Artist Refuses Prize After His AI Image Wins at Top Photo Contest

[faberryman]

AI uses cameras, although indirectly. It does not create images from thin air, it combines existing, camera-based images for its work.

Yeah, but AI uses digital images, so that is not exactly a feather in AI's cap. AI and digital images are the one-two punch that knocks AI to the canvas. Being afraid of AI with respect to your photography is a tacit admission that you think your images are not all that good. No worries though. If your images are not all that good, nobody is going to use them when making an AI image. So you are basically safe. I am not afraid of AI with respect to my photography and I think my photographs are pretty good, but then I am delusional about a lot of things. But I am not delusional about there being a lot of AI Karens. Their mantra repeats what the Nihilist said in The Big Lebowski: "Iss not fair!" So pathetic.

[Drew Wiley]

Reminds me of those start-ups trying to make artificial meat in a lab. Now Dad will be out there in the backyard, during the 4th of July BBQ, with his chemistry set. Somethin' jes ain't raight.

[Pieter]

Yeah, but AI uses digital images, so that is not exactly a feather in AI's cap. AI and digital images are the one-two punch that knocks AI to the canvas. Being afraid of AI with respect to your photography is a tacit admission that you think your images are not all that good. No worries though. If your images are not all that good, nobody is going to use them when making an AI image. So you are basically safe. I am not afraid of AI with respect to my photography and I think my photographs are pretty good, but then I am delusional about a lot of things. But I am not delusional about there being a lot of AI Karens. Their mantra repeats what the Nihilist said in The Big Lebowski: "Iss not fair!" So pathetic.

AI is is digital, it can only use digital images. So your thinking is a non-starter, especially since you write off digital images regardless of the origin, AI or human.

The concern with AI is not that it is going to be better than your photos (if that is the case, maybe you should instruction, help or drop the hobby) it is about the veracity of the imagery--the pope sodomizing an infant, for example--and the fact that some legitimate professional assignments can soon be done without involving or paying much for the final image. However, it does open up a brand new field of image creation for someone talented enough to efficiently prompt the software, sort through all the results and do final adjustments and clean up to provide a usable image. Some photographers, to keep the integrity of their own style intact, feed their own images into the mix.

[faberryman]

AI is is digital, it can only use digital images. So your thinking is a non-starter, especially since you write off digital images regardless of the origin, AI or human.

My comment was tongue in cheek. There are some on the forum who have said digital photography is not "real" photography. They, along with others, have said that AI is not "real" photography. Which is why I said that AI and digital photos together is the one-two punch that knocks AI to the canvas. At least in their minds. It's just more narrow-mindedness and hysteria.

The concern with AI is not that it is going to be better than your photos (if that is the case, maybe you should instruction, help or drop the hobby)...

Some photographers here have suggested that many amateur photographers will quit, and potential new amateur photographers will decide not to take up photography as a hobby, because of AI. This is just a rehash of the tired old film vs. digital debate. All they have to do is rev up their outrage motors and substitute AI for digital in their well-practiced screeds. Implicit in the argument is that existing and potential photographers won't be able to compete in photo contests because other photographers will cheat and use AI. I don't do photography to win photo contests, and don't know anyone who does. I think most, but not all, photo contests are a scam and primarily use entry fees as a source of income. They sure look lucrative to me. But I will acknowledge that some photographers live to get blue ribbons at their camera club competitions, and will quit over AI. I guess it is also possible that some people who enter a lot of photo contests and never win will quit entering photo contests and blame it on AI rather than admit that the reason they don't win is their less than award winning images. On the upside, if a whole bunch of people quit photography, those of us left might be able to find some film we can purchase.

...it is about the veracity of the imagery--the pope sodomizing an infant, for example--and the fact that some legitimate professional assignments can soon be done without involving or paying much for the final image. However, it does open up a brand new field of image creation for someone talented enough to efficiently prompt the software, sort through all the results and do final adjustments and clean up to provide a usable image. Some photographers, to keep the integrity of their own style intact, feed their own images into the mix.

When discussing the AI issue, I have always asked how AI will affect your photography. Professional photographers have their own set of issues which they will have to resolve on their own. I am not competent to address them. Some members here are not competent to address them either, but they go ahead and address them here anyway, which adds to the noise. For the guy you described, it sounds like he is not using AI to maintain an integrity of style but to create an integrity of style. Speaking generally, there will also be broader societal implications involving AI and photography, but that is a complex, multi-faceted subject well beyond the scope of this forum and its members to cogently discuss.

[Pieter]

On the subject of contests, yes, most are just money-grubbing schemes. But for others it is another method of exposure to judges who may have some interest in acquiring or representing the work. Some competitions are curated group shows at legitimate galleries. And another line on the resumé that could possible lend a bit of critical value to the work presented.

[faberryman]

Which is why I said "most, but not all."