@joemuli
ā¦. and thatās a most depressing thought. If anyone can just type a few words and come up with a mind-blowing image that weād normally have to work like crazy to produce ourselves; Iām not at all sure Iām comfortable with that.
The correlation between painting to photography and photography to AI photography is a fascinating one and will be an interesting conversation to visit in the future. I predict we will feel the same about AI as the painters of old felt about photography
@koalagardens
Yes - and if it has been used, it would be honourable to state what in the posted image has been AI-generated, and what/how much is actually personal work. Post-processing is good, itās been done for centuries ā¦ itās when you ask AI to put together an image using some words and post it as your own work - that I find unethical. I suspect quite a couple of images posted to 365 have been made using AI created-generate imagery without mentioning it. Iām not talking about AI masking or general toning/contrast/lighting editing and effects that AI offers to the original photograph; for eg, Lightroom and ON1 use AI masking, and I think itās a very helpful, time-saving feature. But using AI to create a new full-on āphotographā is another kettle of fish altogether. And how would you copyright such a work? Itās quite the dilemma. Interesting to see how this all pans out.
Interesting article. Not quite sure yet where I stand on this and frankly, not even quite sure what AI means in this instance. I know that I have used what claims to be AI noise reduction software in processing some of my images but it hasnāt changed the basic image very much, it seems to me. I gather the image in the contest went much farther than that, but I donāt think it amounted to starting with a blank page, just typing a few words, and ending up with that submitted image.
According to the article:
āthe work was made by submitting language to an AI generator many times over. In the process, the work was altered using techniques known as inpainting, outpainting, and prompt whispering.ā I have no idea what all that means or entails but it sounds as if, despite the use of AI, the creator had quite a bit of input in the creation process.
I think for me, the main problem may arise with submitting it as a photograph. Maybe we need a new category of mixed digital art.
@gardencat i agree with Joanne... there appears to be an element of artistry here... it's just not starting with a photograph taken by the artist... and then there's the issue of honesty / transparency...
Our local in-person photo club is having a lot of discussion about this as well. I believe that my smart phone camera may already apply some AI to help me get the image I am after. So I think the lines will be very blurry.
I think if we want to go really purist, anti-AI, input to our images, almost any of us who use modern cameras will be in trouble. What about those of us who use automatic eye focus? Isn't that a kind of AI in which the camera first has to identify what is an eye and then tell the camera how to pull focus on it? Let alone anyone who uses an in camera HDR effect?
Thanks for sharing.
It's both scary and fascinating. Could AI be more creative, more artistic than humans?
In any case you can see how it could be misused...
@kali66 thank you for sharing the video.. yes,AI is unstoppable.. itās everywhereā¦ āFAKEāis the new trend.. fake Rothko,fake smiles and fake orgasm!!ā¦š¤£š¤£š¤£š„°
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
ā¦. and thatās a most depressing thought. If anyone can just type a few words and come up with a mind-blowing image that weād normally have to work like crazy to produce ourselves; Iām not at all sure Iām comfortable with that.
Yes - and if it has been used, it would be honourable to state what in the posted image has been AI-generated, and what/how much is actually personal work. Post-processing is good, itās been done for centuries ā¦ itās when you ask AI to put together an image using some words and post it as your own work - that I find unethical. I suspect quite a couple of images posted to 365 have been made using AI created-generate imagery without mentioning it. Iām not talking about AI masking or general toning/contrast/lighting editing and effects that AI offers to the original photograph; for eg, Lightroom and ON1 use AI masking, and I think itās a very helpful, time-saving feature. But using AI to create a new full-on āphotographā is another kettle of fish altogether. And how would you copyright such a work? Itās quite the dilemma. Interesting to see how this all pans out.
According to the article:
āthe work was made by submitting language to an AI generator many times over. In the process, the work was altered using techniques known as inpainting, outpainting, and prompt whispering.ā I have no idea what all that means or entails but it sounds as if, despite the use of AI, the creator had quite a bit of input in the creation process.
I think for me, the main problem may arise with submitting it as a photograph. Maybe we need a new category of mixed digital art.
It's both scary and fascinating. Could AI be more creative, more artistic than humans?
In any case you can see how it could be misused...