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.

[ALESSANDRO25821463v8t9]

Why is this against the guidelines? I'm simply trying to remove the chair 😅

[Dan5C5E]

I had the same issue... Had a perfect little mermaid shot I was trying to do.  Model was topl*ss (can't even type that word here apparently)  for a different shoot using digital clothing, but was wearing underwear...

I got probably 20  violations trying to see if it could do a mermaid tail and sea shell bra.  

I found that if I put a black bar across the chest it at least took the prompt for the tail... But only gave me a choice of some different skirts.  

Ironically it did let me do "scifi pants" and did a decent job.  So I'm not sure what it's looking at... Is tail a bad word? 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@spjadoe05 that is a known issue at this time. Try entering at least a basic prompt.

[Jason Toemmes]

Perhaps you'll feel differently when it censors your work, and decides whats appropriate and is not. But judging from your response it doesn't sound like you approve of AI image technology at all. I have chosen to embrace AI and not get left behind, and learn use AI as tool but not rely on solely. Censoring creators is what inappropriate here, unless the purpose or context of the image to be used for weaponization. The problem here someones redline is not the same for others, and different cultures have extreme views over a variety of topics. 

[J E L]

Hi @Jason Toemmes, this is an interesting and important discussion. I think it's brave of you to broach the subject here. “Why not ask ChatGPT,” I thought. Here is the response.

[Jason Toemmes]

Intresting much of the Adobe Generative AI User Guidelines are worded almost exactly as what you shared. Again like what I shared above in another reply. Are we seriously going to let AI or anyone else suppress creativity based on what other might find offensive? We are taking this giant leap forward with AI tech but at the same taking giant leaps backawrds to when comes to policing artist like the reglious extremist and royal courts did centuries ago. If you don't like what is shown you don't have to look at it. 

[J E L]

Yes, I have been noticing that, too. I think the overly-broad “triggering” reason for banning certain material is going to prevail, for better or for worse.

Take performance artist Stuart Brisley's work. It was hailed at the time as “breaking fresh ground” and “taking art to an exciting level” for his depictions of rotting offal with maggots hatching inside. Yuck, who wants to see that?! Obviously some people. Try putting that prompt into Firefly or other text to image engines to see what happens (I am not going to do it, lol). By the way, I don't think it should be banned or censored.

[Shannon23422213tvzd]

All of the major publicly available AI systems have reasonable restrictions that prevent questionable activity, but none of them are like this. Censoring a cigar in someone's hand? A revolver? Really? Who are they protecting with this, eight year olds?

Regardless, Adobe will have to loosen the reins or artists who legitimately need to produce content that they're restricting will go elsewhere for generative AI solutions. Why would we keep using this when more relaxed and higher quality alternatives exist? Realistically, most of us toying with Adobe's version are neck deep in other generative AI systems already, so censorious and fear-mongered restrictions will only damage Adobe's competitiveness. It's really that simple.

You're welcome to be a frightened old bore, but please don't pretend to be smarter and more lucid about the risks and realities of AI than the rest of us. Most of us are reasonable adults who aren't scared of the future, and the world will be just fine with a less restrictive Adobe product.

[brucekorb]

For your possible amusement, here is another term you can't use: "contrail"

but "condensation trail" is completely fine.

[alberts19067249]

Hi there. I am using the new Generative Fill in PS Beta. Can someone tell me what user guidlines does this pictuire violate? I will not whine about other things when I did ask for something commonday to be generated and was refused. But my wife's birthday pic?

[kglad]

in the future, to find the best place to post your message, use the list here, https://community.adobe.com/

p.s. i don't think the adobe website, and forums in particular, are easy to navigate, so don't spend a lot of time searching that forum list. do your best and we'll move the post if it helps you get responses.

<moved from using the community>

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Hi @alberts19067249 what prompts did you use with Generative Fill?

[peacetype]

What's wrong with something being pornographic? Personal morals aside, the pornography industry is legitimate and massive. And guess what... Adobe products are used heavily in that industry. Adobe will have to change their rules before their generative AI tools can be useful beyond a limited number of specific niches. As their rules stand now, you can't use the tools for any R-rated content, and probably lots of PG-13 content would be out too. If it won't even let you draw a bra, then probably some PG-rated content would be blocked also!

Adobe tools have a reputation for being about empowering people to express their creativity without limitations. But their new rules surrounding the AI tools are entirely against the spirit of their products. Hopefully this is only a temporary limitation for the beta program. They will need to establish an unrestricted AI platform before these tools can have truly widespread utility.

