The AI thread

[jnantz]

Yes it can be difficult to tell.

Once AI is in full control, our days will be spent filling energon cubes so there won’t be time for photography. Most of us will be in tent cities under derelict highways anyway so it will be tough to find a working darkroom, especially one with XTOL.

I don't know if XTOL will be the best choice of developers there will be a lot of FeO and it will cause a lot of hard feelings. most of us are already in tent cities &c... im not sure whose crystal radio you are listening to ...

[Tin Can]

Most of us are old and in the way

[linhofbiker]

All this doom and gloom.

Try this: in the not too distant future photography will be holographic combining video and stills at very high resolution. Lenses will gel-like similar to the human eye and storage will be in a crystal array. All this will be processed by a quantum computer at the speed of thought.

If you want to put an image on a wall, that too will be an option and it will be, at least, original IMAX quality.

Unfortunately I will no longer be around to see this.

In the meantime just be a photographer who can take images that are meaningful to the photographer.

Don't get too consumed by the merits of tools and techniques.

In the mean time I will do some 4x10 B/W with two Super Angulons: 121 and 165 f/8.

[axs810]

I think the biggest "hit" to photographers will be people questioning whether the photo they are viewing was made with AI or not. Questioning the artist/artwork as genuine rather than enjoying and consuming photography.

When anyone will be able to make fake / digitally create AI images it will in a way sort of discredit those skills photographers have learned over their lifetime. So in short it's a hit to people's egos in a professional way which in a capitalist world that can change people's identities.

[BrianShaw]

I’m planning on displaying prints in the future with the neg as a dyptich.

EDIT: And if not that, then as a Diptych.

[axs810]

I worry more about the use of photography in courts as evidence. Whether it's someone with a good lawyer trying to get out of something or an individual/authority figure using AI generated imagery as fake evidence.


edit/ I understand we can embed data into the photographs but seeing how social media is regulated. I don't have high hopes and expect people to be duped.

[BrianShaw]

Most of us are old and in the way

Speak for yourself, please.

[BrianShaw]

I worry more about the use of photography in courts as evidence. Whether it's someone with a good lawyer trying to get out of something or an individual/authority figure using AI generated imagery as fake evidence.


edit/ I understand we can embed data into the photographs but seeing how social media is regulated. I don't have high hopes and expect people to be duped.

The rules of photogrqaphs as evidence probably won't change, or need to be changed. If I'm not mistaken, as it is (US, specifically) photographs are admissable of both parties stipulate (agree) to their use as evidence; otherwise the party trying to introduce a photograph as evidence must testify to it's acuracy and veracity. Lying is still perjury and punishable as such. But I'm not a lawyer...

[Alan Klein]

I think the biggest "hit" to photographers will be people questioning whether the photo they are viewing was made with AI or not. Questioning the artist/artwork as genuine rather than enjoying and consuming photography.

When anyone will be able to make fake / digitally create AI images it will in a way sort of discredit those skills photographers have learned over their lifetime. So in short it's a hit to people's egos in a professional way which in a capitalist world that can change people's identities.

Nothing new. People have been asking, "Did you Photoshop it?" for a long time.

[Alan Klein]

The rules of photogrqaphs as evidence probably won't change, or need to be changed. If I'm not mistaken, as it is (US, specifically) photographs are admissable of both parties stipulate (agree) to their use as evidence; otherwise the party trying to introduce a photograph as evidence must testify to it's acuracy and veracity. Lying is still perjury and punishable as such. But I'm not a lawyer...

In a famous recent case, the prosecution submitted a photo in less than full resolution. It didn't clearly show that the defendant was protecting himself when he fired the gun at the "victim" as he claimed he was doing. When defense lawyers found out about the original, they forced the prosecutor to submit the original photo as evidence that clearly showed the defendant acting in self defense. The judge was so upset, he held the prosecutor in contempt of court and reserved the right to throw out the case and dismiss all charges at the end of the trial. The jury found the defendant not guilty in any case. So the judge didn't have to act on his statement.