Very Disappointed with AI Content

[daniel-g-404]

I am a longtime Adobe user and both an Adobe Stock contributor and a user of the same stock. I am frankly really disappointed with the stock platform being overrun by second-rate AI images. As a contributor to the stock platform, this is frustrating given that many contributors will likely have submissions rejected over marginal issues like noise or color correction, while AI images that are virtually unusable seem to skate through to the top search results with impunity. They’re cluttered with artifacts, smudges, impossible proportions or perspective, shameless cliches, and illegible text. Contributors of AI content are not even taking the time to clone out mistakes or paint over things that would take an amateur moments to fix. I’m really disappointed in the lack of more rigorous standards. 

I think AI assets should be de-prioritized by default in the search parameters. I should not have to check “exclude AI” every time I search. My team has had to send out messages to designers telling them not to use AI images after a few images made it through the review process without people catching the uncanny distortions. Personally, I don’t want any AI created stock. Real photos,  and footage are of greater value and I’m not interested in polluting the visual landscape further with AI content that has clearly not been reviewed or held to any standard.

[AZ Storyteller]

I cannot agree more! In fact, I came here looking for instructions on how to exclude AI images because Adobe has removed that option from the filters. There is absolutely ZERO reason to have an Adobe Stock account if more than half the available images are created by artificial intelligence. There are multiple resources to create those images at a fraction of the cost of Adobe membership. 

[Abambo]

. There are multiple resources to create those images at a fraction of the cost of Adobe membership. 

By @AZ Storyteller

That is true for all Adobe products. So, the question I'm asking is: Why is Adobe so successful, if others are so much better and cheaper? As we all are professionals, we well know that the products from the competitors are not delivering half of the same quality and value for the money.

Generative AI looks to be a very successful addition to Adobe stock, even that we all agree, that moderators are doing a poor job moderating these assets. Some contributors even agrue that because it's AI, moderators should not refuse erronous assets, when they get a well earned refusal, because bad assets of theirs did pass before. 

[daniellei4510]

I'm still seeing it.

[daniellei4510]

"There are multiple resources to create those images at a fraction of the cost of Adobe membership."

Not necessarily. One of my clients needed a very specific image that required AI. He tried a few examples himself but wasn't at all happy with the results and used them to indicate the basic concept he required. I had to charge him $20 to date to cover the rendering costs. I provided him with two examples that he really liked but still wants to see a couple more. Which will cost him more.

[Abambo]

Many people think that using AI is easy. It isn't. If it would be easy, I would do generative AI too. 😉

[AZ Storyteller]

You're right, daniellei4510. When I switched browsers, I could select "Exclude Generative AI" once again. Thanks for confirming it still works.

[daniellei4510]

Glad to be of help, even though I only submit AI. 🙂

[Abambo]

You can exclude generative AI assets from search. Unfortunatly, the option is not sticky. You have, however, in the ideas section a request the you could upvote. 

As I agree with you, I'm sure that Adobe, as a commercially oriented company is making a lot of stock sales with generative AI assets. They are now promoting this for about two years, I think, and if they would not be successful, they would not have expanded this into video and vector. There is probably no way back. 

[steveeyes]

Who’s really at fault here? Is it the moderators for letting mistakes slip through, the contributors for making those mistakes and not fixing them, or maybe both.  After all, it’s not uncommon for something to escape even the most careful review until a moderator catches it later. I was under the impression that both AI and photography submissions go through the same meticulous inch-by-inch moderator review. If you’ve ever read posts here criticizing moderators, one of the common responses is that too many mistakes could cost a moderator their job. I assume mistakes carry the same weight no matter if it is an AI image or done by a photographer.

[steveeyes]

You are right. If only a handful of people showed interest in AI it could die out. Not the case. Worldwide, it is in the millions.  Big companies are investing in it as well: Adobe, Microsoft, Google, etc. Besides the photographer's livelihood being threatened, there are the camera companies that must come up with a new marketing method to keep selling cameras.  I just read some of those camera companies are thinking of investing in AI to incorporate in their cameras.

AI has come a long way in a short amount of time. In 2 or 3 years from now I wonder what AI wonders there will be. I know,  AI reviewing AI images. Heck, who knows! A day may come that Adobe doesn't need contributors or moderators, period. It will all be AI.

[daniellei4510]

And let's not forget. There are billions of more bad AI images on the internet than excellent ones. So even now, bad AI is training AI, unless AI is being trained to detect bad AI and ignore it. Round and round and round we go, and where it stops, nobody knows.

[Abambo]

A day may come that Adobe doesn't need contributors or moderators, period. It will all be AI.

By @steveeyes

...and buyers. All will be AI. 😉

[Jill_C]

There will always be a need for real photographs of real people and real places. I'm not worried about being replaced by AI.

[Abambo]

There will always be a need for real photographs of real people and real places. I'm not worried about being replaced by AI.

By @Jill_C

I have the feeling that there are less portrait painters, but that could also be because there are less kings around.