P.S.

Great example of the problem that Adobe faces here... even in writing this post, I had to edit it because of some ridiculous censorship. It would not let me post this until I removed the word "p0rn" (spelled normally with an "o", not a "0"). I had to change the word to "pornography" instead. How funny is that! In a post discussing the issue of censorship for a tool that is used to make adult content, the forum itself has a problem with merely using the word "p0rn". So we can't even have a sober, intellectual discussion about the idea of censorship... without being censored. Clearly, Adobe has some demons it needs to face before it will be able to fully unlock the power of AI for their users.

[peacetype]

I was thinking that Adobe Firefly has the potential to provide the first truly useful AI-assisted tools for generating image and video. That's what I thought... until I saw that they have the same kind of restrictive rules as OpenAI. Hopefully this is only a temporary limitation for the beta program. As their rules stand now, you can't use the tools for any R-rated content, and probably lots of PG-13 and even PG content would not be possible either. Imagine being unable to use Adobe products for anything that is not kid-friendly!

Adobe tools have a reputation for being about empowering people to express their creativity without limitations. But those new rules surrounding the AI tools are entirely against the spirit of Adobe's products. Adobe will need to establish an unrestricted AI platform before these Firefly tools can have truly widespread utility.

[D Fosse]

But judging from your response it doesn't sound like you approve of AI image technology at all.

By @Jason Toemmes

That's not what I said at all, and this line of argument is very familiar: if you're not 100% for, you're 100% against. There's no room for reflection and nuances.

Oh, and for the record, I work at an art museum for contemporary art. I also have an art school education. I'm not squeamish. I've seen it all, and I'm fine with it as long as there's genuine creativity underlying it (not just pushing a button).

[Austin2937901294ym]

Whenever I use generative fill to target specifically hands, normally its when a previous generation for a larger part messed up the hands, it kicks it back stating that it is against the community guidelines. 

[behrangdcbgb]

This seems to work. Good thinking, and thanks. 

[behrangdcbgb]

Carina's suggestion, that is.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Hi @Austin2937901294ym what prompts are you using? You need to enter a prompt - there is a higher probability of guideline failures if you do not.

[Jason Toemmes]

Good for you! No sarcasm! Then being educated and working in art museum you should be fully aware and extra concerned about who is censoring who and why. I feel this needs to be addressed imediately. This censorship is NOT just about AI. 

[alberts19067249]

No prompts at all. I left the filed blank. In this case I just wanted the genertive fill to fill in blank areas - to add the top of the head that I cut when shooting close.

[Jason Toemmes]

And I would like further clarify I am NOT 100% anti regulating

Images depicting child sexual exploitation, sexual violence, and gratuitous animal abuse would be my redlines. And hey what you know almost all such content is already illegal. I suppose images of guns and hunting would be problematic with animal abuse.

Since you have art school education and work in an art museum it would be interesting to know were you stand on this.

I too am art school educated and one of my assignments was to visit a local museum and write a paper critiquing a 1640 Oil Painting 

Herodias and Salome with the head of Saint John the Baptist by Mattia Preti

 This is one of many less gruesome images depicting a severed head of a human being and I don’t find partially appealing to look at. I believe it hangs at the John and Mable Ringling Museum to this day. I have uploaded the image in my comment. Won’t be surprised if it’s removed.

NOW! According Adobe Ai Generated user guidelines an image such as this would clearly violate those guidelines. Do you think that’s appropriate? Let’s say a professional artist using ANY adobe software was hired to remake a modern version of that event in history. Would you stand by Adobes censorship of that image and prevent the creator WHO  paid money to use the software to make such an image?

Now contrast this image of me trying to digitally stick the image of a cigar into an empty hand for a work assigment. You don’t find that remotely ridiculous? You could say well Adobe is a private company and I signed the user agreement guidelines so screw off. And my response to that would be, yeah well I might have do that.

[J E L]

My fill prompt for a “cattle stampede” just got rejected. The Scunthorpe problem has been elevated to an out-of-this-world level. #badwords lists are more convoluted and coveted than ever. '/banned_word/i' (where “banned_word” is the word being flagged, and the “i” flag makes the search case-insensitive).

[Emmanuel266856992t7d]

Yes, I am having the same issue with generative fill. Things that I know absolutely do not violate the terms (i.e. extending a background or removing a stick on the ground) are giving me that warning, and when it comes up, I can't get around it even when I create a new selection.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Try entering a basic prompt like "add top of head" and see if you get the same error