But it can record unreal events!For generic pictures I can see it dominating. But it can never be a source of spectacular records of real events.
I've learned to distrust that phrase."is always going to be"
AI is always going to be behind the curve on whatever is fashionable because it relies on imagery that already exists.
Isn't it already in use for things like 'content aware fill'?Even relative purists will call on AI to help with retouching.and lesser enhancements.
Could be. With an evil AI driving next years fashion as a poor impression of what has happened before.Rather like we've seen popular music change from something organic to something that feels constrained and digital, I expect AI imagery to start setting fashions, with people following (real or synthetic) fashion icons showing AI-deigned products.
I would be interested to know how closely the images apparently created actually matched the source images that the software was trained on. It would not surprise me if you could actually identify parts on the generated pictures that came directly from the source material. And if that were the case, the whole area of copying, plagiarism and copyright should start to apply a strong magnifying glass to generated images, with royalties being paid to copyright owners.
I wonder if the software would tell you which pictures it used as source material.
A real world example - you be the judge
![]()
NateintheWild (@nateinthewild.com)
On the left, my image. On the right, the Al image that was clearly trained on, and designed to plagiarize, my image. All Al generated imagery is inherently theft. It's unethical, environmentally disastrous, and does irreparable harm to both artists and society.bsky.app
Gamekeepers hire poachers. Remaining poachers aware of gamekeepers new knowledge, change tactics.I am reasonably confident that we will have some AI software which will readily recognise AI generated images soon.
Dave
OK thanks for your opinion.No, it ended when photographers were able to buy their glass plates instead of having to cut them out of a sheet of glass, mix the chemicals and coat the plates just before taking the photo - it completely de-skilled photography
As others have said, AI is just another developmental step, and whether we embrace it or oppose it, it's what it is.
Incidentally, I tried using the same prompts as the OP to get AI-generated photos, using chat GPT yesterday, and the results were far from realistic - maybe I used the wrong source.
There’s a growing number of utter imbeciles doing that and it has nothing to do with Artificial Intelligence and everything to do with Authentic Stupidity.If every time someone sees a sunset, the moon or the milky way they think fake photo, those are going to become less cool pretty quickly.
The drive to try to detect AI generated images comes from the organisations running competitions or distinctions in the amateur world at least. Those trying to defeat this will be individuals so unlikely to have the skills or resources to do so. There may be other issues in the professional world of which I am not a member.Gamekeepers hire poachers. Remaining poachers aware of gamekeepers new knowledge, change tactics.
Revolving doors.
Rather like we've seen popular music change from something organic to something that feels constrained and digital, I expect AI imagery to start setting fashions, with people following (real or synthetic) fashion icons showing AI-designed products.
Yeah, should just let the human race do that on its own; it is doing pretty well.Less worried about A.I impacting on photography than I am about it creating machines and using them to kill of the human race tbh.
Yes and has been for a few years. However AI has come on a longway since then, and now often uses samples from other images entirely. Rather than just the one you are editing.Isn't it already in use for things like 'content aware fill'?
I can see it culling the population to sustainable levels. Though the algorithms it might use could have freakish results.Yeah, should just let the human race do that on its own; it is doing pretty well.
Tastes like chicken apparently.(Or those that don't know long pig is the euphemism for human meat)
All reports suggest pork hence the long pig name given by the south sea natives.Tastes like chicken apparently.![]()
So far as I can discover, the term was invented in the 1840s. I haven't been able to find any convincing evidence that it was ever used by cannibals in their own languages, but perhaps someone knows better?All reports suggest pork hence the long pig name given by the south sea natives.
This is really an important point and it highlights the fundamental flaws in genAI systems. People don't realise these systems are nowhere near as intelligent as they appear instead they're just sophisticated auto predict models, they can only function by stealing data from other sources and presenting it as their own. Absurdly, openAI have admitted as much in response to the lawsuit against them for stealing data claiming they can't function without copyrighted data:I would be interested to know how closely the images apparently created actually matched the source images that the software was trained on. It would not surprise me if you could actually identify parts on the generated pictures that came directly from the source material. And if that were the case, the whole area of copying, plagiarism and copyright should start to apply a strong magnifying glass to generated images, with royalties being paid to copyright owners.
I wonder if the software would tell you which pictures it used as source material.
Best served with some Fava Beans and a Nice Chianti.All reports suggest pork hence the long pig name given by the south sea natives.
That's such a typical tp once again. Never stay on topic for too long...All reports suggest pork hence the long pig name given by the south sea natives.
The emissions point is very important. I doubt it will bring AI to and end, but it may slow it down. We're in the Wild West stage - tech businesses are cashing in without paying for the content they are "learning" from, nor their carbon footprint.I used to get a decent amount of work shooting products, and food for restaurants. Both of these areas have netted me nothing these past six months, and AI is definitely to blame. Same as my stock photography. I suspect AI is using my old work to generate free crap for businesses.
Some areas will always want real photos of the actual product.
Events and weddings will never want AI.
Humans will always want to create their own art.
I'm quietly hopeful that AI will come to an end once people realise how many resources are being used to generate bad plagiarised art. but I think we're a long way from that point.
| Website | Instagram |
That's such a typical tp once again. Never stay on topic for too long...![]()
I hope so. Imagine the situation if we had AI in the days of the footballer Maradona and the 'Hand of God' It would have been so easy to reconstruct the image to show he never touched the ball with his handI am reasonably confident that we will have some AI software which will readily recognise AI generated images soon.
Dave
Allegedly, on some phones, if you take a picture that includes the moon, it recognises the moon, and downloads a stock hi-res version and replaces it with that. Criminal, I know. And might well be a myth or toggleable setting, but I have heard it.If every time someone sees a sunset, the moon or the milky way they think fake photo, those are going to become less cool pretty quickly.
Did you know, in spot the ball competitions, the “correct “ answer isn’t where the ball actually was, but where some ‘expert’ decides it should have been (using an image with it already cloned out, ie playing the game themselves). Why? Because apparently the gambling commission forbids betting on an event that’s already taken place.I hope so. Imagine the situation if we had AI in the days of the footballer Maradona and the 'Hand of God' It would have been so easy to reconstruct the image to show he never touched the ball with his hand
Allegedly, on some phones, if you take a picture that includes the moon, it recognises the moon, and downloads a stock hi-res version and replaces it with that. Criminal, I know. And might well be a myth or toggleable setting, but I have heard it.
I should hope so, too.Because apparently the gambling commission forbids betting on an event that’s already taken place.