pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Am I human  (Read 2926 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 16, 2024, 16:41 »
+5
I just wanted to add five photos to my three-month queue at Adobe today. That's ok, I appreciate careful checks.

After I dutifully ticked the box for the new annoying superfluous confirmation for the terms and conditions, a window popped up that I had never seen before:

Are You human?


I would have spontaneously said yes.

But I was presented with 9 pictures in which I had to click on cats. I hate cats. Nevertheless, I passed the test, which fills me with a certain pride.

However, I was very unsure about one picture.

Adobe, are you really serious that I have to research naked cats before I submit my pictures?


Now 2 very urgent questions pop up in my head:

- What kind of stuff do you smoke at Adobe? I might be able to advise you  ;)

- Will I be banned for months if I click on the dog?

Thank You.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2024, 16:52 by RalfLiebhold »


« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2024, 21:42 »
0
Yes, it did seem odd. Must be new...

wds

« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2024, 22:20 »
0
Are they afraid that there are some type of "bots" that are creating large quantities of (AI?) images and constantly submitting perhaps?

« Reply #3 on: January 16, 2024, 23:18 »
0
Could you upload some of my, definitely human-taken images, for me? I have been unable to use Adobe with the new features. I am certainly very good at identifying images of cats, as good as any human person, but am in need of assistance from a fellow human person.

« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2024, 00:53 »
+1
It seems that they are starting to be aware how big flood is their "accept all GEN AI -at any cost".
Also, that kind of  greedy "accept all and everything" always attracts fraudsters which most definitely created some bots to upload Ai "artworks" for them. 

Only thing that surprise me is that Adobe didn't learned anything from SS deterioration when they become too greedy.

« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2024, 02:05 »
0
Yep, noticed it since yesterday.
There were for sure "power users" who used batch processes to automatically generate several thousand images, upscaled and then simply uploaded them.

« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2024, 02:11 »
+2
Are they afraid that there are some type of "bots" that are creating large quantities of (AI?) images and constantly submitting perhaps?

I am actually pretty sure that is the case. If you look at some ports with 10.000+ AI generated images you will often find image descriptions that do not really describe what is in the image at all! Sometimes you will have something like "young woman blah blah blah at beach" and there is no beach in the picture, just to name one example. I suspected for a long time that there are some people who have automized the whole process of copying image descriptions from other people, using it on AI generators and then having the images submitted to Adobe without any human ever looking at the images. Some of the really huge mistakes in images like people obviously having 3 arms etc. also makes it look like no human ever looked at the images.

« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2024, 04:55 »
0
Are they afraid that there are some type of "bots" that are creating large quantities of (AI?) images and constantly submitting perhaps?

I am actually pretty sure that is the case. If you look at some ports with 10.000+ AI generated images you will often find image descriptions that do not really describe what is in the image at all! Sometimes you will have something like "young woman blah blah blah at beach" and there is no beach in the picture, just to name one example. I suspected for a long time that there are some people who have automized the whole process of copying image descriptions from other people, using it on AI generators and then having the images submitted to Adobe without any human ever looking at the images. Some of the really huge mistakes in images like people obviously having 3 arms etc. also makes it look like no human ever looked at the images.

Exactly, there are huge ports with image descriptions, which seem to be the used prompts for image generation. As you said sometimes the description containts words or phrases, which are not seen in the images. Since the image description is irrelevant to the customer search and only keywords matter, Adobe didn't notice it for sure at the beginning.

« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2024, 06:34 »
+3
I have had contact via Discord with a contributor who has a bot running 24/7, generating, key-wording and uploading thousands of images. He was trying to find ways to open multiple accounts. As an Adobe Community Expert I advised him of the rules around multiple accounts (they are allowed for different file types, but cannot be for the sake of bypassing upload limits). He then offered to give me 1000 images which I declined!

« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2024, 08:39 »
+1
I have had contact via Discord with a contributor who has a bot running 24/7, generating, key-wording and uploading thousands of images. He was trying to find ways to open multiple accounts. As an Adobe Community Expert I advised him of the rules around multiple accounts (they are allowed for different file types, but cannot be for the sake of bypassing upload limits). He then offered to give me 1000 images which I declined!

