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
One concern I have is that it will open the door for even more people to try gaming the system by not marking their assets as AI. Since this already happens quite a lot, it appears that only the most diligent of moderators recognize AI when they see it. Attempts to do this may eventually result in a ban, but that's not likely to stop people from trying. This won't work for images involving people, of course.
By @daniellei4510
That will get those blocked submitting generative AI en masse and not marking it. This has been done before.
But I noticed that moderation works very strangely - sometimes my neural images are approved within 15 minutes after sending them for moderation (and I checked - it sometimes approves all images at once, up to 2500 at a time within 15 minutes, without any rejections). And sometimes the images are all rejected at once within 15 minutes, although they are of the same quality (and the tags with titles are good) as those 2500 that they recently approved.
By @'NO-AI' NOT ALLOWED
I do not submit 2500 assets at the same time. How much time did you spend to check those assets for errors and correct them?
Contributors filter their content based on their personal sense of acceptability, which varies from individual to individual. A contributor’s sole natural, organic responsibility is to themselves — to strive to create content that appeals to buyers. In a well-functioning world, all other responsibilities should rest with the organizers of the sales — the very ones who claim the lion’s share of the proceeds, precisely because they are expected to shoulder these additional responsibilities. Contributors are not unfeeling tools; they are human beings.
By @starush777
Come on. Contributors are suppliers and suppliers are to follow the rules that are set forward by Adobe. Adobe's only and first responsibility is to their customers, not to their suppliers. The moderator's role is not to filter out content, but to protect the buyer from bad or inappropriate content. As a contributor you are obliged to contribute only perfect assets. You have to check your assets thoroughly before submitting.
Contributors are not customers. They have to comply with all the rules that Adobe puts forward. That's the way it works.
Contributors are ultimately responsible for reviewing their own content. The fact that some of the errors slip by the Moderators doesn't absolve Contributors from their responsibility in providing useable, high quality content.
By @Jill_C
What I mean is that a contributor cannot influence another contributor and their content, or evaluate their content in any way (moderate, rate, change, delete), which means they cannot be responsible for other contributors in the same area. Therefore, punishing and blaming all AI contributors because of a few inadequate AI contributors is not logical.
In general, how did Adobe Stock fight trash content before AI content? Trash content was probably uploaded and is still being uploaded, not all photographers in this world take beautiful and high-quality photos.
Moreover, this is especially important now, because now, thanks to automatic tagging and title creation tools, even non-professional photographers can upload trash content en masse, and not just neural network specialists (this is probably what is happening right now).
However, for some reason, there is no trash content among the huge amount of photos. But with neural pictures, for some reason, too much of some kind of vague trash is approved.
I'm not saying that AI contributors "should do nothing", but on the contrary - we need to force unscrupulous contributors to do their part of the job and follow the rules (to do this, we need to update policies, rules and conditions, tighten moderation), and not ruin the reputation of themselves and the professionals around them (including photographers and illustrators, since this all harms the entire platform).
As an AI contributor, I cannot be responsible for other AI contributors (because I have neither the authority nor the responsibility, like Adobe Stock employees, who have all this and whose owners earn the lion's share of the sales revenue and actually manage the platform and are responsible for the overall quality of the content and the marketing component). For some reason, Adobe Stock and its moderators in a sense violate their own rules and conditions by not punishing malicious violators among contributors.
You can't demand that I go and demand that my neighboring contributor make quality content, right? After all, I have no authority to influence him or his content.
However, I can ask an honest question to Adobe Stock moderation, why they approve trash content from neighboring contributors (and at the same time do not approve some of my quality content) and violate their own rules and conditions set before all contributors. This is a question of equality on the platform, business attitude and the overall reputation of the platform and contributors.
At the very least, it was worth limiting the amount of uploaded content for neural images, so that moderators are not overloaded and more carefully monitor the new type of content until authors become more professional, and neural models are of higher quality, and also until better methods of automatic filtering are invented or until new moderators gain experience.
The current measure of suddenly hiding AI content looks like some kind of bad crutch, rather than a solution to long-standing problems.
In general, how did Adobe Stock fight trash content before AI content? Trash content was probably uploaded and is still being uploaded, not all photographers in this world take beautiful and high-quality photos.
By @'NO-AI' NOT ALLOWED
True. They upload 10 trash assets and either they learn from the refusals or they give up.
Moreover, this is especially important now, because now, thanks to automatic tagging and title creation tools, even non-professional photographers can upload trash content en masse, and not just neural network specialists (this is probably what is happening right now).
However, for some reason, there is no trash content among the huge amount of photos. But with neural pictures, for some reason, too much of some kind of vague trash is approved.
By @'NO-AI' NOT ALLOWED
No, photographers can't upload en masse. They have to shoot, they have to edit, then they can submit. No photographer uploads 60k assets in half a year. That's the difference.
And the trash is not vague, the trash is real. Photographers never submitted six-finger-joe pictures, never submitted ev chargers with cables looping on themselves, keyboards with crooked keys, cars with crooked wheels etc etc. Moderators first needed to get trained on those errors and still, many moderators do not catch those. You can blame the moderators, but the first culprit is the contributor.
And if, by chance, some trash is making its way into the database, that does not mean that your trash needs to be accepted too.
Don't think you are special. Either you contribute or you do not contribute, but Adobe fixes the rules.
For sure, I'm convinced that Adobe should be more stringent with generative AI content, and as a customer to stock assets, I don't want to do the checking myself. In my company, we decided to ignore generative AI content. Not because we are against, but because selecting a bad asset is costly, when we se the full scale image, and we need to start over again. This is for me the second best solution.
I don't understand this at all, is Adobe Stock shooting itself in the foot when it does nothing for a long time, and then suddenly introduces a radical change that kills neuro-contributors, Adobe Stock's reputation and Adobe Stock's income?
By @'NO-AI' NOT ALLOWED
What is a neuro-contributor?
Anyhow, customers asked why Adobe allowed generative AI content in their database. Adobe stock is not shooting itself in the foot, but the developpers felt probably the pressure to do something about this. And it's not bad as it is now.
By @Matsam77No, no customers ever requested that when you choose filter to SHOW AI, or any other thing, it automatically cancels your choices after every search.
It's not hidden again after each search, but only for a new session. And it shows up with the filter options. And it shows that it is filteringh out AI content. That's OK, and much better than it was. I would still prefer a sticky filter, but I'm currently happy with this.
By @Matsam77
Sorry, but you are wrong here. Many, many customers complained about the inability to exclude generative AI assets from search. Users requesting this didn't want to have to deal with generative AI at all. And yes, those wanting to hide it could do so for a long time (well not exactly that long, because the request is an old one, even before the filter got implemented), but it was not obvious.
Now, even that it is on by default, it is much more obvious that it is on by default. It's easier to switch. This is much more user friendly than it was before.
This is the fix.
Let's see, if customers complain about this as loud as they did for getting the filter on by default.
AdChoices