A digital image can easily be converted into film, rendering that argument moot.
Anyone willing to fake evidence can find a way to do it, even if it means having someone else with the proper skills perform the work.Easy for you and me. Not easy for the average Joe.
A typewriter can be wired or machined to hook up to the internet. An AI written item can be copied down by hand. Anything is possible. We try to stay within the realm of normalcy.
What's different about AI?
Easy for you and me. Not easy for the average Joe.
A typewriter can be wired or machined to hook up to the internet. An AI written item can be copied down by hand. Anything is possible. We try to stay within the realm of normalcy.
I have family in education….
It would be trivial to train an off-the-shelf industrial robot to type on a typewriter or write in cursive.
Anyone willing to fake evidence can find a way to do it, even if it means having someone else with the proper skills perform the work.
It would be trivial to train an off-the-shelf industrial robot to type on a typewriter or write in cursive.
I do things like that while I am washing prints just so I don't get bored.
Right yes. I'll do that after lunch.
In my opinion, there are multiple levels of consideration to take on:
1. The Photoshop vs Chemical was a philosophical variation on tools used within the photographic community. This is computer code-generated "art" vs human inspiration, regardless of tools used.
2. The majority of apologists arguments that I have read for AI generated art can ultimately be reduced to a new "level of convenience" for the user (i.e., laziness) "Gee, I don't even have to drag my slacker ass off the couch to be an artist! How wonderful." It's kind of the ultimate consumation of the old jokes about automatic cameras that will eventually load themselves, venture forth, compose and shoot the image and hand you the image, only this time the camera keeps the rights to the images created.
3. The issue of Copyright and transparency loom large. I seriously doubt many people read or comprehend the Terms of Service on ChatGPT:
This is an existential threat to the concept of Human Creativity, probably due to human nature, as outlined in point #2 above.
Well now that photography can do itself and win competitions, there’s little more to do than handwringing!
This was the point I've always argued about Photoshop. Too many were cavalier about it's editing prowess and it's ability to create something from nothing. Now with AI, the chicken's come home to roost.
Photographers are going to lose their jobs to AI computer specialists. Many hobby photographers are going to say, "Why bother?" and dump their cameras.
I agree.
I do not think anyone is going to quit photography because of AI.
MY 55+ community has a photo club that competes once a year with other 55+ communities here in NJ. A few years ago, someone used the neon editing tool that makes the edges look neonish. Just click on the button in Photoshop. The judge didn;t know about the PS feature, was impressed, and awarded third place. All the members of my club were ticked off about it.
If entrants can start to use AI to produce all kinds of terrific pictures, why would anyone be interested in taking pictures with a camera and entering their ho-hum photo into the contest? Who would bother submitting their conventional photo for critique on photo forums?
I stopped going to camera clubs and of course first I stopped competing in camera clubs' monthly competitions. First of all I did learn a lot from the camera clubs' critique of the work of others and myself. After a while, I had won fairly often, I realized that
So I gave up on camera clubs decades ago.
- For me to win, others had to go home losers. I did not need the ego boost.
- Some of the judges, judged on weak or faulty criteria.
I agree.
I do not think anyone is going to quit photography because of AI.
No, but many who earn a living from photography will either have to embrace AI as part of their services (like so many had to learn or farm out retouching when Photoshop hit its stride) or see their income decline quite a bit. Ironically, photojournalists who in theory should be the least vulnerable, might find themselves competing with smartphone-armed kids using AI to create news images.
What's different about AI? There's much talk about the recent Sony award, and some of what's being said reminds me of the pushback from "purists" (for lack of a better term) against PS. A pushback that to my eye was much more virulent 20 years ago and seems to have largely subsided at this point.
I do not think anyone is going to quit photography because of AI.
No, but many who earn a living from photography will either have to embrace AI as part of their services (like so many had to learn or farm out retouching when Photoshop hit its stride) or see their income decline quite a bit. Ironically, photojournalists who in theory should be the least vulnerable, might find themselves competing with smartphone-armed kids using AI to create news images.
Many hobby photographers are going to say, "Why bother?" and dump their cameras.
The copyright issue could be dealt with by companies like Getty Images who sell stock photos already. If their stock photos are combined to create AI images, the originators could be paid a fee by the same stock photo companies. There would be no copyright violations. Companies and individuals who grab stuff off the web to create an AI image would be open to lawsuit. I'll bet these companies are already drawing up the legal paperwork to support this.
Is there a requirement somewhere that dictates we need to maximize the number of amateur photographers?
If 80% of the amateur photographers transition to amateur AI-image makers/selectors, I doubt we'll lose much in the end. We trade a truckload of uninteresting photography for a truckload of uninteresting AI imagery. People with time on their hands will still have a way to do something they consider fun with that time.
Much of the response to AI is just plain conservatism, based on the implied notion that it's best if things remain the way they are. Well, too bad - panta rhei.
Photographer Sues Getty Images For $1 Billion For Claiming Copyright On Photos She Donated To The Public
Highsmith-v-Getty-Images (PDF) Highsmith-v-Getty-Images (Text)www.techdirt.com
This Getty Images? Good luck with your royalty checks...
Plus most people take photographs because they enjoy it, not so they can go to a club and show off to win prizes. So throwing away your camera because someone made a "better" picture than you with AI does not make any sense. I think amateurs will be fine. I can see the commercial/fashion photographers (and their models) can be affected significantly if some of their work gets replaced by AI based content. Some of that is already been done.
:Niranjan.
just as they are doing now when their pictures are purchased.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?