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.

[WelbornWorks]

At this point it looks like we'll just have to wait and pray Adobe fixes this issure quickly. It is obvious the problem is not a guidelines problem but a real bug. No logic is involved when it gives the violation message on a rusty metal texture that was created with generative fill just moments earlier.

[Jason Toemmes]

What happens if you try a text prompt instead? Try "remove letters and fill with shirt color" or "fill selection with shirt colors"

[Olivier2023242526]

Greetings, dear Jason,

Thank you very much for exposing this dilemma. Sometimes I find myself at an impasse, without any rational understanding, during my attempts to reconstruct an upper limb. This situation remains absolutely inexplicable.

Good for you,

[Mike Cassidy]

It's actually a scary thought that Adobe will be determining what is
"suitable" for me to do.

Think of it this way... is it T-Mobile's job to listen in on your phone
calls and determine if you are saying something "unsuitable?" ...Or are
they just providing the service to connect you with another person?

Companies taking on the role of "content monitors" over the past decade is
a complicated issue-- I get it. Casting super broad censorship implemented
by AI, or otherwise, is frightening to creators.

What's next? You'll open your copy of Lightroom one day, and you'll get a
notice from Adobe that it sees "policy violations" in your Library and it's
going to stop you from editing a photo? As a professional photographer who
works with women, this is incredibly frustrating.

As a boudoir photographer I've had to deal with enough grief over the years
from platforms restricting me and my work... To be fair, I understand this,
to a degree, on a public platform...such an Instagram where photos are
public. What I don't get is Adobe restricting me from using the word "bra"
in the Generative Fill on my private PC.

Now, I understand this is new... and in beta... but it's still a bad
precedent.

Is it Adobe's job now to come into my home and stop me from doing my
professional job?

[WelbornWorks]

Yep. Somehow Adobe feels "responsible" for what it is creating via genterative feature. Adobe's unprecidented "guidelines" are evidence to the fact that the work being "created" by artists via geneative fill is in fact being created or at least co-created by Adobe. That is the headline here. Adobe admits by applying a restrictive controller within the software that it does indeed take partial "ownership" of the work. Correct me if I'm wrong but Adobe has never withdrawn access to Photoshop or other tools from artists because of what the artist created with the tool. Adobe has never before seen itself as even partially the creator of our work. 

[WelbornWorks]

The popup warning should not exist. period.  Adobe is saying we don't allow: (fill in the blank) If you have the power to "allow" you have the power to "not allow" and stop anything from being created. There's a reason the first amendment is first. 

[HN30289352or9v]

Unable to edit out this line on a black and white photo on a males arm

Why is this a breach of the guidelines?

[daniellei4510]

Oh, please, don't bring politics or the constitution into this. It's a freaking bug. Chill. Adobe can ban or allow whatever they want. You should try Midjourney, where words like pixie, blood, transparent, sex, guns, Afghan and hundreds of other words are banned. 

[Frederick30153564odsl]

Hello all,

On this example Adobe did a pretty good job to generate fill on top and left side of my original image.

But as soon as legs are involved, (or any part of human skin, it seems) the censorship algorithm is blocking the process.

I've read that there were ways to go around the low-res (1024x1024px) of the generated fills by selecting smaller parts of the images. But do you know any ways to go around this abusive guidelines-blocking process ?

[MontyWales]

We are not all Americans . 

[Photoshake]

@Mike Cassidy whilst I agree to a point, it is a fine line they have to tread. 

If you have a female model who didn't want to shoot nudity (or even male) and you use AI to generate a nude image of them, that is very unethical and potentially illegal. So Adobe absolutely should be restrictive on what you can create. Especially as there will be some bad actors who use it where the subject is a minor. So I disagree it should be unrestricted and we have free reign, my arguments are that they are currently too strict. 

However, by putting these restrictions in place they are affecting what can be created. 

I was creating some quick avatars for a game of D&D and even "cartoon daggers" were prohibited. Despite fantasy images being harmless. 

[Mike Cassidy]

Hmm.. so I if I use AI to create a "nude" image of someone (suppose only leaving someone's head...) then is it really that person?  No. It's something that doesn't even exist in reality. It's artificial. (Not to mention people have been able to do such things now since applications such as Photoshop have been available to the public for decades-- although this may make it somewhat easier.) Ethically, it may be wrong to use such an image to damage someone--- which is another thing altogether. You're going down an entire other road regarding "intent." Which is another completely diffrent argument... Should knives be banned in restaurants?  Do you realize that millions of times a day people walk into restaurants and knives are just sitting around on tables!!??  Do you realize the "danger" here?  People could walk into a restaurant and grab one and wreak havoc.  Should restaurants be banned? 😀

[Photoshake]

Hmm.. so I if I use AI to create a "nude" image of someone (suppose only leaving someone's head...) then is it really that person?  No. It's something that doesn't even exist in reality. It's artificial. 

