How many banal, scholastic, conformist, boring photos has the preoccupation with respecting (pseudo) rules helped to produce?
I know, that’s another debate…
But maybe AI could allow us to trigger, or trigger itself if the rules are respected in the viewfinder ( but then, why a viewfinder? )
The rules might not be directly responsible but surely have helped prevent billions of “subject in the dead center of the frame” compositions.
Lmao, AI? And you speak of banality and unoriginality 
Subject in the dead center of the frame, bad !
Subject in the dead third of the frame, good !
Talking about the Rule is a way of not talking about the subject or the composition or their relationship.
[didn’t understand your paragraph on AI]
AI is only capable of regurgitating what is in its training data, so mentioning it along side talking about banal and unoriginal things is funny.
Excuse my limited understanding of English! (and Deepl’s)
Recognizing that an image conforms to the Rule is typically a job for the AI, isn’t it?
Still the job of the photographer if you ask me.
I’m a bit of a slave to the rule-of-thirds grid… as far as it goes.
Yes, I do think that it is one compositional aid that works. But when I photograph a face, should the eyes go on it? or the nose? or should the mouth go on the bottom line. Or should an ear be on an intersection?
I use the grid as a guide. And often have to crop/adjust in post.
If only any of these grids or rules could guarantee the composition. Hey ho! @paperdigits is right: the photographer is still needed!
I’ve just invented the (good) photo-taking device of the future…
At first, I envisaged a kind of Google glass that would record everything the photographer sees; then all I had to do was sort out the interesting images, which was likely to be tedious…
The solution will come from AI: sold with a few preselections, notably the Holy Rule of Thirds, the Holy Golden Number etc… and the possibility of creating particular rules, sorting will be greatly facilitated and the images selected will certainly conform to the rules.
I’m afraid I won’t be able to rely on AI to explain to me the relationship between the composition of an image and its subject, to offer me a compositional idea when faced with a subject that refuses to fit into the mold, or to suggest that I take inspiration from painting “x” or well-known photo “y” by “z”, or to tell me to “take 2 steps to the right” or “come back around 5 p.m., the light will be better”.
Hm, there’s the noise that is added, which typically randomizes answers only a little bit, but might lead to a genuine, brilliant, idea. Or not, it’s still all statistics.
All I’ve seen is people with six fingers, impossible light sources, and waves that deny the laws of physics. Happy to be proven wrong, as always.
I would not hold my breath, as (1) AI still lags in complexity, (2) has only the internet [TM] as training basis, (3) lags in energy efficiency, and (4) does not run 8 billion independent instances. However, given how the world looks today, I would also be reluctant to call the human intelligent life.
Did you consider it’s just art?
Yes, the kind of art that’s unimaginitve, uninspired, and uninteresting.
AI didn’t get there first: