Prawn cocktail was a very popular starter in the UK in the 70s. Small prawns mixed with rose marie sauce or thousand island dressing. Then a large wine glass was layered with lettuce and the prawn mix layered in and finished off with a pinch of cress and a lemon slice. The top then dusted with paprika for colour. Unless you knew that already some may or may not.

The A.I. however had created something horrifically different lol. gag worthy.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPYgw0wX4AAlBSW.jpg

No, I didn't know that. But it sounds gag worthy to me too, to be honest. 

Facebook spammed but interesting.

Is that even allowed?  GPT to Midjourney to upscale content and upload?

Yes, why should it not be allowed?

Firstly thanks for highlighting a growing problem.  But secondly, thanks for providing me with a laugh first thing this morning with those images!
[/quote]

Second! The fruit one is my favorite.

But I don't get how these get approved. I understand that sometimes image slook "right enough" at first glance and you do not notice mistakes immediatelly, like with insects that have to many or too little limbs. But everything is wrong about some of these pictures. How can a reviewer not notice this, even if he or she just looked  at the image for a second?

How is the Basic Plan different from the Standard Plan? Which plan is best for us?

The main difference is that the basic plan only lets you make 200 generations ( one generation is 4 images, so 800 images) and the standard plan lets you create unlimited images.

Got some money that can't be attributed to any sale, so I assume results are in? Unless this is the payment for the Ai training we never agreed to (in which case that little money would in no way make up for the damage that was caused).
The amount of images that are now listed when I select the "free" filter and the amount of money I got do not add up, I am missing like $100, so I am not sure what this is...

Quote from: stoker2014 on June 25, 2023, 10:04

At the expense of AI content, which one of the authors does not mark as AI content, well, here on the forum I have already discussed this issue, programs that create AI add this information to the file metadata.

You do realise it takes seconds to batch change any Metadata you want to remove things?

I already told him that, even explained to him how to remove the metadata, but he is resistant to learning, it seems.

Quote from: Her Ugliness on June 25, 2023, 11:34

Quote from: stoker2014 on June 25, 2023, 10:04

And what does MatHayward have to do with it?

He works for Adobe and is our only means of communicating with Adobe on this froum. So, when we have questons or concerns regarding Adobe, who else are we suppposed to address here than him?

You need to ask normal and correct questions, and not write a stream of hysteria. Many of the questions are completely stupid.

I did not ask these questions. 
And I do not think they are stupid at all, but real concern Adobe needs to address.

Quote from: Her Ugliness on June 25, 2023, 07:29

The only thing that has changed is that now you see a lot more people of color in these photos, but they look staged as ever.

But why pay attention to the color of people? It's something I don't pay attention to. Should we do it? Should there be color quotas?

Don't know how it is where you live, but in my country diversity has become a huuuuge topic in the past years, so now every company tries to include people of color in photo they use and also more women.
It's just a image marketing thing, nothing more. Statistics clearly show that not much has changed and in regards of what people are mostly put in leading business positions and I can tell you: It ain't people of color and it ain't women. But companies like to at least keep up the pretense that they were including everyone, thus both images that portray a company as well as their products now includes diverse people more often than in the past.
Would actually be a nice thing, if it was meant honestly and not just a marketing spin.

You're right, buyers want images that they can use effectively, and the source might not be their primary concern. However, when I mentioned "heart and soul", I wasn't implying that every stock photo needs to be a piece of fine art. What I meant was that human-created images, even those intended for commercial use, carry the "Made by Humans" trademark (which will probably be perceived as more valuable in the future) .

Nope. For "made by humans" art to be valued more in the future, the end customer would need to even be able to distinguish between AI generated images and human created images.

It's already hard to tell what is a real photo and what is AI generated now. I know many people still think they can spot the difference, but they are only focusing on the images that look over-edited or have errors in them, just simply missing all the AI images that really look like normal photos.

In the future it will just get harded to tell them apart. How are people to value one more over the other, when really no one can tell which one is which? The stock agencies are already full of mislabeled AI generated images, even the ones that don't allow them. Apparently reviewers can't even tell. Why do you think customers and their customers will be able to tell the difference?

We have already reached the point where people upload AI generated images and just claim they were their real photos. So how can human created art be valued more, when everyone thinks AI generated contend IS human created?



Btw - I foresee a different development: Instead of making real photos more expensice, agencies that accept AI images will offer AI imaged for even cheape , instead of making real photos more expensice. You'll make like 1-5 cents for an AI image sale. Then you'll have what you want: Real photos will cost "more". Though soon there will be so many AI images, than no customers will even find the real photos and 1cent is all we will be getting. 

My earnings shot up by $60 and I am pretty pissed.
There was, of COURSE, no option to opt out of this, like they claimed in the mail. I sent a mail to Bigstock asking about the opt out option and requesting my account to be closed if no such option was offered. Got a reply, that the option would be added within the next 24-48 hours. (Did not happen so far) But of course meanwhile my images have already been used to train some AI without my consent, just like with Shutterstock.   

I think they are just desperate for content to train their AI.
At this point it is not about having content their customers would be interested in buying anymore, it's just about collecting as much data (= our photos, illustrations and videos) as possible.

We have also put together this Bigstock FAQ to explain how datasets and the Contributor Fund apply to your Bigstock account, including the ability to opt-out from future data deals. As innovation of this ground-breaking technology continues, we�re excited to see Bigstock play an even larger part.

Did anyone figure out how to opt out of this? Because the FAQ does not explain it or even mention it.