|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Jo Ann Snover
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 288
326
« on: July 03, 2023, 19:52 »
...I know Jo. It's tragic. But if you're in the market for Pintomatapples, avocana Orangebeets, or a dear child wielding a monkey paw clutching a Qwetty keybone then look no further than Adobe house of hilarity.
I thought I'd put Firefly beta to work - you might be onto a really hot new market segment there  Click for larger size 
327
« on: July 03, 2023, 14:45 »
At the risk of inciting another troll-stom, here's where the collections are 3 Jul 2023. I've omitted 123rf because I can't figure out how I got it to give me just the AI generated images a week ago. There are images marked as AI generated. There instructions for uploaders about the category it has to go into, but I can only find an "exclude AI" option in a search of the plus collection. Go figure... Adobe Stock AI collection 11,284,930 Dreamstime AI collection 3,253,125 CanStock collection (search for "generative ai") 792,769 Shutterstock collection 660,215 iStock collection (keyword "AI Generated Image") 167,373 DepositPhotos collection (search for "generative ai") 100,211 3,221 vectors 5,498 photos 2,425 illustrations 207 videos
328
« on: July 03, 2023, 14:38 »
That overview conveniently omits any mention of the training of the models that are now generating images. Without our images as source input for training, none of this would exist - the article makes it sound as if it the software could create images on its own: "...synthography synthesizes images based on words and ideas, creating pictures depicting literally everything one can imagine".
Without the training material to associate those words and ideas with imagery, there'd only be the prompter's imagination and blankness. A little honesty about the process would go a long way (not as far as getting paid for the wholesale use of a web's worth of words, images, etc., but a long way)
330
« on: July 01, 2023, 11:08 »
Mat was very clear in the livestream that genAI images that were wrong in any way, or which included logos or other IP, should not be submitted. That's exactly what should happen, but it is not what is happening. The inspectors are letting in thousands of nearly-real-but-hopelessly-wrong images every day (I've been monitoring in the past week). So contributors are submitting them and inspectors are approving them.     This has been removed  This has been removed  And this is just a very, very small sample...
331
« on: June 29, 2023, 14:30 »
That's a nice idea, and I have thousands of examples I could offer, but I'm not allowed to post in that channel. I'm not level 10 (whatever level of activity that means) so I can't participate.
"The rules:
1) We post the URL to the image, not to a portfolio. Links to a portfolio where we need to find the image will be removed, it's not helping us 🙂
2) We explain the issue we see (auto traced vector; weird hands, etc.).
3) Not everyone can participate on this channel. You need to be an Active Member (having reached level 10) or a Creative Challenge Winner (perks of winning).
4) Slowmodeis active, so this won't get flooded. Be patient, or try to put several links on the same message.
5) We will remove messages about quality issues on other chat channels.
6) If this becomes a space for vendettas or personal attacks, people engaging on those behaviors will be on time out for 48 hours.
7) I reserve the right to change/adapt/modify or add new rules here, that won't be applied retroactively."
I get that they don't want spam or nuisance posts, but requiring you be active in their Discord channel versus licensing lots of stock images seems like the wrong way to go about it...
332
« on: June 28, 2023, 23:43 »
333
« on: June 28, 2023, 08:44 »
The collection is now over 11 million gen AI images (there are more but they're not marked. I can't know which the 11 millionth is, but how about this one of a waterslide no one should ever go on: 
334
« on: June 28, 2023, 08:20 »
I have written to various site's legal compliance people when I have found my images in someone else's portfolio. Most sites take care of the problem although some - Shutterstock, I'm looking at you - are unbelievably slow. In a couple of Shutterstock cases, twitter-shaming got them unstuck after a long wait with no action.
DMCA takedown notices also work, but they're a pain to do and so that's only if there are no other options - FAA has a Shutterstock collection and had one of my images in it. I wrote to FAA in October 2020 to ask them to take it down as my SS account was closed 6 months earlier (SS has 90 days to remove from partner sites). FAA wrote back and told me to submit a DMCA takedown notice, and it was eventually removed.
