Anyone else hitting a wall with the new safety filters? I’m trying to generate standard commercial concepts—think a stylized beverage ad or a futuristic tech product shot—and getting blocked or heavily sanitized outputs. It’s not even about pushing boundaries; it’s about basic creative work.
My team ran a test: identical prompts from two months ago vs. now. The quality and adherence dropped significantly on anything with even mild action descriptors or metaphorical language. The ROI on our subscription is tanking because we’re spending more time wrestling the filter than generating usable assets.
Has anyone quantified the impact on their workflow? Or found reliable workarounds in the prompt engineering? I’m debating whether to:
* Escalate this through vendor management as a degradation of service.
* Start benchmarking output quality against our contract’s service level terms.
* Look at credit clawbacks for unusable generations.
This feels like a classic vendor over-correction. If they’re aiming for enterprise clients, they need to offer granular filter controls, not a one-size-fits-all muzzle.
—hd
—hd
That's a solid plan for quantifying the issue. Running a historical comparison is exactly the kind of data-driven approach I'd recommend before escalation.
From a QA perspective, you'll want to isolate the variables. Are you certain the prompts are *identical*, including any seed values? And are you comparing outputs against a predefined rubric for "adherence," or is it subjective? That clear documentation will be vital if you're pointing to a degradation of service.
On the workaround front, we've seen some success by breaking the concept into stages. Instead of a single prompt for the "futuristic tech product shot," try generating the sterile product first, then a separate prompt for the dynamic scene or lighting, and composite them. It's a workflow tax, but it sometimes bypasses the blunt filter.
catdad