The AI thread

[paulbarden]

I don't give a rats arse whether or not people are using AI tools to create interesting (or even UNinteresting) imagery - I think the tool will be used, and I admit to finding some of the imagery quite fascinating.
However...
There are people creating this stuff and calling it Photography, which is most definitely is not. Create whatever you want, with whatever tools interest you - that's great. But don't label this stuff "Photography".

I do have one other concern about how AI datasets are trained, and I wonder how many of you know this - these gigantic datasets are trained how to "see" and "create" by ingesting every image they can find on the Web and including it in their vocabulary. I know for a fact that a portion of my portfolio on Flickr has been used in the training of at least one of the biggest datasets used by AI and tools like Midjourney. I did not give permission for this, and Flickr is taking a "let's see what happens" attitude towards it. I suspect these service providers will eventually have to take a position on the matter, if they are going to have any credibility in regard to safeguarding their customers work. I have zero interest in providing content for AI datasets to learn from, unless these entities are going to pay me to do so (and even then...)

[Michael R]

I don’t think there is much/anything any of us small potatoes can do about things we post on the internet being scoured, dredged, scraped etc. for machine learning.

[Drew Wiley]

I refuse to recognize Lardassography as Photography. That's an awfully slippery slope. Whether it is art or not, the Medieval Scholastics can decide:
How many meaningless pixies devoid of consciousness can Ai make stand on the head of pin?

[Michael R]

Lardassography is a little broad (haha). I don’t hike the high sierra to make my photographs so some might say my photographs are lardassy.

I refuse to recognize Lardassography as Photography. That's an awfully slippery slope. Whether it is art or not, the Medieval Scholastics can decide:
How many pixies can Ai make stand on the head of pin?

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I'm slowing down quite a bit myself; but I did make it to the high country a couple weeks ago to at least get a taste of the clean thin air and some of its beautiful weather. And I stand up during darkroom sessions, and don't sit. My elderly butt gets sore enough just watching TV. No chair seems comfortable anymore, although the nice black leather one which is best is now at my retouching station. So a few amenities do make it to purgatory.

[Pieter]

I refuse to recognize Lardassography as Photography. That's an awfully slippery slope. Whether it is art or not, the Medieval Scholastics can decide:
How many meaningless pixies devoid of consciousness can Ai make stand on the head of pin?

Of course AI imagery is not photography, but it is machine-generated art than incorporates and can pass as photography. That is where the danger lurks. And just about anything and everything can be considered art at some point.

[Alan Klein]

I don't give a rats arse whether or not people are using AI tools to create interesting (or even UNinteresting) imagery - I think the tool will be used, and I admit to finding some of the imagery quite fascinating.
However...
There are people creating this stuff and calling it Photography, which is most definitely is not. Create whatever you want, with whatever tools interest you - that's great. But don't label this stuff "Photography".

I do have one other concern about how AI datasets are trained, and I wonder how many of you know this - these gigantic datasets are trained how to "see" and "create" by ingesting every image they can find on the Web and including it in their vocabulary. I know for a fact that a portion of my portfolio on Flickr has been used in the training of at least one of the biggest datasets used by AI and tools like Midjourney. I did not give permission for this, and Flickr is taking a "let's see what happens" attitude towards it. I suspect these service providers will eventually have to take a position on the matter, if they are going to have any credibility in regard to safeguarding their customers work. I have zero interest in providing content for AI datasets to learn from, unless these entities are going to pay me to do so (and even then...)

There are already lawsuits going on to stop this practice. I believe it's Magnum whio is suing. They also are offering AI services where their images are used as the source. Just like people can rent their images for other things, they're selling them for AI user as well.

[Tin Can]

No worries

Winter is coming

Prints burn just as well as books

[Michael R]

Lawsuits will be great for lawyers but won’t help the average person posting on flickr. Upload pictures to the internet or don’t.

[Alan Klein]

There are already lawsuits going on to stop this practice. I believe it's Magnum whio is suing. They also are offering AI services where their images are used as the source. Just like people can rent their images for other things, they're selling them for AI user as well.

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.