The AI thread

[bdkphoto]

I just remembered. Adobe was advertising the same service as Magnum that all their originating photos for AI are theirs. They're not just scooping them off the web illegally.

Getty not Magnum, and there are still active lawsuits against those AI companies that used the Getty collection imagery without a license agreement. Adobe asks its users if they would like to opt in for its AI training.

[Alan Klein]

Getty not Magnum, and there are still active lawsuits against those AI companies that used the Getty collection imagery without a license agreement. Adobe asks its users if they would like to opt in for its AI training.

Thanks for the correction, Bruce.

[Sal Santamaura]

...There are people creating this stuff and calling it Photography, which is most definitely is not...

It's not? If anyone can decide what "art" means, why can't anyone decide what "photography" means? You know, all that "it's their own truth" "stuff."

[Tin Can]

5 Things that Killed Photography

https://youtu.be/paAVmJPhzME

[Drew Wiley]

"Five Things that killed off what was kitchy and predictable to begin with", like bullfrogs eating each other. But I didn't know Natl Geo stopped actual magazine publication. Is that true? I cancelled my subscription once the new editor ordered up cheap matte paper with bland digital imagery on it, some of it blatantly manipulated. That was the end of an era for me. The pictures never did interest me in any esthetic manner, except rarely. But at least they had journalistic integrity backing up the written articles. It was nice casual reading about the world. But once it got dragged down into the same rabbit hole of political pontification like everything else, along with just more of the same digital imagery pranks, even if noted as such, it wasn't worthwhile reading or viewing for me anymore. Now what do they do for income? Try to sell corn dogs and cotton candy on their cable TV channel?

[Michael R]

Drew I thought you’d say Lik killed photography

Five Things that killed off what was kitchy and predictable to begin with, like bullfrogs eating each other. But I didn't know Natl Geo stopped actual magazine publication. Is that true? I cancelled my subscription once the new editor ordered up cheap matte paper with bland digital imagery on it, some of it blatantly manipulated. That was the end of an era for me. The pictures never did interest me in any esthetic manner, except rarely. But at least they had journalistic integrity backing up the written articles. It was nice casual reading about the world. But once it got dragged down into the same rabbit hole of political pontification like everything else, along with just more of the same digital imagery pranks, even if noted as such, it wasn't worthwhile reading or viewing for me anymore. Now what do they do for income? Try to sell corn dogs and cotton candy on their cable TV channel?

[Drew Wiley]

No. He just licked off the drippings of what was melting on its own anyway. While I have justifiable worries about Ai in its inevitable propaganda falsehood applications, which have already begun, me and my 8x10 simply ignore the "artistic" implications. If people can't tell the difference, then they might as well go out and keep buying mere kitch from the usual suspects.

[Pieter]

No. He just licked off the drippings of what was melting on its own anyway. While I have justifiable worries about Ai in its inevitable propaganda falsehood applications, which have already begun, me and my 8x10 simply ignore the "artistic" implications. If people can't tell the difference, then they might as well go out and keep buying mere kitch from the usual suspects.

What frightens me is the younger generations can't tell the difference between AI imagery and actual photographs. They have been looking at so many video game characters and heavily retouched photos that they don't know what reality looks like. An example: The official Ilford Instagram account recently reposted a portrait of a young lady that was very obviously AI generated. It only leads me to believe whoever is running that account doesn't have a clue.

[paulbarden]

Somebody at Ilford is gonna wake up to a real headache in a few hours.....
How on earth Ilford's Instagram moderator didn't spot this crap as AI-generated is beyond me. I'm curious to see when (or IF) they take this post down. The many comments on the post are all outraged that Ilford would promote this image as if it were made on THEIR PRODUCT. I gotta admit, I'm wavering between disappointment and anger myself.

[gypsydog]

Okay. I have taken a deep breath (as suggested) and given it a great deal of thought.
AI = Anti-Intelligence.