|
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 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 291
401
« 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
402
« 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
403
« 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 
404
« 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).
405
« 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" 
406
« on: June 24, 2023, 16:57 »
407
« 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.
408
« 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.
409
« on: June 24, 2023, 08:39 »
410
« 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
412
« 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
413
« 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
414
« on: June 21, 2023, 20:24 »
416
« on: June 20, 2023, 16:57 »
It feels a bit like flogging a dead horse, but here's another example of some items accepted into the GenAI collection that should have been rejected. I know it's not news that AI can't spell, but accepting this work (and these were just a few examples) isn't helping customers in any way. Please have some creatives at Adobe take the C-suite folks aside and explain that filling the collection with unusable work is doing harm. Why would Adobe want to tarnish its reputation as a quality stock site?? Click on the small image to see the previews full size 
417
« on: June 19, 2023, 04:00 »
418
« on: June 18, 2023, 19:47 »
Assuming things are correctly labeled - which is a huge assumption when it comes to stock libraries.
On Adobe Stock, if you use the filter " Exclude Generative AI" and then use the search term "generative" there are somewhere around 600,000 images whose titles say they're created with Generative AI, but which aren't tagged and thus will show up in searches where buyers have explicitly said they don't want AI-created work. Some images may make the mis-labeling obvious though 
419
« on: June 18, 2023, 17:11 »
There are multiple thousands of seriously wrong flags in the GenAI collection, particularly US flags, and with Independence Day near, wouldn't it be great if the bogus flags could be disappeared? There are over half a million human-created ones that are fine to use. And perhaps the "quality" reviewers could be given the rules for flags so they don't let more of this stuff in. What possible advantage is there for Adobe Stock to have tens of thousands of mangled flags in the collection? There are many examples, but here's just a handful:   This has been removed  This has been removed 
420
« on: June 17, 2023, 08:08 »
...but what exactly is wrong with the Roti?
The back of the plate is completely missing - if you look at the PNG view on Adobe Stock it's easier to see the "hole" And it's not just nonsense lamps, look at the legs of the chairs - one has only three legs and the lengths are such that you couldn't possibly sit in them And have a "burger with egg" for breakfast while you're here 
421
« on: June 16, 2023, 19:55 »
422
« on: June 16, 2023, 07:27 »
As I've said a number of times, it is the agencies' responsibility to review content, for the protection of their customers (even if they don't give a toss about us as contributors). This is especially true with new portfolios - lots of the ones you posted had less than 100 in their portfolios.
I understand the agencies are trying to automate and cut the costs of the inspection process, but they're not doing a good job of that. They're fouling their own nests with this sort of short sighted cost cutting.
This struck me as funny (in a gallows humor sort of way). One of the people who stole your mushroom shot had apparently stolen other work and decided to add text to it (genius disguise, that...). Small problem in that he's too lazy to even add the greeting correctly.
424
« on: June 15, 2023, 12:26 »
Now, the rejections on Adobe get ridiculous. I had two photos of Cartagena (townhall and Roman theatre) rejected because they are too similar to previously submitted photos in my portfolio. I have never been to Cartagena before, so these two are my first photos of Cartagena ever submitted. In my portfolio of 2500 images I have 8 pics of town halls of several cities. Does this rejection reason mean that the townhall of city A is too similar to the townhall of city B? And I am not allowed to submit photos of townhalls of different cities? What worries me, people get their account closed because of similarity. So, when I submit a further townhall from another city I will risk to get my account closed? I dont understand these rejection rules and how a reviewer (AI?) can think the townhall of city A is the same as of city B.
On the "too similar" rejection, that doesn't appear to apply to genAI uploads. I just counted 31 closeup pictures of one eye of a tiger's face - from one contributor and all consecutive (meaning I think they were all uploaded together). Edited to add 53 near identical "exploding" hamburgers, likewise from just one contributor. This drunk-on-the-greatness-of-genAI just results in a pollution of an otherwise great collection of content...
425
« on: June 15, 2023, 12:09 »
...This is getting tres weird.
Really, really topsy turvey. I seriously doubt that this image would have been accepted other than because it was tagged as AI - the cutout job is pathetically bad. Not even in the ballpark. It was accepted some time earlier today. 
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 291
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
