Photographer Disqualified From AI Image Contest After Winning With Real Photo

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Would you not agree that the goal of the people developing AI image generation tools is for the tools to achieve the capability of creating something indistinguishable from reality?

Absolutely, it is ONE of the goals (but not the only), which is why it was ridiculous for that person to submit a real image, since a believable image was likely a main goal of winning the contest. Shame on the judges for expecting everyone to submit an honest entry?

Consider this scenario: PHOTOREALISTIC INK ART CONTEST

Judge: "The winner! This image looks just like a real photograph."
Winner: "Haha, fooled you — that IS a real photograph!"

Same thing.

 

[macwalter]

Wondering though what was the point of the contest. I rather doubt from the description that it was about whether a photo was “realistic “ or not. People have been doing things to photos for years in tools like photoshop to alter photos to give them a distinct look. Was this contest about trying to create realism as a normal photograph or something different. I think the photo that won was due to the unusual pose and I guess you were supposed to create this pose using Ai? Also if you use Ai isn’t there something in the metadata that shows its use?

 

[lwan]

To me it's more like congratulating the factory robots that assembled a car in a car design contest but ok.
AI like every questionable thing will and is presented to people under favourable light so it's easy to let it in our everyday lives. Not taking care of keeping it at bay of what makes us humans and simply enjoying it because is fun is foolish imo, and will not end well.
'AI' is already in use to scrutinize our habits, our flaws, our missteps. But still it's so fun to use in the apps we mortals can access.
I know a 16 yo girl who told me last years essays and homeworks were all delegated to chatgpt. What a shinny future we're looking at! Incompetent graduated young adults. So much fun.
People thinking they are artists asking a computer to draw them a sheep. Where's the talent? The research? The failures that led to a better understanding of it all?
All in all I don't really care, nor I am surprised of how things go with AI, I'm just a hundred percent certain this isn't going to end well at all and pondering if I want to witness it or not.

 

[macwalter]

Unfortunately imop it’s not just Ai that is at issue in our current state of evolution. To me Ai is something that has evolved out of both good and bad motives and like pretty much everything we humans do there is a good and bad side. I remember in college having fellow students go to my mother asking to borrow my essays so they could copy them. Humans are not without their flaws And we only get better at exploitation.

 

[SCoombs]

Absolutely, it is ONE of the goals (but not the only), which is why it was ridiculous for that person to submit a real image, since a believable image was likely a main goal of winning the contest. Shame on the judges for expecting everyone to submit an honest entry?

Consider this scenario: PHOTOREALISTIC INK ART CONTEST

Judge: "The winner! This image looks just like a real photograph."
Winner: "Haha, fooled you — that IS a real photograph!"

Same thing.

I can't agree that this is the same thing because nobody would ever try to pass off photorealistic ink art as a real photograph. The whole point of photorealistic ink art is to use one's human drawing skills to create something that looks entirely real, and so advertising that a person has created the picture by hand rather than with a camera is essentially a part of the art form.

In other words, the fundamental dynamic with at play here is the interplay between art forms which require more skill or talent and those which require less. AI creates art in a way that requires a lower skill set than photography or drawing and virtually no talent whatsoever. This means that a threat exists to those who do have those skills and talent, especially those who make a living off of their talent. A protest against this makes sense in a way that a photo as an entry in an ink art contest doesn't because in that case the dynamic goes the other way. A photograph is much easier to create than an ink art drawing and ultimately requires fewer skills and less talent. This wouldn't make sense as any kind of protest because photographers are not in danger of being replaced by ink artists.

Think of it like this: imagine that one day we invent food replicators like in Star Trek. This would obviously be a threat to chefs because food replicators would be easier to create food with than traditional cooking methods and the "entropy" of things is that people will always choose the easier to replace the more difficult but never the other way around. Thus, it would make perfect sense for a chef to enter a hand cooked dish into a food replicator meal contest because the message would be "you are all putting so much stock into this replicated food, but look the more human way that you are replacing can beat all of that." The opposite wouldn't be true: entering replicated food into a contest for hand-cooked food wouldn't convey any kind of message: it's just cheating.

