AI: the Worse Enemy of Photography

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

It's not a stark, back-and-white topic. Yes, it is already a problem in many areas. Our content is being scraped without our consent and that needs to be regulated (we need to be able to tag our content in ways that tell the AI crawler hands off).

But there are also ways that AI can be used as a tool that is not detrimental to our creative capture work (is not a "worst enemy of photography"). That doesn't make me a "defender of AI" unless you see the world with binary goggles.

Chris

 

[Larry K]

Perhaps I am redundant because some time ago I posted a couple of threads here about my dislike – or rather – my rejection, of AI applied to photography.
I remember that the majority of comments I received in response were critical and maintained that the advancement of technology should be accepted and applauded.
In those previous cases I made reference to several examples of how prizes have been awarded to photographs that turned out to be altered or directly created with this technology, now, with the false and altered photos of British royalty, the issue has taken on global relevance, which is why Photographers must take note.
It would be interesting to read what the defenders of AI think now, which for me is the worst enemy of photography, that is, one of the biggest traps of our times. We will never know what is true or a lie.
Kind regards to all.

Yes you should only use a physical darkroom to alter photos you took on a glass plate camera. Just say'n

 

[O]

Like everything new be it the internet or AI or drones, if its used for good not evil or wrongly then yes its fine, knowing when its been used wrongly or controlling it is the worry.

 

[Roybon]

as many others said: AI is just a new tool, we need to learn how to use it and for what purpose. it's important to have a clear cut between generative AI (create a picture from scratch) and use AI tools in developing software. fake image is not new, just easier.
we may run into some more serious concern, when AI will discuss this with us on the forum

 

[O]

as many others said: AI is just a new tool, we need to learn how to use it and for what purpose. it's important to have a clear cut between generative AI (create a picture from scratch) and use AI tools in developing software. fake image is not new, just easier.
we may run into some more serious concern, when AI will discuss this with us on the forum

AI is a tool, an asset, a source of technology to help the world, its also a weapon, its all down to who and how its being used.

Outside of photography, The creators of AI and silicon valleys leaders are demanding as a matter of urgency regulation be established by federal governments .................

Once the regulations and rules are in place it will set some boundaries especially liability boundary's........FWIW.

The word AI will or is being marketed do death even down to Milk is now made by AI technology, everything is connected to AI, its the trend.

Yes we are talking to computers all ready............

Only an opinion

 

[bleirer]

The other thing to think about is that the camera, while getting better, can't capture what we experienced in nature. Our eyes and brain composite many bits of the scene into an experience. If we try to communicate that experience "straight" then we fail. A painter can alter values and colors, reorganize the elements in the composition, add or remove things, etc. Now with standard photoshop techniques and enhanced with the AI, we can communicate more effectively visually by doing some of those same things.

 

[Krish]

Knowledge and its tools will evolve and advance as time marches on. I think it is important to differentiate between what the tool can do and the intent of the person wielding that tool. If we cannot make that distinction how different are we from the book- burners and art-destroyers that populate every culture in recorded history?

 

[Mal Paso]

Yes you should only use a physical darkroom to alter photos you took on a glass plate camera. Just say'n

Not a damn thing wrong with polyester based film! You glass plate guys are stuck in the 19th century!

 

[higbee]

Perhaps I am redundant because some time ago I posted a couple of threads here about my dislike – or rather – my rejection, of AI applied to photography.
I remember that the majority of comments I received in response were critical and maintained that the advancement of technology should be accepted and applauded.
In those previous cases I made reference to several examples of how prizes have been awarded to photographs that turned out to be altered or directly created with this technology, now, with the false and altered photos of British royalty, the issue has taken on global relevance, which is why Photographers must take note.
It would be interesting to read what the defenders of AI think now, which for me is the worst enemy of photography, that is, one of the biggest traps of our times. We will never know what is true or a lie.
Kind regards to all.

To me a big part of the issue is the random overuse of the term “AI”. There are multiple different and easily confused applications of the term [look at machine language versus generative definitions].

Machine language manipulates existing data [LR editing processes where it manipulates existing data - the same as you can do manually, but faster with Fewer mistakes] while generative AI creates new data [as you can do in Ps to create totally new features].

The misuse/appliof these terms does [and will continue to] provide fodder for any number of misusages and virtually meaningless diatribes!

I personally limit my use of AI to machine language applications only, but that is me.

 

[Walter Baliero]

Reading an article on a different topic than the thread I opened here, I found this cartoon that I immediately related to AI. Nothing more clear and explicit.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[bleirer]

In a way the comic above illustrates the problem. It is posted here but did the artist get credited? Was permission given by the copyright holder to reproduce it here? AI is kind of the same except at super computer speed, take and use anything seen on the internet without permission or acknowledging the original artist.

 

[Walter Baliero]

In a way the comic above illustrates the problem. It is posted here but did the artist get credited? Was permission given by the copyright holder to reproduce it here? AI is kind of the same except at super computer speed, take and use anything seen on the internet without permission or acknowledging the original artist.

If you are worried about the credit of the comic I posted, I can tell you that I took it from Chilian newspaper - where I live - and since it is public, I think the page where it is published - whether for the Internet, to wrap an auto spare or to clean whatever, I don't think it was necessary to ask permission from whoever drew it.

 

[fastharper]

I work in tech; "AI" is mostly hype at this point.

What is real and useful is ML - machine-learning based algorithms. That's how mirrorless autofocus works; that's how Topaz Photo AI works; that's how "select subject" in LR works... ML has made photography better by leaps and bounds.

 

[bleirer]

If you are worried about the credit of the comic I posted, I can tell you that I took it from Chilian newspaper - where I live - and since it is public, I think the page where it is published - whether for the Internet, to wrap an auto spare or to clean whatever, I don't think it was necessary to ask permission from whoever drew it.

It is necessary though, I believe.

 

[TurtleCat]

I work in tech; "AI" is mostly hype at this point.

What is real and useful is ML - machine-learning based algorithms. That's how mirrorless autofocus works; that's how Topaz Photo AI works; that's how "select subject" in LR works... ML has made photography better by leaps and bounds.

Yes, AI is such a misleading buzzword marketing took over to sell stuff. Like how things were Extreme, Max, Pro, etc. The majority of “AI” is machine learning as you said. And most of that is really image classification of one form or another. ML is very helpful. Generative is blurring lines a bit but it’s still not preserving pixel integrity any more than content aware fills and clone stamps and resizing. What freaks people out is they can point to an algorithm and say this is how cloning is done. They can’t point to a specific repeatable algorithm for generative even though it is basically doing the same kind of operation.