So I quickly googled deepfake law and in the UK where I am, it is illegal and in certain US states it is illegal with more trying to pass bills to tackle it. I have the skills to create a deepfakes without AI, but AI is making this accessible to many more people! Also based on your logic, if I took your headshot and posted it on a nude site with an AI-generated body, you'd be okay with it because it is 'artificial'? 

To see how damaging this is to those who are affected, just look up The Atrioc deepfake controversy" where twitch streamers were in pornographic video's and images that mix their face with AI. 

You're going down an entire other road regarding "intent." Which is another completely diffrent argument... Should knives be banned in restaurants? 

These are not analogous, a knife crime is unlikely to occur in a place with families and CCTV. Knife crime is usually opportunistic and pre-meditated. It is rarely done in a public place. Also unless you're in a steak restaurant the knives on the table are not likely to cause much harm. 

As stated before, I agree that the guidelines are too strict, but your examples do not help here because they show exactly why they are needed - to prevent misuse that could cause harm to an individual or a group! 

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Hi @Frederick30153564odsl first - the guidelines are not abusive. Second, it has been noted heavily in this forum that generating without a prompt can cause this issue - it has nothing to do with the subject. Try entering a simple prompt like "extend legs" and see if it errors.

[Graham24508943nobd]

Generated a photo, of myself and left the prompt blank. How in the hell did a sign I was holding end in in a foreign language ?

[Cwer34]

Stop the patronizing and let people create their ideas. I always get "Violation of user guidelines" when i want to replace clothing of any human. This is idiotic and i wont buy the new Photoshop if this nanny idocy persists. 

[Cwer34]

Stop the patronizing and let people create their ideas. I always get "Violation of user guidelines" when i want to replace or change clothing of any human. This is idiotic and i wont buy the new Photoshop if this nanny idiocy persists. The "Violation of user guidelines" should be eliminated completely. Free design for free people. And we have paid >25 per month for Photoshop, (I not yet-still in the 7 days trial mode, but i wont buy/prolong the sub if this "violation...stupid popup" persists, because this is a showstopper and makes the new AI feature useless.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Hi @Cwer34 have you tried entering a prompt? The error isnt necessarily due to restrictions, but a bug in the beta.

[Cwer34]

Yes, this violation sh.. popup window is even there when i have typed in a prompt word in the geneative fill text box. Please remove this restriction completely because it totally destroys the benefit of the new Photoshop AI "Generative fill" feature. 

[Mike Cassidy]

You are correct. 😀 I wasn't super clear... as I wrote that running out the
door this morning.

We are talking about two entirely different things, and mixing them--
censorship vs intent.

In my work as a boudoir photographer if there is a situation where for
creative purposes a client would like me to change the color of her
lingerie in a photo, and a tool like Generative Fill makes that task 100X
easier for me to do-- I should be able to select that area of the photo and
request "black bra set," to make a change. I shouldn't be seeing warning
messages regarding "policy violations."

There will always be bad actors. Always. This cannot be "legislated"
away. Crippling a tool like Generative Fill with draconian AI censorship is
not the answer. Adobe should not be the absolute arbiter of good vs. evil,
right vs. wrong, but increasingly companies find themselves in positions
where they are more and more forced to do so-- which is never going to be a
plus for anyone who is a creative.

My bad attempt at a reductio ad absurdum was simply pointing out that
essentially ANYTHING can be proven "bad" or "evil." Generative Fill is not
evil. In your case, taking an image (or deepfake) created with Generative
fill or AI, and using it for an unethical purpose- or in a manner to cause
harm to an individual-- is a completely different argument-- I would agree
that that person should be held liable, and at a minimum it is an unethical
thing to do.

[daniellei4510]

Please note the word "beta" in the name of the application. Since we can't see the results of the images in "violation," we don't even know what is being violated. Nudity? Violence? Intellectual property? Nothing at all, other than what the bot mistakenly construes as a violation? The only real issue I have in this sense is that we can't view those results, thus we can't report on them to better train the bot. But perhaps Adobe is doing so on their end.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

Hi @Cwer34 are you entering a prompt?

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Cwer34 I merged your new post into this thread. Creating multiple posts for the same issue will not escalate things.

[Mad26276440062a]

Same problem. I do a lot of hosiery related photos and I'd like to fix snags or add seams with changing clothes again or whatever and it seems to have issues with it. It's also something I do as part of my business. Hopefully they correct this. Especially since you have to be over 18 to use it, but in the case of nylons (clothing women wear) I've been wearing itvsince I was a teen. It's clothing we wear. Very weird and sexiest of adobe to flag it as violating guidelines. Men's socks work in the prompt but not womens nylons...

[Graham24508943nobd]

What's worse is when I end up wearing womens cloths and with bigger boobies than my wife😅😅😅