In the same way, entering a photo in an photorealistic ink art contest wouldn't carry any message or protest: it would just be cheating. When you try to pass something easier off as something more difficult, that's the essence of faking something. It's why students try to use AI and before that they tried to use plagiarism to write their papers: it's easier to do so. That's just dishonesty or cheating. Trying to present something harder as something easier is different: nobody would ever do this to try to "get away" with something, but would only ever do this with the intention of being "caught" in order to send some kind of message. Few students ever going to respond to an assignment where they're supposed to respond with something from a book someone wrote by writing one of their own, but countless will copy something somebody else wrote when it is supposed to be their own.

 

[macwalter]

It seems to me that in every profession there has been evolution of technology and it usually evolves around better results or greater ease and faster ways to accomplish the task. This is true whether you are a musician,a visual artist or even making warfare. I remember years ago the evolution of midi in music so a studio could make a song by creating loops and overdubbing parts with a keyboard, not a piano and maybe just bring in one real instrumen to make it sound more realistic. This saved tons of time and money. Also there are plenty of my artist friends who think of photography as fake art as in the past people had to draw or paint an image. as I said before like it or not Ai is here and we each will have to decide where to draw the line in its use, while those with a political agenda start stepping in to manipulate its use which is already happening. I doubt much good will come from that. Once again human nature and it’s never gonna change.

 

[lwan]

It seems to me that in every profession there has been evolution of technology and it usually evolves around better results or greater ease and faster ways to accomplish the task. This is true whether you are a musician,a visual artist or even making warfare. I remember years ago the evolution of midi in music so a studio could make a song by creating loops and overdubbing parts with a keyboard, not a piano and maybe just bring in one real instrumen to make it sound more realistic. This saved tons of time and money. Also there are plenty of my artist friends who think of photography as fake art as in the past people had to draw or paint an image. as I said before like it or not Ai is here and we each will have to decide where to draw the line in its use, while those with a political agenda start stepping in to manipulate its use which is already happening. I doubt much good will come from that. Once again human nature and it’s never gonna change.

I think it's different here in the sense that AI imaging does not even require you to know anything about any kind of skill. For now AI imaging can feed on the billions of human-made/captured data. Fast forward a decade or two in a sinister scenario where human laziness went so far as to rely on AI for most things that once required an effort, some dedication, practice and talent. What's left? AI feeding on a mix of archives and itself. Fast forward a bit more...

 

[Captain Spaulding]

For reasons I can’t explain I quite like this.

AI confuses me. I like looking at watches. This is a wonderful site where exceptional people tell stories: https://www.webofstories.com/play/george.daniels/28
George Daniels in my opinion is a 'magician'.

Mark Kac:
In science, as well as in other fields of human endeavor, there are two kinds of geniuses: the “ordinary” and the “magicians.” An ordinary genius is a fellow that you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what he has done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. They are, to use mathematical jargon, in the orthogonal complement of where we are and the working of their minds is for all intents and purposes incomprehensible. Even after we understand what they have done, the process by which they have done it is completely dark. They seldom, if ever, have students because they cannot be emulated and it must be terribly frustrating for a brilliant young mind to cope with the mysterious ways in which the magician’s mind works. Richard Feynman is a magician of the highest caliber. Hans Bethe, whom [Freeman] Dyson considers to be his teacher, is an “ordinary genius,”. . . . (Quoted from Enigmas of Chance: An Autobiography, by Mark Kac. Harper and Row. 1985. p. xxv.)
During my honours year of study I was fortunate to meet Jaakko Hinkikka. I asked him if he invented a logic or discovered it. He said it would take too long to answer. [ I'm no logician ]
Anyway to cut a long esoteric post short when someone knows what intelligence is then they can try making an artificial intelligence.

PS If AI was what a lot of people think it is it would be able to create an escapement more efficient than George Daniels' co-axial.

Coaxial escapement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://www.danielslondon.com/

 

[bleirer]

I'll never be able to agree with that.
It's a bit like saying it's an art form in itself to tell others what to do without knowledge of the actual work. Anyone who ever been under a manager's orders knows how disconnected from the truth that is.

Yeah kinda like a camera in most people's hands

 

[macwalter]

I think it's different here in the sense that AI imaging does not even require you to know anything about any kind of skill. For now AI imaging can feed on the billions of human-made/captured data. Fast forward a decade or two in a sinister scenario where human laziness went so far as to rely on AI for most things that once required an effort, some dedication, practice and talent. What's left? AI feeding on a mix of archives and itself. Fast forward a bit more...

