I visit the site every day in the search section. And today I noticed that suddenly by default "Exclude Generative AI" is now set when searching!
This is a serious loss for the creators of AI content, because from now on AI content will sell even worse, several times worse.
Even if the user does not find a relevant image among regular photos and illustrations, Adobe Stock will not suggest options from AI content when setting "Exclude Generative AI"!
This is a terrible innovation for AI creators, about which the creators of AI content were not informed in any way.
How long will it last? Or forever?
Is there any information about this anywhere? News? I have not received any letter from Adobe.
3 Correct answers
People asked for Sticky, not Permanent!
Adobe rolled back the modifications. I suppose, based on that, that they tried something, and it did not work out as they thought it should.
Hey Contributors!
As part of our commitment to providing the best experience for both customers and contributors, we periodically test user functionality for a subset of our customers
With the results of these tests, we continue to improve content discovery for our customers, enabling them to easily find the best content to meet their needs.
We will continue to keep the contributor community informed and engaged as we introduce new features and improvements.
Cheers!
106
Replies
Images produced with artificial intelligence do not represent reality. It therefore seems normal to me not to impose these images on buyers without their consent. Asking buyers if they want or don't want "fake" seems honest to me. Yes to this modification. A big YES
By @GaBuZo
I absolutely agree that buyers should choose and set the settings the way they want.
But in this case we are discussing that the user is AGAIN not given a choice - instead they choose what Adobe Stock or a certain category of buyers wants, but in no way are provided with a personal filter setting with a function to remember these filters.
That is, that before this moment you had to constantly change filters to exclude AI, that after this innovation users need to turn off this function again every time they search for content if they want AI content or more AI-based content.
However, AI is not a "fake" of images, but simply a new type of content (similar to 3D technology). You play computer games with real graphics, or watch movies with real (but virtual) graphics, and do not feel negative effects (although, of course, it depends on the quality of the movie or game), right? Of course, for some reason Adobe Stock mixed real photos/illustrations/videos with a new type of content - neural generative content, which, of course, everyone got more negativity than positivity. However, it is still possible to combine them, since AI allows you to create any content, but Adobe Stock needs to take better care of the user experience and filters, and not make such abrupt radical changes that, although they improve the experience of one category of buyers, harm another category of buyers.
But, of course, it would be worthwhile to highlight a completely new category on the site, separate from photos, videos and illustrations - neural content. Firstly, there would be much fewer problems with clients. And secondly, the competition between regular content and AI content would be separated and would not affect each other in one category.
As a creator of AI content, I am not against it if the Adobe Stock site has a separate content category in which only AI content is allowed (and AI content cannot be posted in other categories). I would even be happy if Adobe Stock made a cheaper subscription for buyers of AI content, since such content is cheaper to produce, although the quality may of course not be inferior, but it would be more comfortable and cheaper for users to choose among AI content. This would be a real healthy competition between regular photos/videos/illustrations and AI content. Then we could see which content is actually more viable and attractive to buyers, without influencing those who want true natural photos or videos.
A permanent switch to exclude AI assets wouldn't work for Buyers. Buyers are generally searching for images for a specific project for a specific client. If the client has specified "no-AI images", they want to filter those out. If the next client projec they're working on doesn't necessarily want to exclude AI images, then they have to turn the filter off again...
By @Jill_C
However, you are still wrong in your thinking. And here's why:
Neural content (AI) is not just "creating copies of some real content", but fundamentally new content. It differs in style, quality and effects from other types of content (from photographs and illustrations). It creates a new type of content that arises from mixing different types of content. A trivial example is avatars-images in the style of cartoons, but, for example, with the bodies of real people (of course, this is not a very good example, but let's assume that this is difficult for an ordinary person to implement). Such content is extremely difficult to create manually, because there is a mixing of different styles, states, concepts and ideas. Although opponents of AI will say that AI can only "copy and fake" - but this is not true, you are simply faced with content that has been configured to create real images and illustrations, but not a new type of content.
However, no matter how you claim that such AI content is not needed by clients, it is still NEEDED by clients, although NOT ALL.
There are a number of sites, media, groups, companies that NEED AI images - to add to news, articles, various research projects, as advertising, and so on.
Now that there is this permanently set filter, those people who are looking for AI content will suffer from this set filter. They will be forced to turn off this filter every time, since it is reset when the page is refreshed. And the most banal thing is that clients simply do not notice these filters and search for content as they did before (by simply typing it in the search bar). The fact that this filter appears at the top of the page is not always noticed.
Personally, I noticed it only when I saw a sudden disappearance of AI content on the pages of contributors.