That's the problem when you open the gates completely.
There are always black sheep who want to exploit it completely to the detriment of everyone involved.
I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe soon introduces an AI image upload limit for all contributors.
I don't understand why they don't adopt Dreamstime's system anyway. Here, the upload limit is set based on the acceptance ratio.
And for new users, I think the upload is limited for only a few hundred images.
This would make the business unprofitable for such people, who want to exploit the system.

« Reply #10 on: January 17, 2024, 13:14 »
0
Agree, this is starting to become annoying. First the site regularly logs you out so you have to log in again and again with confirmation emails. Then you have to check(or not) the AI box when filling the metadata. After that on submission you have two more AI disclaimer boxes and now as the cherry on the top this captcha, wth?

« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2024, 13:51 »
0


After I dutifully ticked the box for the new annoying superfluous confirmation for the terms and conditions, a window popped up that I had never seen before:

Are You human?


I would have spontaneously said yes.

But I was presented with 9 pictures in which I had to click on cats. I hate cats. Nevertheless, I passed the test, which fills me with a certain pride.

However, I was very unsure about one picture.

...

this called invisible recaptcha

from developers POV:
"reCAPTCHA v3 allows you to verify if an interaction is legitimate without any user interaction. It is a pure JavaScript API returning a score, giving you the ability to take action in the context of your site: for instance requiring additional factors of authentication, sending a post to moderation, or throttling bots that may be scraping content."

https://developers.google.com/recaptcha/docs/versions

so most of the time real users won't need to answer a captcha. i have it working on my WP site & it eliminated most bots while letting actual users in.

re having to  be exact in the puzzle - if you  make a mistake it just gives you another chance

« Reply #12 on: January 17, 2024, 13:55 »
0


After I dutifully ticked the box for the new annoying superfluous confirmation for the terms and conditions, a window popped up that I had never seen before:

Are You human?


I would have spontaneously said yes.

But I was presented with 9 pictures in which I had to click on cats. I hate cats. Nevertheless, I passed the test, which fills me with a certain pride.

However, I was very unsure about one picture.

...

this called invisible recaptcha

from developers POV:
"reCAPTCHA v3 allows you to verify if an interaction is legitimate without any user interaction. It is a pure JavaScript API returning a score, giving you the ability to take action in the context of your site: for instance requiring additional factors of authentication, sending a post to moderation, or throttling bots that may be scraping content."

https://developers.google.com/recaptcha/docs/versions

so most of the time real users won't need to answer a captcha. i have it working on my WP site & it eliminated most bots while letting actual users in.

re having to  be exact in the puzzle - if you  make a mistake it just gives you another chance


Thank you Steve, I know that. My posting was rather ironic in nature.

I would prefer to recognize beer bottles or cheeseburgers  ;)

The question is how many more obstacles Adobe wants to put in the way of us submitting images for a multi-week review that are then rejected for incomprehensible reasons.

As a conventional contributor, I no longer enjoy using Adobe.



« Last Edit: January 17, 2024, 14:01 by RalfLiebhold »

« Reply #13 on: January 17, 2024, 14:15 »
0
I have had contact via Discord with a contributor who has a bot running 24/7, generating, key-wording and uploading thousands of images. He was trying to find ways to open multiple accounts. As an Adobe Community Expert I advised him of the rules around multiple accounts (they are allowed for different file types, but cannot be for the sake of bypassing upload limits). He then offered to give me 1000 images which I declined!

It's not just the multiple accounts. Even one account is fraudulent.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #14 on: January 17, 2024, 14:54 »
0
I had to do Bumble Bees for Adobe, yesterday. I usually don't get any questions or challenges, unless I login from a different device or browser. But I haven't had to identify Motorcycles, Bicycles or Bumble Bees (which are the last from other sites) in many months.

I'm surprised I don't get that more often as I have Home Internet through a wireless Gateway now and I get random locations all over the country as my IP address.

So about the beer, would they put it next to apple cider or not that evil?  ;)

« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2024, 18:53 »
+1
I found this contributor at Adobe today:
https://stock.adobe.com/ch_de/contributor/209153539/oleg?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

He has almost 315k (!) generated images. What the heck?
But at least he has a good, probably manual quality control.

But still, how do you manage to generate so many images in such a short time? It can only be a huge team, probably from Eastern Europe (Oleg?)
I wouldn't be surprised if they start completely plagiarizing other agencies with Img2Img and Inpaint at some point in the future.

Extremely demotivating.

« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2024, 19:24 »
0
I found this contributor at Adobe today:
https://stock.adobe.com/ch_de/contributor/209153539/oleg?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

He has almost 315k (!) generated images. What the heck?
But at least he has a good, probably manual quality control.

But still, how do you manage to generate so many images in such a short time? It can only be a huge team, probably from Eastern Europe (Oleg?)
I wouldn't be surprised if they start completely plagiarizing other agencies with Img2Img and Inpaint at some point in the future.

Extremely demotivating.

lol, wow! does he have a special pass on how much he can upload? because I'd say he's uploading 30-40k/month then...

but eh, don't worry about it... focus on yourself. imagine there is just one GIGANTIC contributor that has 35 MILLION "ai" images, because in essence that is kind of what it is like. :P

« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2024, 19:38 »
0
But at least he has a good, probably manual quality control.

What about that "Australian" flag on the top row though?

« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2024, 20:17 »
0
But at least he has a good, probably manual quality control.

What about that "Australian" flag on the top row though?

The images are certainly not all without flaws.

For example, this alleged tiger looks more like a blend between tiger, leopard and cheetah to me:

https://stock.adobe.com/ch_de/images/a-close-up-of-a-tiger-s-face-with-a-blurry-background-and-a-blurry-background-to-the-left-and-right-of-the-image-of-the-tiger-s-face/708919149

A lot of the photos of members of the cat family are problematic.

« Last Edit: January 17, 2024, 20:39 by Big Toe »

« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2024, 00:17 »
+1
I found this contributor at Adobe today:
https://stock.adobe.com/ch_de/contributor/209153539/oleg?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

He has almost 315k (!) generated images. What the heck?
But at least he has a good, probably manual quality control.

But still, how do you manage to generate so many images in such a short time? It can only be a huge team, probably from Eastern Europe (Oleg?)
I wouldn't be surprised if they start completely plagiarizing other agencies with Img2Img and Inpaint at some point in the future.

Extremely demotivating.

Thanks for this. IMO, this should be reported to adobe.

Look at this: https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-heart-shaped-red-and-pink-macaroni-and-cheese-macaroni-and-cheese-macaroni-and-cheese-macaroni-and-cheese-macaroni-and-cheese-macaroni-and-cheese-macaroni-and-cheese-macaroni-and-cheese/706555302

The title is "a heart shaped red and pink macaroni and cheese macaroni and cheese macaroni and cheese macaroni and cheese macaroni and cheese macaroni and cheese macaroni and cheese macaroni and cheese"

I think we can all agree this is not human-generated :)

I've been doing AI for some time and I'm fairly well versed with stable diffusion, and I have an idea what this dude is doing. He's scraping the adobe stock library and using the images as a reference to create new variations of existing assets, either through img2img or IP-adapter. The titles are automatically written by something like CLIP interrogator or img2prompt. I know this is the case 100% because I've used img2prompt workflows before, and they often give an output that repeats itself in a loop. I'm certain of it.

I don't know if this is legal or in line with Adobe's terms of service, but I would definitely call it unethical.

I mean, I had an idea to do something like that months ago, but didn't because it just seemed slimy and cringe. But if there's no reaction from Adobe, that means that they encourage and tolerate this kind of contributor behavior. At that point, why not spam the collection with 315k more images in a few months? I would encourage you too - if anyone needs help setting up stable diffusion, feel free to hit me up, I'll send you links to tutorials and all that
« Last Edit: January 18, 2024, 00:19 by spike »

« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2024, 02:07 »
+1
Using irrelevant keywords or titles is listed in Adobe's account and submission guidelines as being a prohibited activity that could lead to warnings, account suspension, and/or account termination.
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-guidelines.html

« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2024, 04:18 »
0
I found this contributor at Adobe today:
https://stock.adobe.com/ch_de/contributor/209153539/oleg?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

He has almost 315k (!) generated images. What the heck?
But at least he has a good, probably manual quality control.

But still, how do you manage to generate so many images in such a short time? It can only be a huge team, probably from Eastern Europe (Oleg?)
I wouldn't be surprised if they start completely plagiarizing other agencies with Img2Img and Inpaint at some point in the future.