I know it’s scary how we humans are always looking for the easy way out.

 

[Robert S]

I know it’s scary how we humans are always looking for the easy way out.

Induction, deduction, and abduction. Very problematic, ends up with people scratching an itch.

Just found this on Google. [ I worry myself at times. ]

"
What is abduction in reasoning in AI?


Abduction is a form of reasoning where assumptions are made to explain observations. For example, if an agent were to observe that some light was not working, it hypothesizes what is happening in the world to explain why the light was not working."

I need to get a body transplant and Eva Green's ph nos.

 

[Jeff B.]

I absolutely loved seeing this article. So much so I posted it on IG along with my rant about the lines are already getting too blurred between reality and AI. IG now has a button to select if the image is AI generated. Will everyone use it?? I Follow someone on IG with tremendous landscape shots who just posted an image and said it was AI generated. Kudos to them for identifying it, but now I wonder if any of their previous images were AI! I am thinking that if someone is to dedicate their time (and dollars) to travel to a location (whether nearby or on another continent) and wait for an undetermined amount of time in hopes of getting the chance to get a great wildlife image (or possibly failing to do so), while an individual can sit behind a desk and create the same image then I have a huge problem with that If they are being presented as the same thing. When it is a photo vs. a painting it is generally easy to distinguish the difference. With AI that is not as easily done from what I have seen with really good AI images and it will only get better. I think the line gets increasingly blurred and the two “art forms” begin to converge as most people may not be able to distinguish between the two and photography could begin to become more of a commodity. This could be an issue if you are looking to make a living from your photographs. What happens next….maybe more galleries for more discerning collectors begin to open up offering only “confirmed” true full-fledged photographs??? I am fortunate as photography is a true passion, but I don’t rely on it to make a living. However, I deeply care how it is perceived and appreciated. Not sure I can do anything to influence the trajectory going forward. It seems like we are heading to the Wild Wild West where there are no rules/boundaries.That’s the end of my rant. Have to stop now as otherwise I won’t be able to get any sleep.

 

[bleirer]

There is definitely a blurry line. If we use denoise in lightroom we have an AI generated image. Shame on us. Or the remove tool in photoshop. Or Topaz or DXO. Just saying it's not always that clear where the line is.

 

[peachfront]

There is definitely a blurry line. If we use denoise in lightroom we have an AI generated image. Shame on us. Or the remove tool in photoshop. Or Topaz or DXO. Just saying it's not always that clear where the line is.

I don't agree. The line is not one bit blurry. Deliberately conflating the use of a tool with the entire craft is how those pimping AI/LLMs are trying to normalize the use of AI to demean the value of our art. I'm a writer/publisher, and the same thing is happening there. No, friends & neighbors, using Grammarly is NOT causing you to have an AI-generated work if you still did the writing & all you're using Grammarly for is to check your grammar with a strong grasp of what you're doing because otherwise it will generate as many problems as it solves.

Exact same thing in photography: Denoise isn't creating and executing the composition, it's removing the noise-- the equivalent of Grammarly running its spell check.

The fact that this even has to be explained to people tells me that the photographer's protest was important. Too many people uncritically hear some words of jargon like AI, and assumes it's something it's not.

 

[macwalter]

For me, I will still use Ai when it serves my needs. Personally I am not a bit interested in making pictures of things using Ai but I suppose one could create interesting collages for example using this technology. I use it mainly to clean up background and retouch the background. I used to do this with other PS tool taking pixels from one area and replacing the area I want to alter. Ai makes this process so much easier and since most of my wildlife trips are not photo specific I often don’t get the opportunity for the perfect setting and have to compromise. Also I feel if one doesn’t approve of something don’t use it. Others will but you won’t stop that. As stated before if there is an easier way to do something people will gravitate to ease of use. Also as said Ai has been around for a while and I think it’s been just recently with the ability to “create” objects with a bit of dialogue etc. that it has crossed the line for many, myself included. But to each his own.

 

[bleirer]

To me anything goes in art as long as no deception is involved. The only one trying to deceive here was the person submitting a photo and labeling it AI.

