Why are people uploading so much AI junk?

[FernL]

Why are people uploading so much AI junk?  Has anyone noticed the amount of garbage people are uploading?  Three-legged animals, deformed faces, deformed bodies.   For what $.35 cents? How can you not be embarrassed to put your name on this stuff?  UGH UGH UGH .   IT IS ONLY CLUTTERING UP THE SYSTEM.  If using AI why not use a software app like GIMP to clean it up before uploading.  What happened to quality product?????   Why do they think people will buy this stuff?  

[Nancy OShea · Accepted solution]

As fellow users, we have no idea what contributors upload.  Only Adobe Stock moderators see it.

If you find a sub-standard asset in Stock inventory, report the asset ID to Adobe Stock support so they can take appropriate action.

[daniellei4510 · Accepted solution]

As someone who submits 100% AI, it upsets me as much as yourself...if not more. I spend hours a day editing AI images. I suspect the culprits are YouTubers telling people "HOW TO MAKE $2,500 A DAY SELLING AI!  Once they realize it's not the cash cow others are promising, they will give up an things will eventually improve. And it probably already has. You're just coming across older assets. Like @Nancy OShea suggested, I would recommend reporting such assets if you have the time to do so.

[Jaume28175635bywv]

I totally agree with this comment. This is detrimental to the quality product we try to offer here.

[daniellei4510 · Accepted solution]

In fairness, however, I think we've all seen a some photographs here and there that should also not have approved. 🙂

[Nancy OShea]

...we've all seen some photographs here and there that should also not have [been] approved. 🙂

By @daniellei4510

==========

True.  It's not exclusive to AI. We've all seen crappy videos and illustrations, too. AI is not the problem.  Contributors who lack sufficient skills & talent are the problem.

[oleschwander]

Most AI generated images here are amazing. But in my view there are two major 'problems'. First and foremost, the images derives from the hard work of photographers. The next thing is that in the near future anyone and everyone will be able to create images and the agencies will be swimming in images (apparently they already do) and sales will perhaps decrease because the agencies are no longer needed. But that is and will of course be their own business. Adobe e.g. has many legs.

[daniellei4510]

"First and foremost, the images derives from the hard work of photographers."

There is the reason Adobe has decided to get into the AI business. Once out of beta, Firefly will use Adobe's own stock database, plus images in the public domain, to generate AI. I'm sure I'm over simplifying this, but it is Adobe's intention, as I understand it, to complensate stock contributors if and when their images are used to create other images. I also suspect that there will be a means by which contributors can opt in or out of having their images used for the purpose of generating AI. Until any or all of that happens, Firefly and Generative Fill in Photoshop will remain in beta.

As the issue of approprating the work of others plays out in our court system over the use of copyrighted material used to create AI, I believe this will eventually become the standard practice--and possibly the requirement--of all companies now in the business of letting users generate AI content. It may take years before this happens, but Adobe is clearly going to be the front runner with respect to a more fair system of the practice.

"The next thing is that in the near future anyone and everyone will be able to create images and the agencies will be swimming in images"

That's not in the near future. That is true now. Anyone and everyone can create their own AI images. But will they? Anyone and everyone can now build their own web sites with the variety of relatively low cost (and sometimes free) web site building applications now online. These sites may have put a few web site designers out of business, but certainly not all of them. I'm freelancing for a company now that wants me to edit their products by knocking out the backgrounds of their product images for use on their web site. The images were taken by a professional photographer, so no job was lost there. They are pretty much handling the web site themselves on their end, but they don't have the time or the know-how to turn their product images into transparent png's. In fact, they recently sent me a QR code png that they wanted me to turn into a reverse image, from a black QR code on a transparent background to a white QR code on a transparent background. This process can be managed with one click in Photoshop. But the individual who hired me wanted me to do it for him, even though the company leases the entire Create Cloud Suite. I literally even told him, "No charge for that one." His response? "Charge me for everything."

Stock agencies aren't going to go away. There will always be people and companies willing to pay for people with the skills and talent to do things like this for them. These people are managers and CEO's. They don't want to be bothered with learninng how to generate AI themselves, or to build web sites, or to use their iPhones to photograph new products.

