By the time Usain Bolt reaches the 20-metre mark, a cheetah would not only have crossed the finishing line, but would be half way around the track on it’s victory lap. I don’t think Mr Bolt was ever discouraged because a cat could blow him into the weeds. Get my drift, here?
3 Likes
Sports and games are invented specifically as tests of human ability, probably deriving from signalling of evolutionary fitness, so to be honest I think the analogy is a bit shaggy
My point is… MOTIVATION! In other words, does Mr Bolt think ’ What’s the point in being the fastest human when a cat can beat me hands down?’ Shaggy, indeed! 
Haha. Loose, then. He’s competing against other humans, which is literally the meaning of sport. Even gladiators weren’t competing against lions but competing against other gladiators facing other lions. So I think the analogy is a poor one for image creation. Sorry. I guess you could argue that photography competitions have some similarity, hence that’s where we see immediate concerns being raised, but that’s a marginal area of photo output
Sorry, @TonyBarrett, but you’re still missing the point entirely. Don’t worry about it, though — my analogy may not be ‘perfect’ but then I’m not AI; I’m only human. Besides, lets try to keep this thread on topic.
100 per-cent agree. How can something that doesn’t exist in the real world even be considered as photography?
But if the output is functionally identical or, actually better, then what? Smash the looms? Institute a certification program?
What did digital photography do to analogue, what did analogue photography do to etchings?
1 Like
It’s interesting because photography covers a very wide scope. I’m a street and documentary photographer, so any image that isn’t real is completely useless in my genre — it would completely defy the point, no matter how pretty the photo looks (it’s all about capturing real life and real events as and when they happen).
Functionally identical/actually better is impossible.
That the photographer was there is a crucial part of photography. (edge cases exist of course) Most of photographys raison d’être is gone when that isn’t the case.
Thinking of photography as pure image. Floating free of process, intent, context, society makes absolutely no sense because the image is nothing but empty fireworks without those factors.
I just can’t understand which ideas about photography and art that makes a flat comparison between AI generated images and photography possible. There’s not way of comparing them meaningfully.
You can certainly make meaningful art of AI generated imagery because the AI is trained on a our societys image production in it’s most depressing forms. What ever an AI produces is basically a critique of our society. The output can be curated and put together by humans so that meaning occurs. But it won’t compete with photography.
1 Like
Yes, part of the problem in these discussions is that images of any medium have multiple contexts. That’s why I said etchings rather than paintings as the former were relatively cheap mechanically reproduced images kept in people’s homes and used in books/media. Paintings are normally costlier one offs that may carry fine art connotations, but even photographs achieved that status when MoMA decided to exhibit them and the idea of an “original” or limited print was made necessary.
1 Like
I agree with you in many ways but:
-
At a pixel level it’s absolutely possible
-
I’m not sure how you’re going to ensure that viewers are going to be able to make the distinction you want to make, or make them want to make the distinction you want to make
Freed them from the need to depict realism.
2 Likes
Yes but it doesn’t matter. In photography the value of those pixels comes from the context and process they appeared through.
As is already the case lying about your process will damage/end your career as photographer. That goes for journalism, art, wildlife and most other types of photography. Photography that can advantageously be replaced by illustrations will.
1 Like
And you think professional photography makes up what proportion of the world’s photos?
Etchings, mostly no. They were mostly reproductions, even if of other artworks. They mostly disappeared
It’s even less likely that people stop taking snapshots of their lives and loved ones as long as the tech is available. Those who want to fake appearances don’t need AI they can just use other peoples images. Filters etc also already exist. Even those who currently employ these tricks take real photos as well, for private use.
Sigh. Okay, what do you think is going to change as a result of this technology, if I may ask
Off the top of my head.
- Illustrative stock photography in media may include more generated content
- People may loose their trust in photography that isn’t verified/vetted by trusted sources (even more)
- Various experimental art will emerge
- Profile pics in social media and dating sites may diverge even more from reality
- Computer games and films will have faster less labour intense ways of generating content.
2 Likes
We are already there with insta and tiktok
1 Like
Yup! I can’t stand that kind of content…