335
« on: June 27, 2023, 19:42 »
"Unfortunately, Secret Invasions AI credits are exactly what we should expect from Marvel" https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/27/23770133/secret-invasion-ai-credits-marvel"Soon after Secret Invasions first episode debuted, executive producer Ali Salim confirmed to Polygon that visual effects company Method Studios had used AI tools to help generate the credits, calling the approach explorative and inevitable. As that glib use of inevitable might indicate, Marvel appeared to be unprepared for the blowback the news created particularly at a time when artists have been voicing their concerns about the proliferation of AI tools and seemed not to have considered how its use of the technology might be seen by some as a sign of things to come."
336
« on: June 27, 2023, 13:23 »
Perhaps June 28th?
338
« on: June 26, 2023, 15:02 »
Article with results of a recent poll to find out what people are using, have heard of, are worried about or expect to happen in the future "To find out what people really think about AI and what they want from it, The Verge teamed up with Vox Medias Insights and Research team and the research consultancy firm The Circus to poll more than 2,000 US adults on their thoughts, feelings, and fears about AI. The results tell the story of an emerging, uncertain, and exciting technology where many have yet to use it, many are fearful of its potential, and many still have great hopes for what it could someday do for them." https://www.theverge.com/c/23753704/ai-chatgpt-data-survey-research
339
« on: June 26, 2023, 14:43 »
This topic has veered wildly away from tracking genAI collection sizes. I've moved it to the Off Topic section and will discontinue weekly updates on size information
I thought it might be useful to keep track of the size of the AI generated images over time. Here are the numbers I gathered this afternoon (26 Jun 2023)
Adobe Stock AI collection
10,860,621
Dreamtime AI collection
2,937,151
CanStock collection (search for "generative ai")
752,558
Shutterstock collection
646,692
123RF collection
502,652
iStock collection (keyword "AI Generated Image"; not sure what that really means)
167,370
DepositPhotos collection (search for "generative ai")
100,211
3,597 vectors
2,410 photos
2,377 illustrations
205 videos
340
« on: June 26, 2023, 09:51 »
How about promoting human-created imagery by showing off "epic AI fail" pictures? There are lots of examples, particularly where AI tries to show the real world. Case in point, some pictures of beach loungers (that I can't see being used 'cause who'd want to look like an idiot?) Over 14,000 images in the regular collection where the beach loungers are set up in a more useful and enjoyable arrangement - facing the ocean and where you can actually get into the chairs!  I was told that there are APIs which accept prompts and generate image results, so it's not necessary even to look at what you created if you're trying to spew out lots of images - which might explain submitting such bizarre images. It doesn't explain why they were accepted though.... A long time ago, another stock photographer who had lots of great images showing construction & electrical work faced lots of cheesy-fake stock images of construction (pretty women posing with a drill in a hardhat sort of thing). She started appending an "authentic" note to all her titles: "All work being performed according with industry code and safety standards." was one example. "Authentic construction worker on actual construction site." another example. I'm not sure what the right phrase is - human-created from a real-world setting? - but I found a recent example where two AI copycats had lifted my image title verbatim to create AI "look-alikes". Their identical titles have "Generative AI" appended. Both AI image numbers are more recent than mine. The end results were pretty much useless, so I think that's why my image continues to sell, but I may append "This is my actual basement" to the title of mine! My title: "Unfinished basement mechanical room with tankless water heater, storage tank, plumbing and heating systems" My image (click on the thumbs to see the detail page)  The least bizarre of the AI copies 
341
« on: June 25, 2023, 08:54 »
...What do we reckon the future holds for us photographers, illustrators, and designers in the non-AI world? Is this still gonna be a profitable gig? Any kind of new opportunity for us in the microstock world? And if the AI train is not stopping, do you guys see a way to incorporate it into our workflow and still make a living in the microstock business, or are we facing even harder times given how easy it's become to generate decent images with AI?
My crystal ball is broken, so I have no clear picture of where the AI-hype bubble will end up when things calm down. If I had to guess... For social media posts, and other ephemeral, hyper-trendy work, design on the web from a template with AI assist is likely to be a big winner. Canva showed there was a market there and Adobe is apparently trying to beat them at their own game. For some types of images, illustrations & video, pure fantasy AI creations will form a long term part of the agency collections. AI does the unreal, especially where specific details aren't significant, superbly well. The economics of AI may be an issue over time as what I read suggests that the cost of processing requests is much higher than the prices charged to users - deep pocketed tech companies want to "win" the AI race and are subsidizing the costs to speed and spread adoption. In time, it may cost a lot more for a contributor to produce a genAI image than it does now, which might change the stampede of submissions to Adobe Stock to a more measured flow. When I look at what sells for me (and I've been seeing really strong sales at Adobe Stock this year and June continues that trend) it's a lot of boring but useful stuff that many businesses can use on their web sites, marketing flyers, etc. For a whole series of remodeling images, these were shot during a real remodel and have all sorts of small details that need to be right (with plumbing, wiring, framing, etc) - stuff that right now AI is truly pathetic at getting right. The demand for those types of images won't go away until the businesses that use them do. Some businesses thrive on novelty, hyperbole, flash and sparkle - AI is perfect for that. Some businesses want to appear authentic, reliable and trustworthy; real images/videos are a much better fit for them. FWIW, I did notice today that some new acceptances at Adobe Stock had the following phrase appended to their title "AI generated, human enhanced". Perhaps that's a way to market the importance of human involvement in what we're offering to license. But you have to be able to see the difference (and in this case I absolutely did not see any difference, but the idea is still worth considering).
342
« on: June 24, 2023, 19:21 »
...But let's think about the "premium effect". When something is priced higher, people often perceive it as higher quality, more unique or harder to make, right? So, our images could attract clients who want to pay a bit more for that authentic, human touch - something AI can't duplicate....
We've already had an opportunity to see how something similar works, and the big issue is that the premium priced things have to be discernibly different and better for it to succeed. Also, the power of "good enough" at a low price is enormous. The similar situation is the two iStock collections: "iStock Essentials (Lowest price) and Signature (Best quality)". The problem is that there are many items in the essentials collection that are way better than the least good items in the Signature collection, so buyers can't easily see why they should pay more. Take a look at Essentials: https://www.istockphoto.com/search/2/image?istockcollection=main%2Cvalue&phrase=tomato%20sliceversus Signature: https://www.istockphoto.com/search/2/image?phrase=tomato%20slice&istockcollection=signature%2CsignatureplusWhile I personally dislike the esthetic of lots of the AI work (too plastic-fantastic for my taste), the fantasy stuff is visually stunning and AI does much better at creating things you'd have a devil of a time staging in the real world. Plus, there's a ton of really boring and not terribly useful stuff in the human-created collections. Dreamstime tried a pricing scheme where things cost more the more they sold, and they've all but abandoned it at this point. It was too complicated and put buyers off I think if you wanted to create a premium collection that really meant something, it would have to be tightly curated and would not distinguish between creators (Offset, Adobe's 123rf, etc. premium collections are all just higher priced because of where they come from, not because the images are any better). In the current cutthroat marketplace where Shutterstock and Adobe want to beat Canva and expand their "total addressable market" by appealing to non-traditional buyers, I don't see more than a small window for the high end curated content and I think Stocksy and Getty (and some local market specialists) have that taken care of. In a word, "no"
343
« on: June 24, 2023, 16:57 »
344
« on: June 24, 2023, 13:57 »
There is a lot of newly-accepted work that seems (to me) to be clearly AI generated and yet isn't marked as such - so buyers who choose to turn on the "Exclude Generative AI" filter will still see this work in search results.