 

[Jadiehl]

AI confuses me. I like looking at watches. This is a wonderful site where exceptional people tell stories: https://www.webofstories.com/play/george.daniels/28
George Daniels in my opinion is a 'magician'.

Mark Kac:
In science, as well as in other fields of human endeavor, there are two kinds of geniuses: the “ordinary” and the “magicians.” An ordinary genius is a fellow that you and I would be just as good as, if we were only many times better. There is no mystery as to how his mind works. Once we understand what he has done, we feel certain that we, too, could have done it. It is different with the magicians. They are, to use mathematical jargon, in the orthogonal complement of where we are and the working of their minds is for all intents and purposes incomprehensible. Even after we understand what they have done, the process by which they have done it is completely dark. They seldom, if ever, have students because they cannot be emulated and it must be terribly frustrating for a brilliant young mind to cope with the mysterious ways in which the magician’s mind works. Richard Feynman is a magician of the highest caliber. Hans Bethe, whom [Freeman] Dyson considers to be his teacher, is an “ordinary genius,”. . . . (Quoted from Enigmas of Chance: An Autobiography, by Mark Kac. Harper and Row. 1985. p. xxv.)
During my honours year of study I was fortunate to meet Jaakko Hinkikka. I asked him if he invented a logic or discovered it. He said it would take too long to answer. [ I'm no logician ]
Anyway to cut a long esoteric post short when someone knows what intelligence is then they can try making an artificial intelligence.

PS If AI was what a lot of people think it is it would be able to create an escapement more efficient than George Daniels' co-axial.

Coaxial escapement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

https://www.danielslondon.com/

Now that’s obtuse, but interesting…

 

[Robert S]

Now that’s obtuse, but interesting…

Obtuse often mutates into abstract. Never know your luck. I'm no mathematician but this paper is a good read:
‘The Role of Mathematics in Physics’ C. S. Sharma, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 33 (1982),

 

[JoPoV]

I absolutely loved seeing this article. So much so I posted it on IG along with my rant about the lines are already getting too blurred between reality and AI. IG now has a button to select if the image is AI generated. Will everyone use it?? I Follow someone on IG with tremendous landscape shots who just posted an image and said it was AI generated. Kudos to them for identifying it, but now I wonder if any of their previous images were AI! I am thinking that if someone is to dedicate their time (and dollars) to travel to a location (whether nearby or on another continent) and wait for an undetermined amount of time in hopes of getting the chance to get a great wildlife image (or possibly failing to do so), while an individual can sit behind a desk and create the same image then I have a huge problem with that If they are being presented as the same thing. When it is a photo vs. a painting it is generally easy to distinguish the difference. With AI that is not as easily done from what I have seen with really good AI images and it will only get better. I think the line gets increasingly blurred and the two “art forms” begin to converge as most people may not be able to distinguish between the two and photography could begin to become more of a commodity. This could be an issue if you are looking to make a living from your photographs. What happens next….maybe more galleries for more discerning collectors begin to open up offering only “confirmed” true full-fledged photographs??? I am fortunate as photography is a true passion, but I don’t rely on it to make a living. However, I deeply care how it is perceived and appreciated. Not sure I can do anything to influence the trajectory going forward. It seems like we are heading to the Wild Wild West where there are no rules/boundaries.That’s the end of my rant. Have to stop now as otherwise I won’t be able to get any sleep.

The most ironic part of all this is that these ai-generated images use the photos of photographers who use ai (just look at adobe's eula to understand the total transfer of rights to use these tools).
These photographers are going to lose their jobs : why should agencies call on them when, in a matter of seconds, they'll have more choice, and at a ridiculously low price ? And it's their work that will be used to produce the content, without any compensation.

And no doubt that soon, ai images will be perfect.

 

[hef19898]

Absolutely, it is ONE of the goals (but not the only), which is why it was ridiculous for that person to submit a real image, since a believable image was likely a main goal of winning the contest. Shame on the judges for expecting everyone to submit an honest entry?

Consider this scenario: PHOTOREALISTIC INK ART CONTEST

Judge: "The winner! This image looks just like a real photograph."
Winner: "Haha, fooled you — that IS a real photograph!"

Same thing.

Not really, in your example someone actually produced a drawing. In the contest we are talking about, people asked something to produce a work for them. Big difference.