, on that basis, you'd be happy to be banned from buying a Bic biro, Caran d'Ache pencils, or Daler paper, on the basis that you might use someone else's product to write or draw something illegal, or that some other unaccountable entity deems 'improper'?

Best take our cameras and computers off us too, then.....

[3Hounds]

@gadget13769, not at all the same thing... pen and pencil manufaturers don't create the image or part of it, just like Canon, Nikon, Apple or Samsung don't. Or Ford, Toyota and other vehicle manufacturers don't plow your car into a crowd of people on the sidewalk when you don't agree with the signs they're carrying. Adobe and the other artist's work become part of your work when ai GF is used.

[CSI Productions]

A valid point with respect to the sample image posted. My comment was based on "me" shooting "my" own video and the company making the equipment not being responsible for or restricting it's features based on what "some" people may chose to do with it.

Regarding GF, I agree with you - if it isn't your original art. If I took a photo with my own camera and after the fact want to see what my model would look like in various outfits, some being some what risque', I should be able to do that (IMO) without the software company restricting my creative freedom based on "their" input.

That being said, it is their software and their company and they can do whatever they want. You'll get no complaints from me if they want to be the software that keeps imoral imagery from being generated with their products. In my opinion there's too much of that already (oldschool I guess) and as another comment stated, there are plenty of other software companies (and will be more I'm sure) that let you create whatever demonic crap you want so have at it if that's what you're into.

As I mentioned before, I'm an adult and chose to look at what I do and do not care for. Same goes for social media banning "whatever speech" they feel is offensive. Back in the days of real true freedom, if you didn't like what was being said or written, don't listen or read it. We don't need corporations being our parents but then, this is a whole different world. If you don't like the restrictions, don't buy the software.

[kawaki]

I agree as well and have said the same thing.  We are all adults in the room.  If you want to retard creativity with this new tool, you have succeeded.  We will find a way around your fence. 

[gadget13769]

@3Hounds 

If you think that the phone camera, DSLR or mirrorless camera you’re using to create “your image” doesn’t contain AI, coded algorithms, computational photography, machine learning, etc. to produce an output, then you’re mistaken. Some even automatically replace elements for you – Google Samsung’s ‘moon replacement’!

So, applying your logic, the camera manufacturers are ‘involved’ in the creation of my image. Does that mean I should “expect some restrictions” in what I can shoot? That would be ridiculous.

You say "Adobe and the other artist's work become part of your work when ai GF is used."  Well I am a 100% supporter of proper payment being made to those image makers whose images get used to train AI, but that doesn’t mean that those creators (via my use of Adobe software) should get ongoing moral or artistic control to approve or disapprove my work every time I create something new using it.

[FitzFoto]

The Royal Photographic Society, and, I expect, every other leading photographic authority, is grappling with the issues that AI in photography brings, in regard to the production and submission of images as part of the process towards the award of a distinction.  It has long been required that the image must be entirely from the author.  For example, textures must have been created by the author, not downloaded or adopted from post-processing software.  That AI was creeping into post-processing software was recognised, but it was accepted that little could be done to prevent (say) an author using the AI-supported Remove tool in Photoshop rather than the Healing Brush.  That said, where the tool borrows from the image itself, no additional material is added, so it satisfies the current requirements.  However, other software such as ON1 Photo Raw 2024 is way ahead of Photoshop in its use of AI and it seems clear that material is sourced externally.  Doubtless, Adobe will have to follow suit or be left behind.  THAT will pose a growing problem for determining the award of distinctions.

[Luggruff]

You could probably just create a copy of the picture where you have removed the nudity first, then use the generative fill, and merge the images later, if you want to be safe.