The AI thread

[Drew Wiley]

18,000 banal pictures don't say much either. But there's probably 180 billion banal pictures on the web, and even if Ai triples that number, it won't change much of anything in that respect.

[jnantz]

18,000 banal pictures don't say much either. But there's probably 180 billion banal pictures on the web, and even if Ai triples that number, it won't change much of anything in that respect.

there's nothing wrong with banal and over the top, it's the impactful of now seeing all of humanity is over stimulates.. and everything else is done to death.
im guessing aside from the internet, it's all the radio wave transmission and receiving towers and people's dental work and prosthesis vibrating at a certain frequency ...
We're living in a Philip K Dick moment, again ...

[BrianShaw]

Ha, I put 2 banal pictures on the internet yesterday and got 2 likes. Images of the breakfast I had at a greasy spoon diner attached to a bowling alley. To me that’s a complete success… from many perspectives !

[Michael R]

I'm picturing the type of motel/greasy spoon breakfast photographs Stephen Shore made. Anyway, "banality" is essentially in the eye of the beholder.

Ha, I put 2 banal pictures on the internet yesterday and got 2 likes. Images of the breakfast I had at a greasy spoon diner attached to a bowling alley. To me that’s a complete success… from many perspectives !

[BrianShaw]

Self-proclaimed…

But is 1 banal picture worth 1,000 banal words?

[Tin Can]

I just bought more 26 hour candles by the case

Winter is coming

[Michael R]

But is 1 banal picture worth 1,000 banal words?

According to the other guy it's 10,000 words.

[BrianShaw]

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2022/07/22/picture-words/

[Sal Santamaura]

it's funny because your nearly 18,000 posts would make excellent fodder for a large language ai model to imitate your banal posts...

Bryan!

[Alan Klein]

Just more addiction to the newest electronic toys in lieu of the real deal, creatively. Other than a light meter, if it needs a battery, I don't need it, when it comes to capture. And I do mean capture, not concoction. Ai is already on its inevitable path in medicine, manufacturing, and warfare - some of which are patently destructive. Why add one more thing to the latter category of application? But the original question was, what is going to become of photography? - nothing different, since Ai doesn't represent photography at all, but something else entirely. Call it whatever you want - Fakeography, Lardassography, Alternative Idiocy, whatever - but it's not photography.

AI isn't photography but it will affect it.