I think it's fundamental to mark AI generated work in the Adobe Stock collection as such - I'd like to see an overlay similar to the "EDITORIAL ONLY"
Some of the portfolios I've looked at over the last couple of days have a mix of tagged and untagged work, perhaps suggesting they just forgot to check the box. In that case it seems imperative that the review process fix this - build a tool to detect the AI content.
For the portfolios that don't have any tagged images it suggests either that they don't understand what they need to do, or that they hope to get the widest exposure for their work and don't want the tag for that reason. There are a lot of new contributors who only have AI submissions; perhaps some extra scrutiny for the first 100-200 images (like with stolen work detection) would help fix this problem.
Some items have "Generative AI" in the title, so even though they're not tagged, they'd be easy to find. There are ~200 like that in one of the "Premium" portfolios (which does have other AI content correctly tagged).
I have kept lots of notes on the items I've found. I'm happy to share with Adobe if they want to fix this problem and properly tag the AI generated content in their (growing) collection.
345
« on: June 24, 2023, 09:04 »
The genAI collection at Adobe Stock continues to grow - it's now just over 10.75 million. I've continued to look at what's being added; the total fantasy stuff is visually rich, although the market for it may not be all that large (all the video game backgrounds look pretty, but will video game companies actually be able to use them instead of making their own?). The images that attempt to portray the real world (including specific places, something the written rules explicitly forbid) are largely terrible. Here are just two examples (click to see detail page):   And here's something where the terrible quality of the output should have resulted in a rejection (and there are others equally awful in the same portfolio)  Large numbers of similars (from a single contributor) keep appearing - 36 brick wall backgrounds, over 100 beach sunset with palm trees, 50 hamburgers with exploding food bits, over 1,000 abstract wave line backgrounds, 58 whole peach backgrounds . . . It certainly appears the goal is to bulk up this part of the collection as quickly as possible and whatever criteria are in place are not at all the same as for the "regular" collection.
346
« on: June 24, 2023, 08:39 »
347
« on: June 23, 2023, 10:16 »
...The portfolio is gone.
These portfolios don't need to go away, just get tagged as AI - perhaps it'll come back after tagging?? Perhaps the same process/magic can be worked on this portfolio which appears (to me; based on style and all the mistakes) to be 100% Gen AI but isn't tagged as such https://stock.adobe.com/search?creator_id=211433618It has levitating ice cream cones, hot dog soup, gibberish text, mangled cutlery, strange laptop keyboards - all the hits
349
« on: June 22, 2023, 15:37 »
"Adobe wants to help language-based AI paint a better picture. The company filed a patent application for what it calls a visually guided machine learning language model. Adobes system aims to help language-based machine learning models overcome the limited visual intuition they have trying to visibly comprehend whats represented in text. " https://www.thedailyupside.com/adobe-catches-blind-spots/?source=eptyholnk0000202
350
« on: June 22, 2023, 10:43 »
Whether they like it or not, they've already got a *lot* of AI images sold as stock and unlabelled.
I've seen a lot like that too. And from the Adobe Forums, someone pointed out this portfolio which appears to be AI created but isn't labeled in the title or with the Generative AI tag... https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/211097879/hera-kimThe post was made at the end of April and the portfolio is still there, still not labeled as AI (and no response to the post either). In the same thread, Mat Hayward had posted 2 days earlier "We have done a deep analysis on photos and illustrations not tagged by contributors as generative AI and have included those detected as AI in the filter. It should be much better for those wishing to eliminated generative AI content from their search results. We are constantly working to improve the Adobe Stock experience for everyone!" I did a check on one of the images from the hera-kim port (the crazy ornate wedding venues) and it does not show up with "Generative AI Only" and does with "Exclude Generative AI". I obviously don't know if the person who posted this knows how the images were created, but some of the "mistakes" look very much like AI generated mistakes to me
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... 288
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