How often do you use filters in a search engine, for example, Google? How often do you turn on the "Advanced Search" function? I assume you don't even know about it, although you work with Google every day. Of course, you go to the "Images" category only when you need only images, and not when you are in a general search, but Google will not exclude images from the general search, will it?
The current solution of permanently hiding AI content leads to huge losses for those who make AI content, and losses for those clients who need AI content or who didn't care what content to use - they all may not notice or understand where the AI content is, they may miss it and not buy from Adobe Stock.
Once again - I am NOT against the "Exclude Generative AI" filter. I am against it being installed permanently for all Adobe Stock clients and making some clients feel uncomfortable. We need a Sticky checkbox. Let users decide for themselves whether to exclude ALL AI images from their search forever, or NOT to exclude them forever. By making a choice for them - you will not please anyone - neither clients, nor those authors who help Adobe Stock earn even more money from clients.
Actually, I think it's you that are "still wrong in your thinking". It is up to the Buyer and/or their client to decide if they NEED AI images. You are inferring that they NEED it even if they think they don't. AI images cannot be used to illustrate news articles. The Associated Press photography guidelines already expressly forbid it.
By @Jill_C
Wait, you're saying that users shouldn't have to choose from the entire content set, right? They should choose from a subset defined by someone? Am I understanding your statement correctly?
I can say this: I'm not even against this filter being set by default, but the main thing is that this filter DOESN'T TURN ON automatically after a page reload if the user removed it.
If Adobe decided to divide content into "good and bad" (in someone's opinion) and only display part of the content, then fine, let the AI be hidden by default. But give people the right to choose, and not torment them with strange rules of the graphical interface.
In general, limiting users to subsets is bad. Now, for buyers, it all comes down to the fact that they are limited to one of the subsets of the entire content set. Buyers are "almost" deprived of choice, just like before (when AI appeared, and Adobe Stock did not add and does not add the Sticky checkbox for a very long time). They do not now choose among which content they will always search for what they need. They do not have this choice that you are talking about here.
Well then, if users do not have the right to choose, then it is necessary to allocate AI images to a separate category (an AI category, separate from other categories), so that they independently switch to separate subscriptions and categories and get the content they need there, right?
So why hasn't Adobe Stock done this, or is not going to do this? Maybe they should announce that Adobe Stock will create a separate category for AI content (with a separate cheap subscription, so that Adobe can earn even more) to cool both customers and AI content creators (of which there are already quite a few and who have been here for more than two or three years)?
Regarding the Associated Press - this has nothing to do with Adobe Stock content and what it sells - Adobe's concern is to tag content correctly (by setting strict requirements for tagging AI content by authors and with strict high-quality moderation) and make it high-quality and without deepfakes. This is the client's problem, how he will manage AI content. If the client is prohibited from posting AI content - then he should not buy AI content and use it in places where he is prohibited.
Not everything in the world is subordinate to political organizations, including the Associated Press. Clients exist from different countries, news is written not only by official media, but also by news sites, aggregators, individuals, bloggers, and other people. Sales of images among official media, subject to the rules of "Associated Press" are terribly small. And "it is forbidden to use AI" there with big reservations.
Besides, it is trivial, official media somehow publish content created by neural networks when they talk about new neural models and technologies in their news, right? 😃
I repeat:
Adobe Stock should make a Sticky function for this filter, as you yourself confirmed in discussions with me, as everyone present here said. As I said above, I, as an AI contributor, am not even against this filter being set by default, but the main thing is that this filter DOES NOT TURN ON automatically after a page reload, if the user removed it (turn off it).
Although, IMHO, it would be more correct not to turn it on by default for all users (so that the user exists not only in a subset), but offer to hide it at will.
There is no point in us discussing everything else.
You said "You shouldn't re-edit filters to be suitable for you every time you search about something." Of course, that's exactly what Buyers need to be able to do! If they're working on a client project that needs a video, they're going to update the filters accordingly. If the next project needs a square transparent image of a black woman, they're going to reset the filters for that search. If the next project needs a futuristic panoramic AI image in a particular color, they're going to reset the filters. To suggest that they'd have to dig into the cookies to turn the AI filter off and on is bizarre. I have no idea how to edit cookies without doing a Google search for each of the browsers I use, but I am certain that it is definitely more time-consuming than giving Buyers a simple toggle.
You are not thinking like a Buyer; you're thinking like a supplier. Buyers pay the bills. We don't.
By @Jill_C
@Worker404 is correct, they were answering to a message from @'NO-AI' NOT ALLOWED. As they are not native speakers, the answer may be a bit difficult to understand, espacially as the do not use the quoting system.
