Images being removed.

Parkstone Photography said

Russ Freeman said

There seems to be some confusion over how things are.

Let me clarify;

1. An image is reported as suspected AI-generated. 
2. Admin looks, and if they agree, the image is deleted pending evidence that that image is not AI-generated.
3. Failure to share evidence means the image remains deleted.

If an image was challenged and the image has remained deleted, then either evidence was not provided or something else must have failed.

There is no complexity in this process and no algorithms are involved.

As an aside, I am thinking of creating a new service where AI-generated images can be shared. It will have bots to like and comment on the images, and automated awards will be given out for participation in automated competitions. I am just concerned about it being swamped by real people wanting to take photos of other real people and I'm not sure how to keep them out.

In your Point 3.  I shared proof/evidence within the support ticket that the image I created was not created by AI yet you still not reinstated that image...... 

Oh, I just checked the ticket, and it looks like you didn't provide what Admin asked for and instead told the admin to forget about it saying "I can't be bothered".

Maybe you sent what they asked for after they had finished for the weekend.

Pantomime show with the pro AI fans.

Russ Freeman said

Parkstone Photography said

Russ Freeman said

There seems to be some confusion over how things are.

Let me clarify;

1. An image is reported as suspected AI-generated. 
2. Admin looks, and if they agree, the image is deleted pending evidence that that image is not AI-generated.
3. Failure to share evidence means the image remains deleted.

If an image was challenged and the image has remained deleted, then either evidence was not provided or something else must have failed.

There is no complexity in this process and no algorithms are involved.

As an aside, I am thinking of creating a new service where AI-generated images can be shared. It will have bots to like and comment on the images, and automated awards will be given out for participation in automated competitions. I am just concerned about it being swamped by real people wanting to take photos of other real people and I'm not sure how to keep them out.

In your Point 3.  I shared proof/evidence within the support ticket that the image I created was not created by AI yet you still not reinstated that image...... 

Oh, I just checked the ticket, and it looks like you didn't provide what Admin asked for and instead told the admin to forget about it saying "I can't be bothered".

Maybe you sent what they asked for after they had finished for the weekend.

From what I can see I provided the perfect evidence I created that image. If you deem that I didn't do that then that's fine. Like I said, I can't be bothered now..... I will be using Purpleport differently in the future anyway.

Wondrous said

Pantomime show with the pro AI fans.

Thanks for your valuable input.......🤣

Russ Freeman said

I am just concerned about it being swamped by real people wanting to take photos of other real people and I'm not sure how to keep them out.

There's probably a market for an "I am not a human" test, TBF ;-)

(Actually there are several of these already)

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

ANDY00 said

Niek said

Photoshop is basically AI in a development stage. It all works by algorithms.

This statement is technically true to a point. Nearly every tool in Photoshop has an associated algorithm. From the cloning tool to color adjustment tools, they all rely on algorithms with intelligent systems attached. The difference is that these tools rely on human control and are not autonomous.

AI relies on literate input, you have to learn the language the bot is programmed to understand and each bot will give different results, even if only slightly, to the same instructions. It is not too dissimilar to giving a technician instructions. The problem in the near future is that photography and AI will become indiscernible from each other. Most AI images are identifiable because of the instructions fed to the bot, though some bots are clearly better programmed than others. It's going to be an interesting dilemma of when is a photograph not a photograph. To a point you can debate that now with photoshop. Interesting times ahead for photography.

Niek said

ANDY00 said

Niek said

Photoshop is basically AI in a development stage. It all works by algorithms.

This statement is technically true to a point. Nearly every tool in Photoshop has an associated algorithm. From the cloning tool to color adjustment tools, they all rely on algorithms with intelligent systems attached. The difference is that these tools rely on human control and are not autonomous.

AI relies on literate input, you have to learn the language the bot is programmed to understand and each bot will give different results, even if only slightly, to the same instructions. It is not too dissimilar to giving a technician instructions. The problem in the near future is that photography and AI will become indiscernible from each other. Most AI images are identifiable because of the instructions fed to the bot, though some bots are clearly better programmed than others. It's going to be an interesting dilemma of when is a photograph not a photograph. To a point you can debate that now with photoshop. Interesting times ahead for photography.

As I've said, there are discussions now about branding AI-generated images in the metadata to indicate their origin. However, this isn't foolproof, but then nothing is. Things have a way of settling down; there's always new technology emerging, and things always move on. Yet, photography and the industry behind it still continue to evolve. AI is going to make a significant impact, probably for the better overall, especially in terms of image quality. But there will be some upheaval before we reach a new normal. AI will have a massive effect on many aspects of our lives in the next few years.

Niek said

ANDY00 said

Niek said

Photoshop is basically AI in a development stage. It all works by algorithms.

