I think it also happened to me - Though I can't say for sure, because when I look at the image, it only tells me whether it's Ai generated or not, not whether it is a photo or illustration - But I do not understand why this is even possible on Adobe's end. AI generated images must be submitted as illustrations, so the combination of checking the "Ai content" checkbox and selecting the photo catergory instead of illustration category should simply lead to an error message.

Checked: photos
Checked: Generative AI Only
181,533 results in all
Why did Adobe Stock became so... untrustable... and GREEDY?

I agree, just "pushing a button" is not what makes our images sell. Just "writing a prompt" is not what I do when I create content with the assistance of ai. The whole research, mood board, concept, design choices for color, lighting, angles....it does not happen by itself.

Realize that you only enjoy being a tool for AI, that is what you are. And in a near future, this tool will become obsolete. After all, you already decided to become obsolete for taking photos.

Generalized mediocrity, at all levels...
What is mediocre, false, is favored.

Adobe is making a fool of itself here by allowing contributors to feed the image database with all these laughable, pathetic productions. Customers will soon go buy their images elsewhere, at more serious image providers, that's a shame. They will quickly understand the risk of buying visuals that can make a professional publication ridiculous, especially for inconsistencies that would not be visible at first glance.
But maybe Adobe plans to work more with humorous social networks than with communication agencies, that can be a choice, why not. But I remain surprised.

I think that Adobe would have to benefit from closing the accounts of these "producers" of images who do not even control what they drop en masse in revision. 
In some time, cleaning the database will be very difficult with these millions of images which are validated without even having been inspected. Adobe will need a lot of volunteers to do this work. Times have changed.

Adobe Stock has a Discord server for contributors and it now includes a "Quality-Control" channel where contributors can post links to images that should not have been accepted in the first place, and these will be passed on to moderation for re-consideration.

When will "Quality-Control" channel where contributors could inspect the bin where real photographies should not have been placed in the first place, and these would be passed on to moderation for re-consideration?

BETTER?

I feel sorry but... No.
Why do you never check the images that AI generates for you! It might help you understand some pitfalls
Here is a correction:

I hope you did not already upload it to the stock sites! You should correct this before.
There are buyers who learned reading and writing, even for a language other than their mother tongue 

I think you are not interested in making money.
If you were ranting against people using ai to sneak them into art competitions instead of paining their own content or fake ai editorial images to be used by evil people on the internet for disinformation, I would happily join you in the crusade.
But you only seem to be here on some weird mission against being productive in stock.
Plenty of agencies don�t take ai. Why not just focus on them and create a stand out killer portfolio?

Ok mom. I'm going to tidy my room now.

If you know how to make money in stock, you will do it with any medium.

Sorry, but not me. And I am not the only one. I don't like Ai that makes the world smell too fake.
Is it so hard for you to consider that not all the people do act the same way that you do?

Portfolios of people selling AI generated images already in Recent top sellers at Adobe. In photos section!
https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/en/insights/best/contributors/photos

https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/202392224/Song_about_summer
https://stock.adobe.com/fr/contributor/211017537/juanm
https://stock.adobe.com/contributor/201597178/freshidea
...
If you go to the illustration top sellers, seems to be they are almost all AI "producers"... If not ALL:
https://contributor.stock.adobe.com/en/insights/best/contributors/illustrations

Making lots of money for everyone!!! (lol?  ):
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stock+images+AI+money

What is confusing about the dog with girl picture?

who told that? I wrote what I wanted to mean. I think that most people understand it.

And why is it more expressive than stock images???

This image sold on Adobe Stock is not a stock image?
 

It depends on the customers you are targeting. For German customers you need a lot of caucasian turkish looking mix, for the usa maybe more black and caucasian and latin, for the uk a lot pakistani/indian origin mixed with the typical white brits, for france more northafrican, cauvasian white mix etc�

Customers want content that represents their local community mix.

Otherwise your brand does not connect.

Therefore, you are looking for models of a certain color. And if a candidate does not have the right one, you tell him: "no thank you! you do not correspond to my search". Isn't that segregation? 

Can ai be worse than free images?

Sure!
here for example, where AI already manipulates your emotions. Nothing to do with Art here, but art of communication...
The buyer will want this image, not your real photograph which will be considered less expressive... the references change and this (d)evolution will make the reproduced real tasteless, insipid, hard to sell. Do honesty, authenticity... have no future?
Welcome to the brave fantastic/exciting new world.

https://stock.adobe.com/images/LetStandAgainstAI/611567956

[Edit]: and the lazy contributor did not even checked/corrected the image he uploaded...

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?

True, and even worse: every buyer can think that the reality based uploaded content that is stunning is AI generated...
 
Truth is lost, real is discredited, the singularity of the human work is made invisible, acquired skill has become obsolete...
The people who think great photos come by simply pressing the shutter button on the camera are people who certainly don't have photos that stand out among the top ones out of hundreds of thousands on an Adobe Stock query. And these are the people who are passionate about AI, easy to guess why...  Developing skills, staging in the real world, getting or waiting for the good conditions for natural light, manage the hazards when it comes to photographing the living, waiting for the perfect moment, managing/choosing the necessary equipment, etc... takes too much work and time to be competitive with AI. And the motivation of those who got the fair compensation for a job that requires time and skill disappears. 
My argument holds particularly for the photographers in whom I recognize a real talent, I am not self-centered and I will not speak of my gains in microstock as an argument of credibility. I've seen people do it, and I found it laughable. Humility has always been my engine to evolve, not an AI engine.

�The wind is rising!�We must try to live!� Paul valery/Miyazaki Hayao 

[Edit]: And I anticipate the reactions of AI enthusiasts: This is not about creating art, but about producing stock images that stand out. Buyers have needs that go beyond images of a pasta dish!

Generative AI is an exciting technology [...]

Generative AI is an exciting technology