BTW: You don't edit cookies by hand. You do so (or not) by accessing the site, who created them. https://policies.google.com/technologies/cookies?hl=en-US
You said "You shouldn't re-edit filters to be suitable for you every time you search about something." Of course, that's exactly what Buyers need to be able to do! If they're working on a client project that needs a video, they're going to update the filters accordingly. If the next project needs a square transparent image of a black woman, they're going to reset the filters for that search. If the next project needs a futuristic panoramic AI image in a particular color, they're going to reset the filters. To suggest that they'd have to dig into the cookies to turn the AI filter off and on is bizarre. I have no idea how to edit cookies without doing a Google search for each of the browsers I use, but I am certain that it is definitely more time-consuming than giving Buyers a simple toggle.
You are not thinking like a Buyer; you're thinking like a supplier. Buyers pay the bills. We don't.
By @Jill_C
@Worker404 is correct, they were answering to a message from @'NO-AI' NOT ALLOWED. However, because Worker404 is not a native speaker, and they do not use correct quoting, some wordings may be misunderstood as his.
BTW: You don't edit cookies by hand. You do so (or not) by accessing the site, who created them. https://policies.google.com/technologies/cookies?hl=en-US
Jill_C
Now you've wandered off into "conspiracy theory" territory....
By @Jill_C
Because your arguments are quite strange, and Adobe Stock's behavior is strange - there have been no good decisions for over two years.
Why don't you suggest (and talk about) adding a Sticky feature for AI, as daniellei4510 says?
Conspiracy is too much for that. It's just the way ai contributors are treated.
By @starush777
If generative AI contributors are unhappy aboput how they are treated (here), they can change and contribute somewhere else. I suggest trying Shutterstock!
You'll get 10 cents per sale and they even do not accept generative AI.
"You'll get 10 cents per sale and they even do not accept generative AI."
By @daniellei4510
My 10 cents to this: you nailed it!
It must be acknowledged that this is part of an inevitable broader trend — the gradual replacement of AI contributors with paid content generation services for customers. From the perspective of stock platform owners, this is a win-win situation: there’s no need to allocate resources for content moderation, and any violations or dissatisfaction fall solely under the responsibility of the customerы themselves. Sooner or later, all stock platforms will adopt this model, especially as generative networks continue to advance, producing fewer and fewer errors and artifacts.
By @starush777
Well, I do disagree. Creating good AI content asks for being creative, knowledgable and patient in correcting the assets. So, a well corrected asset can't be created on the fly by a non-initiated user. Generative AI and real content have both their market.
But, I have to admit that if the generative AI creators would not have submitted trash in big numbers and if moderators would have thrown out that trash copnsistently, users would not have complained, and noone would be talking about this.
In my opinion, they have taken a course to eliminate neural contributors as competitors (for their AI tools), that's all.
By @'NO-AI' NOT ALLOWED
They could simply disallow and delete generative AI. They did not, because generative AI assets mean good business for Adobe.
Horrible moderation was done intentionally to cause indignation among buyers, in order to then make such "radical decisions" supposedly to "fulfill the desires of users who pay".
By @'NO-AI' NOT ALLOWED
Horrible moderation hurts Adobe's customers (that are "users who pay"!). For any company intentionally hurting their customers is a very bad strategy. That makes 0 sense. If you are unhappy with Adobe go an contribute somewhere else. Customers probably did take subscriptions "somewhere else".
I have not seen a single adequate argument in favor of the innovation. Only answers with allegedly some users who asked "massively" for "this" from who knows where.
I can't believe that in two years they could not create a "Sticky" function for the AI checkbox...
By @'NO-AI' NOT ALLOWED
We are not part of the Adobe decision making. But your reaction is quite the same of the customers when they told in the fora here, that allowing generative AI was a big mistake.
I'm persuaded that you are wrong, and I'm persuaded that those customers are wrong. And I'm persuaded that Adobe was wrong, not to implement a good moderation for generative AI assets.
They had at the time one single sticky filter, that did not work as intented. That may have influenced their decision not to implement this as a sticky filter.
But nevermind, we all have to live with the decisions from Adobe. No exception made. And especially not for angry contributors.
I'm persuaded that you are wrong
By @Abambo
Provide a list of positions or words I have said in which I am wrong. What are you convinced of, in which I am wrong? Cite at least one sentence of mine and explain why I am wrong in my reasoning (but do not include my hypotheses that you consider "conspiracy theories", we can neither confirm nor deny them, but I have every right to express my opinion).
It seems to me that you do not grasp the context of what I have said and thought of something else.
AdChoices