This statement is technically true to a point. Nearly every tool in Photoshop has an associated algorithm. From the cloning tool to color adjustment tools, they all rely on algorithms with intelligent systems attached. The difference is that these tools rely on human control and are not autonomous.

AI relies on literate input, you have to learn the language the bot is programmed to understand and each bot will give different results, even if only slightly, to the same instructions. It is not too dissimilar to giving a technician instructions. The problem in the near future is that photography and AI will become indiscernible from each other. Most AI images are identifiable because of the instructions fed to the bot, though some bots are clearly better programmed than others. It's going to be an interesting dilemma of when is a photograph not a photograph. To a point you can debate that now with photoshop. Interesting times ahead for photography.

I suppose I can see you're right. You just have to look at the publics response to AI on social media and see that they can't tell the difference between a photograph and something that has been AI created (and they don't care either way). I suppose this as well is the important thing when uploading an image to prove that it is a photograph or whether it is something created via AI. But it makes me wonder then why purpleport even have a profile option, that allows a user to use this website as a "Photoshop Wizard".

In my case, I provided evidence, that my images were created by myself and not with AI. Seems to me though, and has been shown, that that doesn't mean to make the blindest bit of difference as that evidence can be contested and refused by admin, just because they hold a different POV.....

Unfocussed Mike said

Russ Freeman said

I am just concerned about it being swamped by real people wanting to take photos of other real people and I'm not sure how to keep them out.

There's probably a market for an "I am not a human" test, TBF ;-)

(Actually there are several of these already)

At least some will have been written using AI code generation tools, to use AI tools to do the task ;)

I thought of something evilly funny before, somebody should do a “looks like Ai but isn’t” competition. It would cause mayhem in the PP admin world.

Perception said

I thought of something evilly funny before, somebody should do a “looks like Ai but isn’t” competition. It would cause mayhem in the PP admin world.

Already done (60% of the FPIs) ;-)

Perception said

I thought of something evilly funny before, somebody should do a “looks like Ai but isn’t” competition. It would cause mayhem in the PP admin world.

Mostly at present, AI-generated images are fairly easy to spot at a pixel level. AI is mostly at a genius level at blending images and colours, but up close, you can usually see details that are wrong: too many fingers or not enough, skin deformities on the edges, etc. However, it gets smarter and better all the time, and it will become harder and harder for the admin team to manage. Nobody should want to put the admin team under pressure with any one thing. What’s the point in that? What does that achieve? This AI generation is going to bring a lot of new issues to the industry. We may even see AI bot-like fake photographer profiles being made using generation software or models. I know I say that AI is a good thing, and it is as a tool to aid photography, but it has a bad side also. In the future, we will need to help the admin team keep the more dangerous aspects of this off the site, I reckon. Because it may be tough now guessing which images are real, but in the future, we may struggle to know which photographers or models are real. That's when we need to be a community.

Edited by ANDY00

I see you're a VIP member too, bit of a rubbish way to treat you!

RedWren said

I see you're a VIP member too, bit of a rubbish way to treat you!

PP doesn't treat VIP members any differently from free members in this regard, and quite rightly.  I was a VIP member until a few days ago, but am currently a free member.  I might well renew my VIP membership in the next few days.  Things would become very complicated if there were different standards applied based on that.

PP's rules are applied in order to ensure honesty and fairness.  For example, I (as a photographer) want to know that what I'm looking at is a photograph of a real person who might come and model for photographs for me.

Looking back at what Russ Freeman said here, the process is that:

1. An image is reported as suspected AI-generated. 
2. Admin looks, and if they agree, the image is deleted pending evidence that that image is not AI-generated.
3. Failure to share evidence means the image remains deleted.

The point he didn't say, but which I believe to be true, is that such deletion is temporary, and can be reversed by Admin.  This could happen if the user provides the requested evidence (Admin will say what they want, which might be as simple as an unedited JPG).  This would then reinstate the image with all its loves, comments etc.

Sensual Art said

RedWren said

I see you're a VIP member too, bit of a rubbish way to treat you!

PP's rules are applied in order to ensure honesty and fairness.  For example, I (as a photographer) want to know that what I'm looking at is a photograph of a real person who might come and model for photographs for me.

As over time these lines are only going to get more blurred and time consuming to enforce with the current rules, perhaps going forward we can have a rule that the model is a member of the site (or was at the time of upload) and they have to be tagged in it?

That could be an invisible tag when viewed by others members (unless the model accepts it, like now) but is visible to admin and the uploader/model, and is easy to cross-reference with the models portfolio if there's cause for any suspicion.  No tag = no upload.

In other words, we push the networking aspect of the site rather than the portfolio hosting aspect.