How to disable/block Firefly and Generative AI In Photoshop

[antonioa89540766]

Are there any suggestions/solutions for those of us who wish to disable or block AI tools like Firefly or the generative AI within Photoshop? I understand I don't actually have to use tools I do not wish to use within Adobe programs, but I think it would also be nice for some of us with strong ethical opposition to generative AI to have an option for it to not consistently pop up in our feeds or have our work training AI models without permission (hence why I disabled the content analysis option for my account).

Title edited by mod

[Abambo]

Apart from not updating to the most recent version of Photoshop, I do not think that there is a possibility to block generative fill in Photoshop. However, your work will not be used with Firefly, if you don't make it available. Adobe uses Adobe stock (and renumerates creators for using it) and public domain sources. 

[DJTonkin]

Well that turned out not to be true:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-12/adobe-s-ai-firefly-used-ai-generated-images-from-...

[Preran]

Anronio, you could raise a feature request in the Ideas section for the team to consider your use case. There isn't a way for individual users to block Gen AI features within the app from what I know.

[thorn-neverwake · Accepted solution]

Highly agreed.
I may have updated several Adobe apps for the last time. I don't think Adobe realizes how many artists want nothing to do with AI, and don't even want such features installed with the application. Between Firefly + Creative Cloud's incessant demands for online syncing and connections - I'm literally losing trust that my data and work is locked down in terms of security and privacy.

[antonioa89540766]

From what I have experienced so far, clicking on 'Generate' options without having first downloaded Firefly doesn't actually let you incorporate generative AI, which suits me just fine. I think so long as you don't download Firefly you won't have to deal with the AI crap. 

As far as data privacy, yeah I agree, there needs to be a lot more transpatency (not just from Adobe) on what their AI is being trained on, that data needs to be fully and completely made public, anything less implies they have something to hide.

[thorn-neverwake]

Well, for now I'm just completely blocking Adobe DCC apps access to the internet with the firewall.

[@mj]

The CC apps require validation with Adobe servers every so often.

I believe it's once a month if my memory serves me correctly.

This is a license validation check that they run.

Best

mj

[Abambo]

The CC apps require validation with Adobe servers every so often.

I believe it's once a month if my memory serves me correctly.

By @mj

99 days for annual subscriptions. the details can be found here: https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/kb/internet-connection-creative-cloud-apps.html#:~:text=You%2....

[@mj]

Hi @antonioa89540766 ,

Not afaik.

Best

mj

[duanea32090560]

CEO of Adobe fully drank the AI kool-aid so until the fad is over or whatever it'll be in the software whether we want it or not. It seems like a dumb thing to focus on considering every update has been making the software buggier and buggier. But then again, Adobe being the industry standard means we're all kinda handcuffed to this terrible rent-seeking corporation.

[@mj]

The more wheels the truck has, the more likely it is to pick up a puncture @duanea32090560 .

The fightback from creatives has begun in the form of Glaze. https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/

Best

mj

iMSD

[antonioa89540766]

And Nightshade. Don't forget Nightshade, that's been a godsend.

[Abambo]

IMHO, generative AI is there to stay. If you want it or not.

[Trevor.Dennis]

I feel quite sure that most of the hold outs will eventually give in.  How many have been using Sensei enhanced features for the last few years for instance.  That's Ai.  Selection tools are maybe the best example, but by no means the only example.  They make life easier for us, and do a much better job way more quickly, and if you are making a living from content creation, you'll price yourself out of the market because competitors will do a better job for much less money.    I wonder if there will eventually be a word for Ai holdouts like the Luddites of old.

[D Fosse]

@Trevor.Dennis 

@Abambo 

IMO there's a very clear ethical line right in the middle of this, and it's not difficult to see.

Using AI as a tool is perfectly fine, e.g. in selection tools, noise reduction and so on.

Using AI as an end product in itself is not, e.g. generative fill.

Even the borderline cases, like the Remove tool, or using generative fill on a very small part of the image - you can use it up to a point where you instincively feel you're crossing the line. Ethically, I don't think this is difficult at all. When the little bell rings in your head, you know you're there and it's time to stop.

The argument that "it's here to stay", "everybody's doing it" etc is just defensive, washing your hands. That has never been a valid argument for anything.

If you're into music, there's a non-AI parallel that puts it into perspective: the industry-standard ubiquitous use of autotune and pitch correction nowadays. I've been doing doing some research into that lately. Everybody's doing it, you have no idea. Ever wondered why new music sounds generic and dull and generally boring? That's why. They all sound identical, like robots. With a very few honest exceptions.

[Lumigraphics]

I personally don't care one way or another, as it doesn't affect me other than opportunity cost. Time wasted on developing AI features that I don't use could better be spent elsewhere.

Having said that, I suspect that full generative AI, when used by "artists" with neither taste nor talent, will produce total crap. When used by skilled (actual) artists, it will be a tool to produce even better work than before.

Finally, ethics is a tricky thing and people have serious, legitimate disagreements. For example, is it ethical for a megachurch pastor to be a multimillionaire while poor people starve? Trying to impose ethics on others is going to get us nowhere.

[antonioa89540766]

The Luddites were not anti-technology. They were anti-exploitation. They also didn't have things like unions and regulations back in the day that protects workers from said exploitation. AI is inherently explotative and unethical, and while I'm pleased to see such a strong backlash to the point of forcing companies to apologize for/refrain from using it, the tech needs to be heavily and strictly regulated, controlling what it can and cannot be used for along with who can use it under what circumstances, before it can ever be considered ethical.

And that's without mentioning AI cannot even be copyrighted so there's no point in "creating" anything with it.

[Trevor.Dennis]

My point is that most of the hold outs will eventually fold. If you follow channels like The Photoshop Training Channel (Jesus Rameriz) and Photoshop Cafe (Colin Smith) they have demonstrated some clever ways to control and manipulate Gen Fill and Firefly creatively, so there is a lot of yourself in the end result.  OK, I acknowledge that some people have strong feeling about this 'now'.  I simply don't believe they will all maintain their position indefinitely.  

[D Fosse]

@Trevor.Dennis 

It's not about holding out or being against new technology.

It's much simpler: That something can be done does not mean it should be done. That's a basic premise for all ethics. That's why we have laws. That's why Moses came down from his mountain hike with the ten commandments. Thou shalt not lie.

Thought experiment: what would the nzis have done with the CRISPR technology we have today? Would they use it for good, or would they use it for evil? I think most of us agree that we would prefer not to find out. Using CRISPR, it is today technologically possible to create designer babies - for those who could afford it, of course. It's possible, but everybody agrees it's unethical. Or do they?

Hang on. We're not talking about babies, just images. But wait. What if AI-generated images are used to ignite public outrage in, oh...let's just say, the Middle East, where they seem to have some rumblings? Or let's push it even further - that such images were used in, hmmm, a presidential campaign? Remember, we're not talking about the New York Times, we're talking about facebook and instagram.

The luddite argument quickly crumbles. The fact is, we're way behind. These things desperately need to be regulated. Letting it all loose is dangerous! That "it's here to stay" is in fact the very problem.

In the meantime, all we can do is appeal to integrity and decency. Use with caution. This can quickly backfire on us all.

[thorn-neverwake]

I feel quite sure that most of the hold outs will eventually give in.  How many have been using Sensei enhanced features for the last few years for instance.

By @Trevor.Dennis

I haven't, so...

[Abambo]

@thorn-neverwake ,

Some will stay steady and hold the line. 

@D Fosse,

When I say that the technology is there to stay, that is not a judgement. It's a finding.