The AI thread

[John Layton]

So, Mr. Can...when the "post truth" era does pass, as all things indeed must...does this equate to a double-negative - and thus a "new truth" era? Hmmm...and what might that look like

[Richard Wasserman]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...=pocket-newtab

We evidently need AI to determine if a photo is generated by AI...

[jp]

So, Mr. Can...when the "post truth" era does pass, as all things indeed must...does this equate to a double-negative - and thus a "new truth" era? Hmmm...and what might that look like

Sounds like it portends to newspeak?

Sort of like modern in no longer modern but vintage stuff baby boomers parents had. Or if AA was modern, most of his students have passed on from old age.

[linhofbiker]

Some thoughts on Artificial Intelligence (AI):

Having spent a lifetime in IT starting at the machine level in 1966 all I can say is that the desire of AI to create a sentient being will never happen. Sentient beings are based on life as we know it. "Intelligence" crafted in silicone ie, the transistor in integrated circuits is only a way of processing huge amounts of data to recognize patterns that can be applied to current and future problems. No matter how many concurrent processors are involved they all use the original Von Neyman (spelling ?) architecture that implies a series of steps processed in a linear fashion. Until Quantum computing is practically realized a sentient being must have the ability to truly parallel process a problem. This extremely hard to do from a programming point of view.

I think this applies to Photography as well as most disciplines involving humans. AI will not be able to really create something completely new.

[Alan Klein]

Some thoughts on Artificial Intelligence (AI):

Having spent a lifetime in IT starting at the machine level in 1966 all I can say is that the desire of AI to create a sentient being will never happen. Sentient beings are based on life as we know it. "Intelligence" crafted in silicone ie, the transistor in integrated circuits is only a way of processing huge amounts of data to recognize patterns that can be applied to current and future problems. No matter how many concurrent processors are involved they all use the original Von Neyman (spelling ?) architecture that implies a series of steps processed in a linear fashion. Until Quantum computing is practically realized a sentient being must have the ability to truly parallel process a problem. This extremely hard to do from a programming point of view.

I think this applies to Photography as well as most disciplines involving humans. AI will not be able to really create something completely new.

Neither current digital computers nor future quantum computers have a soul, heart, moral compass, or emotions so they can never "think" as a human does. The most they'll be able to do is make decisions based on what some 27-year-old single geek living in his parent's basement decides when he writes the software. I don't think we should leave the red button in his hands.

[Per Madsen]

The problem is not Artificial Intelligence , but Artificial Stupidity.

[Sal Santamaura]

The problem is not Artificial Intelligence , but Artificial Stupidity.

Actually, the largest problem is natural, organic stupidity. The population of this planet has that in spades.

[Drew Wiley]

AI tech will only be doing what it is programmed to do - replace foolish humans, and do foolish things by itself. It will be interesting to see what happens when it is asked to take a "selfie" of itself.

[jnantz]

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.

hi John

the internet already paved the way for non factual "stuff" to be unvetted and passed off as truth, if it happens with photography, sh&t floats and all that. most people lack common sense, the Dunning-Kruger Effect is pretty much where it's at.
the movie "idiocracy" pretty much is where we're going if we make it through the 2030s...

I've been complaining for years about Photoshop arguing that its editing and cloning capability will diminish photographer's desire to photograph since you need artistic skill to do PS right and why bother shooting? AI takes it to the next step. Why get up at 4am to catch the sunrise shot when any jerk can make beautiful pictures sitting in their armchair in their pajamas at 10am sipping tea?

sounds like the same old lame digital versus analog argument to me, "so and so is less of a photographer because they don't use film" or "so and so is less of a photographer because a lab develops and prints their negatives" or "that person scans their film, what a hack"
someone is a jerk for not wanting to waste their time at 4am, who cares if it makes someone happy, and it doesn't hurt someone why not.. if YOU want to get up at 4am you should but don't call someone a jerk who would rather sleep, cause it really doesn't matter, and it has nothing to do with authenticity. I lost my desire to use a camera 3-4 years ago, does that make me less of a photographer? regarding how PS has tainted photography, photography has never been pure, it's never been about reality or the truth and it's too bad people keep trying to make it into something that it never was. even "straight" photographs lies it's a$$ off and people would be lying if they said that's not true.

[Michael R]

Yup. AI is dangerous, but not to artforms.

It might also be worthwhile to point out that you get up at 4am because you want to make that photograph that way. Nobody else gives a rat’s ass about your 4am sunrise picture, AI or no AI, so you’d better know why you take pictures. If it’s not “photography for the joy of it” (to quote the great Freeman Patterson), do something else.

hi John

the internet already paved the way for non factual "stuff" to be unvetted and passed off as truth, if it happens with photography, sh&t floats and all that. most people lack common sense, the Dunning-Kruger Effect is pretty much where it's at.
the movie "idiocracy" pretty much is where we're going if we make it through the 2030s...



sounds like the same old lame digital versus analog argument to me, "so and so is less of a photographer because they don't use film" or "so and so is less of a photographer because a lab develops and prints their negatives" or "that person scans their film, what a hack"
someone is a jerk for not wanting to waste their time at 4am, who cares if it makes someone happy, and it doesn't hurt someone why not.. if YOU want to get up at 4am you should but don't call someone a jerk who would rather sleep, cause it really doesn't matter, and it has nothing to do with authenticity. I lost my desire to use a camera 3-4 years ago, does that make me less of a photographer? regarding how PS has tainted photography, photography has never been pure, it's never been about reality or the truth and it's too bad people keep trying to make it into something that it never was. even "straight" photographs lies it's a$$ off and people would be lying if they said that's not true.