The AI thread

[jnantz]

Does a wedding photographer really need to take 7500 photos? That sounds like a monkey with a typewriter approach

I wouldn't say s/he/they need/s to but unfortunately for richer/poorer/ better/worse, it's what the happy couple expects.

[Alan Klein]

AI is amazing, but it should signal an end for at least one element of photography---photographic proof/evidence/identity---whatever you want to call it.
How can an image be so skillfully created that it defies existence?
Crime scene photography admitted in court, photo identity cards/facial recognition, historic events and other breaking news, even medical imagery will soon need to be justly recognized as untrustworthy and obsolete, with nothing (as yet) to replace it.
Traditional photography can certainly be well manipulated, but not to the extent that AI imagery soon will be, if it isn't already.
Also consider that prints also have a domain of sorts, they come from somewhere and are vetted somewhere along the chain of custody. AI imagery has no such bounds that I'm aware of.
I don't know if this topic has been posted elsewhere, but thought I'd open it up for discussion and pondering.

Since all photos have to be vetted by a human who took and processed the image and presented as evidence in court, I don't think it will be more of a problem than Photoshop has been.

[Alan Klein]

I follow the Instagram account of a B&W Photography magazine (BnW Minimalism) - or at least I did follow that account until two days ago.
They posted an image that was obviously AI-generated and labeled it as a "photograph", which was very much a misrepresentation, and a lot of people noticed this and commented about this. A number of people stated that they felt that the magazine - which is about photography - was no place for AI-generated fauxtography, and I thought so too. I quit following that account after stating that I thought it was disingenuous to present such work as "photography". Whether or not the magazine realized this was a fake photo or not is unclear, but what is becoming apparent is that this technology is starting to leak into places once occupied only by "real" photography (including digital, to be fair) and its going to be difficult to know which is which going forward.

Part of me doesn't care what is happening with the introduction of this technology, since I will happily continue making work in the way that makes me happy, and if I do so only in my personal bubble, away from the eyes of others - then so be it. But I also recognize the damage AI is starting to inflict on the "art-making" community. I can't help but feel like this is the laziest tool ever thrust into the hands of wannabe "artists" whose efforts to craft imagery are no more than a few lines of text prompt, while the machine does all the work for them. We will always find new ways to amuse ourselves to death.

As a kid, I used to amuse myself with paint-by-numbers.

[Alan Klein]

It will definitely impact how I look at photos. It has drained the pleasure of looking at many photos because I suspect they might be AI.

I agree. I'll look and shrug my shoulders. Big deal. It was bad enough with Photoshop. Now you won't even need a camera. It's really a shame.

[paulbarden]

I agree. I'll look and shrug my shoulders. Big deal. It was bad enough with Photoshop. Now you won't even need a camera. It's really a shame.

None of this AI business stops YOU from doing what YOU want to do, of course.

[Merg Ross]

It will definitely impact how I look at photos. It has drained the pleasure of looking at many photos because I suspect they might be AI.

None of this AI business stops YOU from doing what YOU want to do, of course.

Paul, very true. I will continue doing what I want to do. However, as Pieter suggests, it may change how I look at Your work.

[Alan Klein]

Here's something to think about. How would we critique other people's photos in the future?
What would be the point?

[Michael R]

There wasn’t a point to begin with, and it will be the same as it has been - ie look at something and critique it if asked. People are making way to much of this. The thread was originally about photographs as legal evidence. That will continue to be a cat and mouse game as it has been. The rest doesn’t matter.

[Alan Klein]

There wasn’t a point to begin with, and it will be the same as it has been - ie look at something and critique it if asked. People are making way to much of this. The thread was originally about photographs as legal evidence. That will continue to be a cat and mouse game as it has been. The rest doesn’t matter.

I'm making it a point even if you;re not interested. Maybe others have some ideas about this.

Here's something to think about. How would we critique other people's photos in the future?
What would be the point?

[Michael R]

Ya and I’m claiming critiques are almost entirely useless, approaching 100% useless from random internet people. Actually come to think of it AI will probably give slightly more valuable criticism than people can.