3 ms·

As someone who's role involves some elements of image editing, Adobe's GenAI feature is a welcome tool... however, as someone who's read 1984 and is concerned a

As someone who's role involves some elements of image editing, Adobe's GenAI feature is a welcome tool... however, as someone who's read 1984 and is concerned about the future tidal wave of scams, I'm not so keen on ever a$$hole and his/her dog being enabled.

qingcharles 2y ago
I love Adobe's GenAI, but I also hate it. The problem is it has been programmed with some pseudo Judeo-Christian moral guidelines. Trying to edit my gf's beach pics to remove crap from the background, it freaks out on some bikini pics and pops-up with an angry yellow box, basically lecturing you on your life choices for not covering your entire skin with clothing. You have to chop the image into new documents, fix each part and then reassemble them so that it never sees the whole. Then there is the fact it marks any image using AI as made with AI (and the user cannot disable it), so the meta data makes it look like you fabricated the whole image. I used GenAI the other day to extend a blank wall so I could crop the image better, but I had to strip the metadata before I uploaded it to social media or it gets big flags on the posts saying "MADE WITH AI".
- mschuster91 2y ago
  > The problem is it has been programmed with some pseudo Judeo-Christian moral guidelines. That's because there are already a multitude of services offering to "nudify" people for cash (which the customers then not just use for their own spank bank but for extorting women), and Adobe does not want to be associated with that kind of disgusting (and in some jurisdictions illegal) behavior.
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    Okay, but shouldn't you be able to edit the background of a photo that has a person with a bikini in it? Why couldn't they just disallow you to edit the actual human body or the clothing?
    - Verdex 2y ago
      Law of unintended consequences. Better to be safe than have to make sure your tool can't be inadvertently used as a blackmail generator. Consider the example given. A person in a bikini at the beach is a normal image that few find objectionable. Let's make it objectionable by only modifying the background. We modify the bikini picture's background to make the person appear in a strip club on the stage. Or we make the person appear in the bedroom of an ex. Blackmail generated by only modifying the background. I'm not 100% sure they're taking the right route, but given the complexity of the situation I certainly understand a cautious and conservative approach.
      - itishappy 2y ago
        "Potentially useful for blackmail" applies to the whole damn field. A revealing outfit is not needed to edit an ex in to last night's photos.
      - jerf 2y ago
        Yes. It may happen in this particular instance to conform to a right-wing religious stereotype, but it's actually arriving there via left-wing Silicon Valley liberalism meeting fear of bad press and "cancelling" from other more-or-less liberal news outlets. Another instance of some people's observations that ideology sometimes seems to form a circle moreso than a line. Which is not entirely true, but isn't entirely untrue either.
      - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
        >Law of unintended consequences. edit local businessman/politician into picture with Jeffrey Epstein. No nudity involved.
      - thefz 2y ago
        > Law of unintended consequences. In the meantime, every predator/abuser on earth is sticking an airtag in some ex's car or purse, and everybody is OK with it. I agree with the parent. Why not make the tools capable of everything and just punish bad behavior instead of preemptively censoring users and their usage of the tool?
- SebFender 2y ago
  Great example and that's where we should draw the line - thanks for your help but let me do what's best in my scenario. Systems should stop acting based on morals and instead focus on on values.
- scrollop 2y ago
  Interesting that you cite “pseudo Judeo-Christian moral guidelines” when I think you’d be hard pressed to find a Jewish or Christian priest or Jewish leader who would preach angrily against bikinis, whilst you omit a certain religion that actively encourages its women to hide behind veils.
noTeu 2y ago
[dead]

qingcharles 2y ago

I love Adobe's GenAI, but I also hate it. The problem is it has been programmed with some pseudo Judeo-Christian moral guidelines. Trying to edit my gf's beach pics to remove crap from the background, it freaks out on some bikini pics and pops-up with an angry yellow box, basically lecturing you on your life choices for not covering your entire skin with clothing. You have to chop the image into new documents, fix each part and then reassemble them so that it never sees the whole. Then there is the fact it marks any image using AI as made with AI (and the user cannot disable it), so the meta data makes it look like you fabricated the whole image. I used GenAI the other day to extend a blank wall so I could crop the image better, but I had to strip the metadata before I uploaded it to social media or it gets big flags on the posts saying "MADE WITH AI".

mschuster91 2y ago
> The problem is it has been programmed with some pseudo Judeo-Christian moral guidelines. That's because there are already a multitude of services offering to "nudify" people for cash (which the customers then not just use for their own spank bank but for extorting women), and Adobe does not want to be associated with that kind of disgusting (and in some jurisdictions illegal) behavior.
- IncreasePosts 2y ago
  Okay, but shouldn't you be able to edit the background of a photo that has a person with a bikini in it? Why couldn't they just disallow you to edit the actual human body or the clothing?
  - Verdex 2y ago
    Law of unintended consequences. Better to be safe than have to make sure your tool can't be inadvertently used as a blackmail generator. Consider the example given. A person in a bikini at the beach is a normal image that few find objectionable. Let's make it objectionable by only modifying the background. We modify the bikini picture's background to make the person appear in a strip club on the stage. Or we make the person appear in the bedroom of an ex. Blackmail generated by only modifying the background. I'm not 100% sure they're taking the right route, but given the complexity of the situation I certainly understand a cautious and conservative approach.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      "Potentially useful for blackmail" applies to the whole damn field. A revealing outfit is not needed to edit an ex in to last night's photos.
    - jerf 2y ago
      Yes. It may happen in this particular instance to conform to a right-wing religious stereotype, but it's actually arriving there via left-wing Silicon Valley liberalism meeting fear of bad press and "cancelling" from other more-or-less liberal news outlets. Another instance of some people's observations that ideology sometimes seems to form a circle moreso than a line. Which is not entirely true, but isn't entirely untrue either.
    - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
      >Law of unintended consequences. edit local businessman/politician into picture with Jeffrey Epstein. No nudity involved.
    - thefz 2y ago
      > Law of unintended consequences. In the meantime, every predator/abuser on earth is sticking an airtag in some ex's car or purse, and everybody is OK with it. I agree with the parent. Why not make the tools capable of everything and just punish bad behavior instead of preemptively censoring users and their usage of the tool?
SebFender 2y ago
Great example and that's where we should draw the line - thanks for your help but let me do what's best in my scenario. Systems should stop acting based on morals and instead focus on on values.
scrollop 2y ago
Interesting that you cite “pseudo Judeo-Christian moral guidelines” when I think you’d be hard pressed to find a Jewish or Christian priest or Jewish leader who would preach angrily against bikinis, whilst you omit a certain religion that actively encourages its women to hide behind veils.

noTeu 2y ago

[dead]