Artificial intelligence.

[Milpool]

Those were some fun times. I was just starting my slavery and equity investing for many was

“I just got a great stock tip on this company”
“What do they do?”
“I don’t know but it’s on NASDAQ”
“Put me down for 10,000 shares”

AI will be for

War
Selling crap people don't need.
Stealing
Pornography

Useful AI will be for aiding the piloting of vehicles, steadying the hand of a surgeon. Universal instantaneous translations. etc.

I expect AI will be a commercial flop. Like the Dot Com bubble.

 

[Pieter12]

Still takes a lot of skill and money to make AI work. Real will be around for a long time.

Based on what?

 

[Sirius Glass]

The AI in photography that would be useful is AI that as one presses the shutter, AI would as needed adjust the lighting, exposure and focus, move or rearrange objects to improve the composition, remove any trash in the field of view.

 

[mshchem]

Based on what?

AI will never be able to make twice cooked fried potatoes and left over cold roast beef sandwiches like my father could.
AI will replace easily copied and rote behavior. Humans will still do human things. Hopefully wealth doesn't continue to be concentrated.

 

[koraks]

Wealth is like mass. It gravitates towards itself.

 

[Pieter12]

The AI in photography that would be useful is AI that as one presses the shutter, AI would as needed adjust the lighting, exposure and focus, move or rearrange objects to improve the composition, remove any trash in the field of view.

If AI could delay the shutter until all the subjects eyes were open, that would be quite useful to some. Or merge the best faces in a sequence for a group photo.

 

[koraks]

If AI could delay the shutter until all the subjects eyes were open

It actually does something similar on most modern smartphones. And at least tells you if people had their eyes closed.

Or merge the best faces in a sequence for a group photo.

Auto-merging of several images has also been standard on iPhones for several years.

 

[Pieter12]

It actually does something similar on most modern smartphones. And at least tells you if people had their eyes closed.


Auto-merging of several images has also been standard on iPhones for several years.

But it has yet to be incorporated into a camera that an event photographer would use. That would be a useful feature.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

How does auto-merging work indoors if you need a flash?

 

[Pieter12]

How does auto-merging work indoors if you need a flash?

Why would that make any difference?

 

[BMbikerider]

AI is NOT an art - it is a corruption of views and reality and has no place even mentioned alongside anything to do with 'art' as it .is generally accepted

 

[koraks]

AI is NOT an art

That's not what this thread is about though.

 

[BMbikerider]

That's not what this thread is about though.

OK then.
AI does not even deserve to be mentioned on pages like this it is a corruption of the word of 'photograph', with about as much kinship to reality as a computer game when compared to say world championship Snooker where it takes real skill developed over many years to succeed.

They are worlds apart.

 

[koraks]

it is a corruption of the word of 'photograph'

That's also not what this thread is about - or at least not what it started off as, or not in my understanding in any case. The central question asked is whether it would make this website superfluous. Since this website consists mostly of discussion about technical topics associated with photography, and only to a much lesser extent an image-sharing platform (although people seem to be using the Gallery a bit more recently than they have been doing in the past years), the question is not so much about AI being used as image-generating tool.

In your example concerning snooker, the matter at hand here is whether AI could have a role in, say, summarizing the results of a snooker match, or whether it could be used to find characteristics of snooker apparel used by successful players. Not whether AI would be a good snooker player. That's a different matter.

What is telling, in my view, is that despite that this thread didn't ask a question that pertains to AI as potentially taking the place of photography, this is what people seem to want to discuss. This strikes me as odd, because the people who spin it in this direction generally are very explicitly negative or critical about it. Then why put it central to a discussion, time and again, even if it doesn't need to be? It doesn't make any sense to me. It's like walking into a bakery yelling that poop should never be used as an ingredient for a cake. Well, it wouldn't have to be, but if you bring it up, then we'll have to talk about it. Did we need to talk about it? Definitely not. So why go there?

 

[koraks]

PS: the example of snooker is a bit unfortunate since snooker matches are very much about competing on the basis of human capability. It's a bit like chess; it's nowadays easy to get a computer to play chess better than most pro chess players. Or like Tour de France - any motorcycle will go a lot faster than a bloke on a bicycle. That's not the point, though, of chess or cycling championships. It's about human ability.

Photography doesn't have a very good parallel in this, in my view, since photography isn't a specific human ability that we can objectively compare and thus compete on.

Where there is a good parallel, is in the enjoyment of the process as such. Plenty of people play snooker (or billiards, or 8-ball) for fun, play chess because they enjoy the mental puzzle or cycle to empty their minds and exercise their muscles. The value is inherent to the activity, and it's highly particular to the individual and the human experience. That's very much true for esp. amateur photography. We do it because we like it. Which takes me back to my first response to this thread: OF COURSE AI can't replace an amateur photographer, because the value is not in the photos - it's in the enjoyment of the process.

I could invent a machine that composts a tasty restaurant meal and position it right there so I wouldn't have to bother go out there and eat it myself. Still, the idea doesn't appeal to me. The simple reason is that I like going out to a restaurant to have that tasty meal, and nobody really cares whether my excrement is of a higher quality than what a composting machine might produce.

 

[koraks]

Since this website consists mostly of discussion about technical topics associated with photography, and only to a much lesser extent an image-sharing platform (although people seem to be using the Gallery a bit more recently than they have been doing in the past years), the question is not so much about AI being used as image-generating tool.

PPS, adding to this, I very much realize that AI would do magnificently in outputting the sort of posts that we like to make here, so perhaps it does render us superfluous:

Why Amateur Photography Is Irreplaceable — And Why AI Threatens the Arts
Every few months someone declares that AI will “replace” photography, especially amateur photography. And every time I hear it, I can’t help but think: this argument completely misunderstands what photography is and why people do it.
Photography isn’t just about producing an image. If it were, then yes — AI can spit out a technically perfect picture in seconds. But amateur photography has never been about technical perfection. It’s about experience, presence, observation, and authorship. These are things no algorithm can replicate.
1. Photography is a way of being in the world
When someone goes out with a camera — whether it’s a 4×5, a Rolleiflex, or a phone — they’re not just “collecting pixels.” They’re:
• noticing light
• paying attention to their surroundings
• slowing down
• engaging with people
• learning to see
AI can generate an image of a sunset, but it can’t replace the act of standing in the cold waiting for the light to break through the clouds. It can’t replace the conversation with a stranger who becomes a portrait subject. It can’t replace the thrill of nailing a shot you didn’t think you could pull off.
Photography is a practice. AI is a shortcut. And shortcuts don’t create meaning.
2. Amateur photography is the backbone of visual culture
People forget this, but the vast majority of the world’s photographic heritage — the images that actually matter to families, communities, and history — were made by amateurs:
• parents photographing their children
• travelers documenting places that no longer exist
• hobbyists recording their neighborhoods
• students experimenting with identity
• friends photographing each other growing up
AI can fabricate a “vintage‑looking family photo,” but it can’t replace the real one. It can’t replace the emotional weight of this was us, then. It can’t replace the authenticity of lived experience.
When we lose amateur photography, we lose the raw material of collective memory.
3. AI threatens the arts by eroding authorship
Art is not just the final product — it’s the trace of a human mind. It’s the sum of:
• choices
• mistakes
• limitations
• obsessions
• personal history
AI-generated images have no authorship. They have no point of view. They have no lived experience behind them. They’re statistical hallucinations stitched together from other people’s work.
When AI floods the visual landscape with infinite, frictionless imagery, it becomes harder for human-made work — especially amateur work — to be seen, valued, or even recognized as distinct. The danger isn’t that AI will “replace” artists. The danger is that it will drown them out.
4. Amateur photography is irreplaceable because it is personal
AI can generate a “perfect” portrait of a fictional person. But it cannot generate:
• the awkward smile of someone you love
• the way your child looked at age six
• the exact light in your grandmother’s kitchen
• the feeling of being there
Photography is a record of your life, your relationships, your perspective. AI can imitate aesthetics, but it cannot imitate you.
5. The arts need friction — AI removes it
Every meaningful creative discipline involves:
• effort
• uncertainty
• failure
• discovery
These are not obstacles; they are the engine of creativity. They’re what make the result matter.
AI removes friction. It removes the struggle. It removes the need to learn, to practice, to grow. And when you remove those things, you don’t get “better art.” You get content — endless, interchangeable, disposable content.
The arts cannot survive if everything becomes content.

In the end, amateur photography survives because it is human
AI can generate images. But it cannot generate:
• intention
• memory
• presence
• connection
• authorship
• meaning
Amateur photography is irreplaceable because it is not about the image — it is about the photographer.
And that is something no machine can ever be.

I've not really read most of that, but skimming over it, it seems to have appropriately expressed itself in agreement with me, as any self-respecting LLM app at this point in time should do to optimize market penetration.

More importantly, posting that AI output above doesn't really satisfy me very much, because even though it might bring the point across in a more effective and eloquent manner than I could have, I didn't get the satisfaction of hammering down the point. To a large extent we're not here for the message or for listening to it. We're here to do some talking, because it's nice to speak your mind. Just like 'expressing yourself' through photography (honestly, I push the button and like going through the motions needed to see the end result materialize; does that qualify as 'expression'?), that's the inherent value of the activity. AI can't do that for me.

So I feel the whole thing is pretty much a moot point anyway.

 

[BMbikerider]

That's also not what this thread is about - or at least not what it started off as, or not in my understanding in any case. The central question asked is whether it would make this website superfluous. Since this website consists mostly of discussion about technical topics associated with photography, and only to a much lesser extent an image-sharing platform (although people seem to be using the Gallery a bit more recently than they have been doing in the past years), the question is not so much about AI being used as image-generating tool.

In your example concerning snooker, the matter at hand here is whether AI could have a role in, say, summarizing the results of a snooker match, or whether it could be used to find characteristics of snooker apparel used by successful players. Not whether AI would be a good snooker player. That's a different matter.

What is telling, in my view, is that despite that this thread didn't ask a question that pertains to AI as potentially taking the place of photography, this is what people seem to want to discuss. This strikes me as odd, because the people who spin it in this direction generally are very explicitly negative or critical about it. Then why put it central to a discussion, time and again, even if it doesn't need to be? It doesn't make any sense to me. It's like walking into a bakery yelling that poop should never be used as an ingredient for a cake. Well, it wouldn't have to be, but if you bring it up, then we'll have to talk about it. Did we need to talk about it? Definitely not. So why go there?

Exactly that is why it should have no place on the forum.

Yes I am critical and VERY negative about it per se' as far as photography is concerned. It has proved and already lead to an improvement in the medical field with diagnosis and treatment but the opportunities that AI offers those who are quite happy to plagiarise or entirely fabricate an image [redacted; political].

 

[koraks]

Exactly that is why it should have no place on the forum.

I don't understand. If someone has a technical question that AI could easily answer, what's wrong with that?
Did you know AI is being used extensively in managing this forum? Mind you, not in terms active moderating or policy-making, but to do some of the heavy lifting in terms of coding, maintenance etc. Evidently, AI has a place in this forum in that sense. It already occupies that place. So far we've heard zero complaints about it. To the contrary, from time to time @Sean is applauded (rightfully so, IMO) for his diligent work in keeping things running quite smoothly overall.

AI is used intensively already, and has been for a few years, in connecting international photographic communities on this forum. For instance, without AI, there would be no practical way to communicate with most of our Chinese members, virtually all of whom have joined this forum since and because of the accessibility of online translation tools (which are one of the first mass applications of LLM's = AI).

Increasingly, we see people using AI for idea generation in a problem-solving context (what possible causes contribute to an issue) or solving parts of bigger problems. Yes, there are sometimes issues associated with the reliability of the output. As has been said before in this thread, there are severe issues with the reliability of human output just the same. This forum, like others, is rife with incorrect, incomplete information being handed out by actual humans. It's not a major issue as long as those who are aware of the problem, comment and rectify.

So what, exactly, is the problem? Your "exactly that..." doesn't explain it to me in any way, to be honest. Yes, it would explain it if the issue at hand were the question "should AI images be allowed on the forum." But we've been there. We had that discussion. It can be summarized as follows:
* General consensus: no AI imagery on the forum.
* Exception made by @Sean before the discussion ever took place: the dedicated AI subforum (where we are now).
* Situation as it is now: virtually nobody has shown interest in posting AI imagery, regardless.
Again, it's a different discussion from the one we're having now. Hope this helped in getting you up to speed.

 

[loccdor]

AI is partially useful and partially flawed in its current state. So this forum continues to be a place where important photographic questions can be answered. Perhaps even the only place in many cases.

Most recently, AI gave me two different (both wrong) answers on the size of lens board hole I would need for a 1924 lens. I asked the question on two different days and gave as much data as I could. Nothing was available in internet searches. A forum member was able to give me an answer accurate to the tenth of a millimeter, same-day.

 

[BMbikerider]

Strewth, give me strength. I give up!

When will you come to accept that AI created images and photography whether it be film based with chemicals and a darkroom with actual negatives or using a digital camera (which I realise will have some AI input,) because those images will have been be seen by the photographer, not created by plagiarising ideas from others from whatever source. They are simply and bluntly NOT photography!

The very word 'photography' came from the interpretation of the Greek language and was understood to mean 'Writing With Light.'
AI images are no more like writing with light, which has about as much resemblance to photography as a steak sandwich being the same as a vegetarian one.

When digital photography became reasonably usable around 25 years ago the use by police forensic teams were at first unable to use it until software became available where it could be proved that an image to be used in a court of law was original and had not been materially altered to change evidence which could have been presented to incriminate someone. The electronic 'paper footprint' that had to be available if needed in court had to be designed and proved to work before they were admissible as evidence in an English court.

Yes DI has it uses in the field of medicine, and progress in other fields, but that is not stealing others peoples work, but pushing forward technology and research, nor is it pretending to be something else. In the right hands it is fine, but not when it is compared to pure photography. Where will it end? Already scammers are having a field day with the possibilities.

 

[Pieter12]

Strewth, give me strength. I give up!

When will you come to accept that AI created images and photography whether it be film based with chemicals and a darkroom with actual negatives or using a digital camera (which I realise will have some AI input,) because those images will have been be seen by the photographer, not created by plagiarising ideas from others from whatever source. They are simply and bluntly NOT photography!

The very word 'photography' came from the Greek language and was understood to mean Writing With Light
AI images are no more like writing with light, which has about as much resemblance as a steak sandwich being the same as a vegetarian one.

When digital photography became reasonably useful the use by police forensic teams were at first unable to use it until software became available where it could be proved that an image to be used in a court of law was original and had not been materially altered to change evidence which could have been presented to incriminate someone.

Yes DI has it uses in the field of medicine, and other research, but that is not stealing others peoples work, but pushing forward technology and research, nor is it pretending to be something else. In the right hands it is fine but not when it is compared to pure photography. Where will it end? Already scammers are having a field day with the possibilities.

I don't think anyone has claimed that AI is photography. It s a tool, like a camera or digital illustration program. Get over it.

 

[BMbikerider]

I cannot get over what is tantamount to dishonesty and the ability to use it for that purpose is. You may have a lax attitude to that standard of morals, but I haven't.

If Koraks reads this, then will you please delete my details from this forum, I do not want anything more to do with it.

 

[Pieter12]

I cannot get over what is tantamount to dishonesty and the ability to use it for that purpose is. You may have a lax attitude to that standard of morals, but I haven't.

If Koraks reads this, then will you please delete my details from this forum, I do not want anything more to do with it.

AI can be used for immoral purposes. So can many other forms of communication. I am not condoning such use, but many art forms have a long history of being the employed for the purpose of lies and propaganda. AI will continue to be used by many that way. It puts an additional burden on an already uneducated and unsophisticated audience to determine if what they are seeing is in fact what some would have them believe it is. As if many care to begin with. They drink the Kool-Aid.

 

[koraks]

I cannot get over what is tantamount to dishonesty and the ability to use it for that purpose is. You may have a lax attitude to that standard of morals, but I haven't.

If Koraks reads this, then will you please delete my details from this forum, I do not want anything more to do with it.

As to the latter request - I can't, and if you're serious, please reach out to @Sean instead.

I'm not sure about the 'tantamount to dishonesty' stuff. Plenty of people use AI for things like technical assistance in programming, doing office work etc. That's the kind of stuff we use it for in the Photrio backoffice. I don't see any dishonesty or in that.

I think you're overreacting based on an incomplete and erroneous idea of what Ai is about. It's a vast, complex field with infinite applications. There are ethical considerations involved, as is always the case with technology, esp. the kind of technology that's societally transformative. That doesn't make it inherently good or bad. Blaming people for using Ai is counterproductive and amounts to shooting yourself in the foot. My wife, a healthcare professional, uses Ai to better help her patients. Does she have a lax standard of morals? I'd like to see you say that to her face.

 

[cliveh]

The physical integrity of film made by a human being is shared by the physical integrity of oil on canvass made by human beings, or pencil on paper, or watercolour, or acrylic. need I go on . AI is make believe.