Will there be a lesser need for photographers in the near future? Of course. But the vast majority of them are not going to be put out of business. Nor are models. As I beleive I may have stated elsewhere, it will still be a long time coming before we see an AI version of a Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition.

Meanwhile, progress marches on. Whale order producers went out of business with the invention of the electric lightbulb. Milk deliverers went out of business with the invention of the refrigerator. There will be fewer need for Pizza deliverers (or Uber or Lyft drivers) due to the advent of delivery bots and self-driving cars, fewer need for cashiers due to self-checkout lanes, and fewer need for bank tellers due to ATMs, Polaroid filed for bankrupty and was eventually sold to Bank One's One Equity Partners, while Kodak is barely hanging on due to the advent of digital cameras. And yet, there are still companies like Fuji who continue making traditional films and printing papers for people who refused to jump on the digital camera train. And let's not even bother talking about the vinyl record industry after digital music came into play, or Blockbuster after after video streaming became the way to go.

Everything is going to change. And yet, in some ways, nothing is going to change. We'll just have to wait and see.

[oleschwander]

"There is the reason Adobe has decided to get into the AI business."

Of course.

"As the issue of approprating the work of others plays out in our court system over the use of copyrighted material used to create AI"

In my view it's not only a legal case but also a question about moral.

"I also suspect that there will be a means by which contributors can opt in or out of having their images used for the purpose of generating AI."

Hopefully. But I think it will be very difficult. At the moment almost all images are built on Midjourney who don't care.

"That's not in the near future."

AI generated images looks terrible. There's a huge amount of 'professional' work to edit the images if they are to be useable. But that will change.

"Whale order producers went out of business with the invention of the electric lightbulb ..."

Of course inventions have always put people out of jobs.. But few - if any - new inventions are build on large scale exploitation of millions of other peoples work.

[daniellei4510]

I'm smelling sour grapes.

[Abambo]

Of course inventions have always put people out of jobs.. But few - if any - new inventions are build on large scale exploitation of millions of other peoples work.

By @oleschwander

I doubt that!

[Abambo]

The next thing is that in the near future anyone and everyone will be able to create images and the agencies will be swimming in images (apparently they already do) and sales will perhaps decrease because the agencies are no longer needed. But that is and will of course be their own business. Adobe e.g. has many legs.

By @oleschwander

That's called progress. Horse carriages are no more needed in the numbers as before. Electrical cars will make obsolete countless gas stations. E-mail makes most of the snail mails obsolete. The Internet makes phones obsolete. Teleconferences make in person travelling obsolete. And if you watched TV recently, you've seen many getting interviewed via skype, etc.

And to come back to our turf (as Adobe product users): Illustrator killed the sign painter, InDesign killed the typesetter. And PDF and PostScript killed a lot of the printing jobs.

Bad assets need to be refused, good assets need to be accepted. That's all.

[oleschwander]

Abambo - you're not reading my post.

[Abambo]

Abambo - you're not reading my post.

By @oleschwander

What did I not read from the chunk I quoted to answer to that chunk?

[oleschwander]

What if I stole couple of hundred thousand mobile phones, modified them, gave them another name and sold them ...

[Abambo]

What if I stole couple of hundred thousand mobile phones, modified them, gave them another name and sold them ...

By @oleschwander

Take a better example, that example is flawed.

[daniellei4510]

Huh? That does not compute.

[daniellei4510]

A hundres thousand? Where would you find the time!?!?!?

[jacquelingphoto2017]

I see them. The poor quality is obvious. These should not pass through moderation. The fault is with moderation. Contributors will submit anything especially if they do not know how to do quality checks. Moderators are supposed to be trained to intercept these poor quality files and refuse them.

Best wishes

Jacquelin

[Nancy OShea]

Poor quality images were likely grandfathered in from the past when acceptance criteria was less discerning.

[jacquelingphoto2017]

When? I thought AI introduction was less than a year ago? What era are you talking about? Before I started contributing? From the first day I started contributing images to Adobe, acceptance criteria was based on quality. A man on a galloping horse can see these faults. I've seen AI refused in the early stage for less than those I now see on the platform.