Concerns about AI generative fill undermining creatives

[Swandive stream]

Given how Adobe is pushing "generative fill" and related, where is the creativity in that? Photoshop tools helping such as heal tool etc. is fine but when it's just outright using existing images from elsewhere with no creative input?

Add that clients might just say that the work is AI (even if it's not) so they are not going to pay the freelancer (for example) for their work. Since it's baked-in, how do you tell the difference short of screen recording each time? It just seems like AI generated images are competing with creatives not assisting them/us.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

The biggest takeaway from your post is education is key.

20 years ago people freaked out over the Clone Stamp tool and before that using Photoshop at all to manipulate photographs. Be upfront and have honest conversations with clients about their principals and AI usage. If they don't want it - don't use it. 

As for your statement about "using existing images from elsewhere" - I would suggest you read on how AI generates images and trains on existing image but does not recreate or "use" them. There is a big distinction between those two words.

Next you are taking monumental leaps in fearmongering theoreticals stating "Client just might say that the work is AI...so they are not going to pay the freelancer". They could also say "you didn't create this" today and not pay an artist. This is not based in anything factual.

In short AI is a TOOL not a replacement for quality creativity. Using AI responsibly and transparently is nothing to fear. There are means (getting better each release) to track AI usage in Adobe created images using Content Authenticity. But it is also a repsonsibility for freelancers to communicate with clients about usage to best agree on appropriate content.

[Swandive stream]

Clone tools etc. are very different from just typing words into a box to make an image. It won't kill the creative industry entirely but can undermine it. Consider how shops are replacing their cashiers with "self-service" machines to increase profits, similar could happen with AI "art".

[D Fosse]

@Swandive stream 

I absolutely sympathize with that - but as far as legitimate work being taken for AI, there is Content Credentials to prove it isn't. The purpose of Content Credentials is to verify the provenance of the file.

Generative AI may have its uses in medicine and science, but it shouldn't be let anywhere near photography or illustration.

[Swandive stream]

I came across another post on here where the user said their not AI images were being mislabelled as AI which is concerning.

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

@Swandive stream I'm guessing this was the Meta post. That has since been rectified by Meta - they first removed the feature then adjusted it. What people are complaining about now is if you do any AI work in an image it is tagged as using AI. If that is something you are concerned about - don't use it. AI is available in Photoshop but not "baked into" every tool.

[Swandive stream]

What they said is it wasn't AI at all. The thing is when judged manually by a client, how will they distinguish between something actually made by a designer and something they typed into an AI generator search box in Photoshop?

[Kevin Stohlmeyer]

That was the issue with Meta's audit. It was false flagging items and they fixed it.

Educate your clients if you used AI and be honest. If you didn't use it let them know.

As @D Fosse and I pointed out - Adobe embeds this information in the file for users to check against.