Extremely demotivating.


lol, wow! does he have a special pass on how much he can upload? because I'd say he's uploading 30-40k/month then...

but eh, don't worry about it... focus on yourself. imagine there is just one GIGANTIC contributor that has 35 MILLION "ai" images, because in essence that is kind of what it is like. :P


lol, yeah since the mass is generated through Midjourney and Stable Diffusion, you're right, it's like one just contributor with million of images. For Adobe it makes probably no difference anyway.

But what I don't understand is why no internal Adobe reviewer have noticed this?
What is the point of such contributors uploading between 2 and 3 thousand slightly different images for a single topic and all of them being accepted? That is mass spamming.
So it is very likely that Adobe simply closes its eyes to contributors who have a high acceptance rate and generate enough new revenue through their mass.

So this is the new work ethic and the modern zeitgeist?
The winner in the end is the one who can just generate the most automatically with a technical advantage without any skills?

I am eagerly awaiting the coming future, in which AI will play just as big a role in other industries. No, actually I don't anymore.

@ spike
I had tried to use Stable Diffusion locally, but my hardware is not sufficient for this, so I am currently using it via an online provider.

What I am currently very interested in is upscaling with Stable Diffusion with Ultrasharp Model in combination with Controlnet tiles. Unfortunately, my VRAM is not sufficient here either and new equipment is currently not profitable due to very low revenues.

Is there a good online provider that charges by time and allows the above-mentioned upscaling combination?

Thanks in advance!

// Update:
Tried today www.thinkdiffusion.com
The provider offers an online Automatic1111 UI with all current available advanced upscale models (e.g. the above mentioned Ultrasharp and Controlnet).
But quite expensive with 0,99 USD / hour, since the 4x upscaling takes about 10 minutes. So you get around 5 - 6 images / hour rescaled.

Also you have to play a lot around to get good results. With the first free trial (17 minutes on rapid server) I got only disappointing results.

Currently I upscale with chainner and the 4xSSDIRDAT model with better results than with 4xUltrasharp on Upscayl or Topaz Photo AI / Gigapixel but for sure a little bit worse than Midjourney or probably with SD Controlnet upscale.
With 4GB VRAM NVIDIA it takes local on Windows just around 6 minutes.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2024, 11:38 by Andrej.S. »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2024, 12:23 »
0

Thanks for this. IMO, this should be reported to adobe.

Look at this: https://stock.adobe.com/images/a-heart-shaped-red-and-pink-macaroni-and-cheese-macaroni-and-cheese-macaroni-and-cheese-macaroni-and-cheese-macaroni-and-cheese-macaroni-and-cheese-macaroni-and-cheese-macaroni-and-cheese/706555302

The title is "a heart shaped red and pink macaroni and cheese macaroni and cheese macaroni and cheese macaroni and cheese macaroni and cheese macaroni and cheese macaroni and cheese macaroni and cheese"

I think we can all agree this is not human-generated :)


And not Mac and cheese it's supposed to be a macaroon.  ;D

« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2024, 14:10 »
0
Using irrelevant keywords or titles is listed in Adobe's account and submission guidelines as being a prohibited activity that could lead to warnings, account suspension, and/or account termination.
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/submission-guidelines.html

Then he should likely be reported, a lot of the titles are not relevant and the keywords are not much better either

« Reply #24 on: January 22, 2024, 00:42 »
0
I found this contributor at Adobe today:
https://stock.adobe.com/ch_de/contributor/209153539/oleg?load_type=author&prev_url=detail

He has almost 315k (!) generated images. What the heck?
But at least he has a good, probably manual quality control.

But still, how do you manage to generate so many images in such a short time? It can only be a huge team, probably from Eastern Europe (Oleg?)
I wouldn't be surprised if they start completely plagiarizing other agencies with Img2Img and Inpaint at some point in the future.

Extremely demotivating.

lol, wow! does he have a special pass on how much he can upload? because I'd say he's uploading 30-40k/month then...

but eh, don't worry about it... focus on yourself. imagine there is just one GIGANTIC contributor that has 35 MILLION "ai" images, because in essence that is kind of what it is like. :P

All the stuff spams the results pages with questionable results because there are so many different accounts, if it were just one, it wouldn't be a major problem.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
4674 Views
Last post April 02, 2014, 10:57
by lisafx
23 Replies
5748 Views
Last post July 24, 2018, 01:38
by Pauws99
14 Replies
2615 Views
Last post August 23, 2023, 15:56
by f8

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors