How will AI affect "making" versus "taking" photo's?

[Ron789]

AI is rapidly getting better at "making" photo's. But AI is not capable of "taking" photo's. Well.... for now. Maybe one day there will be AI driven robots, drones etc. that autonomously go out to "take" great photo's in the real world based on their own (artificial) intelligence and interest, just like photographers do today... who knows.....
Is there still a future for photographers "making" photo's? What route should they take to distinguish themselves from AI generated photography?
Or should photographers from now on focus on "taking" photo's (documentary, sports, journalism etc.) and leave the "making" to AI?
Personally, I mostly "take" photo's and only occasionally "make" photo's, just for the fun of it. But for those who make a living from photography for sure AI will be a game changer. Your thoughts?

 

[retina_restoration]

AI does not make photographs. It can make photorealistic simulations of photographs but by definition, what AI makes is not photography. Many are referring to this kind of illustration as "Promptography".

 

[RalphLambrecht]

AI does not make photographs. It can make photorealistic simulations of photographs but by definition, what AI makes is not photography. Many are referring to this kind of illustration as "Promptography".

grat term and it may be an art by itself.

 

[retina_restoration]

grat term and it may be an art by itself.

I see no reason why it can’t be regarded as its own category of art. But many people refer to it as photography, which it is not.

 

[koraks]

Is there still a future for photographers "making" photo's? What route should they take to distinguish themselves from AI generated photography?

Sure, there's a future for human photographers. Keep in mind that the majority of landscape etc. photography hasn't been very innovative for the past 80 years or so to begin with, so the question may have played around in the background much longer than many of us had realized. Apparently most of us who practice photography in less-than-innovative fashion (which is the vast majority of amateur & pro photographers) haven't been bothered too much by the notion that "it's been done before". I doubt we will bother much by a similar "it's being done by something else as well".

From an artistic viewpoint, in my view the processes of conceptualization and embedding human meaning into a work of art (as it's made as well as when it's being 'consumed' by the public) are essential. These cannot be substituted by AI as we presently know it, as AI is not sentient, does not actually understand or feel anything and therefore isn't capable of sensemaking. In this sense, AI hasn't even put as much as a dent into artistic photography.

The whole problem is much less of an issue than people seem to realize, and arguably doesn't even exist.