AI + Photography = ?

It looks like ChatGPT wrote that.

Here's it's response...

The intersection of AI and photography presents a fascinating and complex landscape, raising profound questions about the nature of creativity, emotional nuance, and the role of human photographers in a rapidly evolving technological era.

On one hand, AI has demonstrated remarkable capabilities in generating aesthetically pleasing images and even replicating certain aspects of human decision-making. AI algorithms can analyze patterns, learn from vast datasets, and produce images that align with established aesthetic norms. However, the critical question remains: Can a machine truly grasp the nuanced emotions embedded in a photograph, replicating the intuitive decisions made by a human photographer? Emotions, personal experiences, and cultural contexts are intrinsic to human perception and creativity, elements that AI might struggle to fully comprehend.

The challenge is distinguishing the authenticity of a photograph created by a human from one generated by a machine. The human touch often involves a deep connection to the subject, an understanding of the context, and an emotional resonance that may be challenging for AI to replicate authentically.

The evolving role of photographers in this AI-infused landscape may involve a shift towards curating, interpreting, and infusing a uniquely human perspective into the visual narrative. While AI can efficiently generate images, it may lack the depth of human experiences, the capacity for empathetic storytelling, and the ability to convey the subtle nuances that make a photograph truly powerful.

The societal challenge is finding a balance between the efficiency and precision of AI-generated art and the irreplaceable touch of human subjectivity. The photographer's role may extend beyond the act of pressing the shutter button to encompass the curation of content, the interpretation of narratives, and the infusion of human emotion into the artistic process. Society must navigate this balance, appreciating the unique contributions of both AI and human photographers, recognizing that each brings something distinct to the creative landscape.

In conclusion, AI + Photography represents a dynamic interplay between technological efficiency and human subjectivity, prompting a redefinition of the photographer's role and challenging society to value the distinctive contributions of human photographers in an era increasingly influenced by algorithmic creativity.

I just donated my camera to a robot sanctuary;

or it might have been the other way around - I'll figure it out later...

Edited by A R G E N T U M

Russ Freeman said

It looks like ChatGPT wrote that.

Yep and a bit of Parkinson's with the control 'v' key! 

I do enjoy a bit of a play with AI though, probably because I can't paint/draw. Can't see it replacing photographers but I think it has a place in creating a new form of artwork. 

Good for face-swapping your friends into compromising positions too! :-D

Russ Freeman said

It looks like ChatGPT wrote that.

Don't tell my boss!  But yeah, find me a writer who isn't using AI at the moment. Even at very basic level to fine-tune, spellcheck, grammar check and more, it's all AI driven. Yes, Grammarly played a role in certain sections, and ChatGPT used to prompt and ask additional questions. This short article was written a few months ago for something that never got the green light for publication.

This also raises an interesting point: How many people are aware of the extent to which what they read, watch, and see is either entirely or partially produced by AI, some of it with no human oversight whatsoever?

The written word is far more at threat than visual content. Most, if not all of the editorial magazines I used to write for are almost totally produced by AI. 

Edited by Amor Lucis

Edited by Amor Lucis

Written by human or machine, after two lines I'd had enough..........

A R G E N T U M said

I just donated my camera to a robot sanctuary;

or it might have been the other way around - I'll figure it out later...

You gave sanctuary to a robot camera?

OK actually yeah that's what we're doing.

Amor Lucis said

Russ Freeman said

It looks like ChatGPT wrote that.

Don't tell my boss!  But yeah, find me a writer who isn't using AI at the moment.

I am going to be blunt, and I am going to use a swearword, but it is in the interests of furthering a debate:

The bit in bold is a bullshit cop-out.

Don't use AI. Write your own words. Own your writing.

Amor Lucis said

Russ Freeman said

It looks like ChatGPT wrote that.

Don't tell my boss!  But yeah, find me a writer who isn't using AI at the moment. Even at very basic level to fine-tune, spellcheck, grammar check and more, it's all AI driven. Yes, Grammarly played a role in certain sections, and ChatGPT used to prompt and ask additional questions. This short article was written a few months ago for something that never got the green light for publication.

This also raises an interesting point: How many people are aware of the extent to which what they read, watch, and see is either entirely or partially produced by AI, some of it with no human oversight whatsoever?

The written word is far more at threat than visual content. Most, if not all of the editorial magazines I used to write for are almost totally produced by AI. 

Dave Kai-Piper aka Amor Lucis.

Check out Jaron Lanier's book, Who Owns the Future. Also, his bit here: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/mar/23/tech-guru-jaron-lanier-the-danger-isnt-that-ai-destroys-us-its-that-it-drives-us-insane

We're already at the point where those who know are tired of this BS, and those who don't yet know will soon tire of this BS.

https://www.404media.co/facebook-is-being-overrun-with-stolen-ai-generated-images-that-people-think-are-real/

IG is also getting overrun with AI crap, YT and tiktok, and the search results are too. It's going to cause real problems soon, and these megacorps are causing their own demise. It's almost funny.

People are starting to question what is happening, starting to realise how much BS there is in the media, and it will cause long-term harm to those that wish to maintain control over narratives.

Unfocussed Mike said

Amor Lucis said

Russ Freeman said

It looks like ChatGPT wrote that.

Don't tell my boss!  But yeah, find me a writer who isn't using AI at the moment.

I am going to be blunt, and I am going to use a swearword, but it is in the interests of furthering a debate:

The bit in bold is a bullshit cop-out.

Don't use AI. Write your own words. Own your writing.

Nailed it.

Russ Freeman said

Unfocussed Mike said

Amor Lucis said

Russ Freeman said

It looks like ChatGPT wrote that.

Don't tell my boss!  But yeah, find me a writer who isn't using AI at the moment.

I am going to be blunt, and I am going to use a swearword, but it is in the interests of furthering a debate:

The bit in bold is a bullshit cop-out.

Don't use AI. Write your own words. Own your writing.

Nailed it.

+1

Unfocussed Mike said

Amor Lucis said

Russ Freeman said

It looks like ChatGPT wrote that.

Don't tell my boss!  But yeah, find me a writer who isn't using AI at the moment.

I am going to be blunt, and I am going to use a swearword, but it is in the interests of furthering a debate:

The bit in bold is a bullshit cop-out.

Don't use AI. Write your own words. Own your writing.

+1

B17fan said

Written by human or machine, after two lines I'd had enough..........

TWO ?? I  stopped in the first line.  And from here I got to the OP's profile to hide their forum posts hence forth

Unfocussed Mike said

Amor Lucis said

Russ Freeman said

It looks like ChatGPT wrote that.

Don't tell my boss!  But yeah, find me a writer who isn't using AI at the moment.

I am going to be blunt, and I am going to use a swearword, but it is in the interests of furthering a debate:

The bit in bold is a bullshit cop-out.

Don't use AI. Write your own words. Own your writing.

Why should make the effort to read something couldn't make the effort to write. Got an idea? Express it in your own words. If you can't do that, STFU.  I'd like to see a short posting ban for posting GPT or similar generated stuff as ones own (as happens with pictures), until then it's very few clicks to block those who serve bots. 

Remember Douglas Adams’ electric monk?

He reasoned that video recorders recorded piles of stuff that no-one ever watched.

Essentially they watched things for people.

Similarly, electric monks believed things for people who were too busy to invest effort in their own belief system.

AI is like that.

Amor Lucis said

Russ Freeman said

It looks like ChatGPT wrote that.

Don't tell my boss!  But yeah, find me a writer who isn't using AI at the moment. Even at very basic level to fine-tune, spellcheck, grammar check and more, it's all AI driven. Yes, Grammarly played a role in certain sections, and ChatGPT used to prompt and ask additional questions. This short article was written a few months ago for something that never got the green light for publication.

This also raises an interesting point: How many people are aware of the extent to which what they read, watch, and see is either entirely or partially produced by AI, some of it with no human oversight whatsoever?

The written word is far more at threat than visual content. Most, if not all of the editorial magazines I used to write for are almost totally produced by AI. 

Edited by Amor Lucis

 

Edited by Amor Lucis

But yeah, find me a writer who isn't using AI at the moment

Hi, yeah, work for the UK's biggest selling magazine publisher. I can find you an entire company's worth. The uptake has been very slow and extremely minimal, despite my own personal efforts.

The written word is far more at threat than visual content

Depends what kind of content you're producing. I've worked on our internal AI board on this exact thing - recreating brand styles using AI. We've tried simple prompt engineering as well as fine tuning, including while in the presence of Microsoft. The end result is poor. While it can, with enough prompting and info-feeding, produce something dry and newsy, it really struggles to mimic more personality-led articles. It also really struggles with word-count, which is a big one - 300 words short is of no use to anyone. I'm confident in saying it's actually quite a (relatively) long way off from being mainstream. 

If you're bashing out web articles that simply need to contain words to serve ads, have at it. When you're writing for an audience as a brand, simply not there yet. 

On the flip side, image creation for stock illustrations is right there, right now. It's as close to perfect as it needs to be and is at a level where it can replace many instances of photography and artistry at scale with major cost reductions.