Generative AI not working to generate guns?

[Brotherwolf]

Hi, I'm a photo editor and I'm currently working on a composite that features an "agent" character and I need to generate a gun lying on the floor.  The service just doesn't seem to work. 

Anybody facing the same issue? Is there a known reason for this?

[Myra Ferguson]

I would think generating guns would violate #2 of the Generative AI Guidelines:

• https://www.adobe.com/legal/licenses-terms/adobe-gen-ai-user-guidelines.html

You might try Adobe Stock (stock.adobe.com) including the Free Collection instead.

[TheeDodger]

Why is this marked as the "correct answer"?

Also, how so? A gun is not "violence". A gun is a gun.

It should also be noted that Photoshop will generate a sword, but not a dagger, knife, or even short sword. This is idiotic. A tool does not equal the potential misuse of a tool.

If this is because of a policy, then their policy is wrong and I want a full refund on my subscription. This is unacceptable and unprofessional on their part, if this is so.

At any rate, it certainly does not equate in any way to violating their rule #2. So no, this answer is not "correct" and is mis-marked as such.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Why is this marked as the "correct answer"?

Also, how so? A gun is not "violence". A gun is a gun.

It should also be noted that Photoshop will generate a sword, but not a dagger, knife, or even short sword. This is idiotic. A tool does not equal the potential misuse of a tool.

If this is because of a policy, then their policy is wrong and I want a full refund on my subscription. This is unacceptable and unprofessional on their part, if this is so.

At any rate, it certainly does not equate in any way to violating their rule #2. So no, this answer is not "correct" and is mis-marked as such.

By @TheeDodger

You post seems improper in tone and lacking in other regards. 

Unless Adobe made the claim that you could use Generative Fill to create images of guns the inability to do so would seem to provide no grounds for a refund. 

[Brotherwolf]

While I agree on the tone part of your reply, I do not see why Adobe should claim that we could be able to create guns. Why not also disclose that we could make forks, knives, spoons, swords, brooms?

Guns are just as common and everyday, even more so in the world of art. 

In any case they should disclose why *not* and give a proper explanation for their reasons. 

[c.pfaffenbichler]

If someone wants to claim a refund about this issue the person should ask themselves: 

What were the actual claims Adobe made with regard to Generative Fill and how do they differ from the actual performance of the feature? 

https://www.adobe.com/legal/licenses-terms/adobe-gen-ai-user-guidelines.html

[jcriger626]

I agree with his outrage, this is a tool. Like a paint brush. It should not be limited by peoples narrow point of view as to what is acceptable. Art is subjective, it's literally the whole point. So you are telling me what art can be.

That is fine, plenty of better tools on the market that don't limit theirs uses with their own rediculous dogma.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

So you are telling me what art can be.

I am not Adobe, I am not a member of the Photoshop development team, I am just another Photoshop user. 

If you think Adobe excluding certain subjects from their Firefly/Generative Fill-feature’s results means that it declares those subjects cannot be reperesented in works of art you may have jumped to a fallacious conclusion. 

And quite frankly you do not seem to do your argument much of a favour with the brush-analogy. 

Not every brush is equally fit to any painting task after all. 

But, as you indicated, there are other AI image creation options available and if they better meet your requirements then that’s great. 

The attempt to determine whether they violated intellectual property rights in accruing their training material will probably run into many billable hours for lawyers but what good that will do remains to be seen. 

[TheeDodger]

Are you a lawyer? If not, then perhaps you'll understand when I do not take your advice for what is or isn't grounds for anything.

If the voice you heard this in your head in is in a tone you dislike, you are welcome to report me. It would provide you some parity, because I am reporting you. Your response *to me, a real individual person*, accusing me of "an improper tone" and "lacking in other regards" is a direct personal attack on me, however, subtle, in response to me criticising *a corporation*.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Are you a lawyer? If not, then perhaps you'll understand when I do not take your advice for what is or isn't grounds for anything.

If the voice you heard this in your head in is in a tone you dislike, you are welcome to report me. It would provide you some parity, because I am reporting you. Your response *to me, a real individual person*, accusing me of "an improper tone" and "lacking in other regards" is a direct personal attack on me, however, subtle, in response to me criticising *a corporation*.

By @TheeDodger

I mainly report spam, so I haven’t reported your post. 

You are free to report my post, let’s see how an Administrator evaluates the exchange. 

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Your response *to me, a real individual person*, accusing me of "an improper tone" and "lacking in other regards" is a direct personal attack on me, 

I posted 

»You post seems improper in tone and lacking in other regards.«

so I was referencing the post, not a person. 

I did not claim that you were »lacking in other regards«, but that your post seems to be. 

[TheeDodger]

I want to follow up on this. After some experimentation:
1: It won't make a knife, dagger, or short sword, but it WILL make sword. Of course, we all know that knives are violence. That's what the carrots tell me when I'm making a stew anyway.
2: It won't make a phaser. Because Star Trek is such a gorefest.
3: It won't make a fist. It won't make a clenched hand.

Now, if number three doesn't underscore the issue to the point where even the most sycophantic Adobe apologist can see there's a problem, then there's no getting through to such people.

Just remember, next time you fist bump someone or crack your knuckles or raise your hands at a metal concert, that's violence of which Adobe doesn't approve.

Maybe they're just oversensitive from the sorts of things that happen in alleyways a few blocks from the offices. I've been to San Jose on a Friday night. But no, it's not an excuse.

[didiermazier]

You can only design in Walt Disney enchantered world mode with Adobe AI.

😉

[KostFan2]

As long as they don't do what they did to the seven dwarves in the new Snow White movie....

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Adobe seems to be trying to play it very safe with its AI image generating features. 

That applies both to intellectual property and content. 

If that is too narrow for you you may have to try some of the other services. 

Those may meet your content-requirements better and with less (or no) regard for intellectual property they will probably have more training material … 

[TheeDodger]

Training data has nothing to do with "regard for intellectual property".

As an artist, I, myself, was taught techniques by Keith Parkinson and Gerald Brom, and I once owned a book on painting techniques by Boris Vallejo. Does that mean I am limited to being influenced by only them?

Am I somehow a plagiarist or in breach of copyright because, when I was a kid, I copied images out of D&D books and comics to teach myself how to draw?

If not, why is there a double-standard on training an AI compared to training a natural "I"?

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Training data has nothing to do with "regard for intellectual property".

Why not? 

Would you definitely be fine with the images you have created being used as training material so that others can make money off of some AI image creation tool (both the makers/distributors of the software and the users who might compete with you for jobs)? 

[TheeDodger]

Yes, in as much as I am forced to accept a profit-oriented society at all. Capitalism is BAD.

Just as I would be perfectly fine with it if some human looked at my art and learned to draw and paint from it.

As a matter of fact, I honestly do not understand the concept of "someone else made money off my hard work and so I am angry," because as long as no one is *taking money away from me* I don't really care. Unless they're then using the money they made to spend on some cause I oppose, I guess. But we're getting pretty specific and complex there.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Yes, in as much as I am forced to accept a profit-oriented society at all. Capitalism is BAD.

Just as I would be perfectly fine with it if some human looked at my art and learned to draw and paint from it.

As a matter of fact, I honestly do not understand the concept of "someone else made money off my hard work and so I am angry," because as long as no one is *taking money away from me* I don't really care. Unless they're then using the money they made to spend on some cause I oppose, I guess. But we're getting pretty specific and complex there.

By @TheeDodger

For someone who has concluded that capitalism is bad you may not have thought the issue at hand fully through. 

What do you think »taking money away from me« can encompass? 

Suppose you have a lawnmower and you mow peoples’ lawns for money. 

But you naturally don’t use the mower all the time so someone else can »borrow« it to mow people’s lawns unbeknownst to you (but they always fill up the tank/recharge the battery and keep the tool in perfect order otherwise so you never notice the absences). 

They are not taking money away from you directly. 

But they are comepting with you and because they do not have to work off your initial investment in the lawnmower they can undercut your rates and your custmers may start to notice that your services are more expensive than the competition’s … 

Naturally the analogy is not perfect, but maybe it can help illustrate the point I am trying to communicate nonetheless. 

And another hypothetical regarding »"someone else made money off my hard work and so I am angry," because as long as no one is *taking money away from me* I don't really care«: 

Suppose you created some artwork. 

Someone prints it on T-shirts without your knowledge and makes money off the sales. 

Technically no money has been taken away from you.

Does that mean it is OK?

[Myra Ferguson]

It's an interesting possibility that artists who create content in those restricted spaces may not have to worry about being replaced by AI.