Even modest cameras these days have automation features (e.g. red-eye reduction, contrast adjustment) which could be regarded as AI. Perhaps photos taken with those should be disallowed in competitions?

And it is a small step from those automated features to a phone's filter that removes acne in portrait mode. And one more small step from there to snapchat filters that make your eyes look bigger. And once you're in snapchat there other filters that superimpose your features on a dragon's face. At that point I don't think anyone would argue that it's a real picture of someone's face. I don't think anyone would argue that it's photography. We crossed a line somewhere but where was the line? If the dragon isn't real then neither is the augmented-eye image. And if that isn't real then neither is the acne-removed image. And so on down the line if you work through the issue in reverse; still the line is not obvious. It gets philosophical; what is photography? Surely this has all been thought through and the line drawn by the governing body of the competition? I find it hard to believe that this guy managed to win with an AI generated image, without breaking the rules of the competition.

 

what is photography?

That which ended when digital imaging began.

I yearn for the days of photographic film, dark rooms, and buggy whips.

 

It gets philosophical; what is photography?

I think the governing body was avoiding that question until this guy pushed it into their faces. I don''t really blame them.

All photos are images, but not all images are photos.

All pictures are images, but not all images are pictures.

All photos are pictures, but not all pictures are photos.

A photo is a picture 'shot' by a device called a camera (using film, digital sensors,phosphors, etc ...) that in some way measures energy (usually light) emitted from a source.

We already have a word for his image, it's called CGI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery#Text-to-image_models

 

That which ended when digital imaging began.

I yearn for the days of photographic film, dark rooms, and buggy whips.

Some people still use all of those things. You could join a club.

 

Even modest cameras these days have automation features (e.g. red-eye reduction, contrast adjustment) which could be regarded as AI. Perhaps photos taken with those should be disallowed in competitions?

Or define categories in which different types of cameras and techniques are allowed or disallowed. You can't enter a color photograph in a black and white category. I don't see how this is any different. If they want a category for photos taken with only manual settings, the define such a category. I do recognize that it will be increasingly difficult to identify cheaters.

 

I do recognize that it will be increasingly difficult to identify cheaters.

I have an idea ... use the honor system ...

 

I have an idea ... use the honor system ...

I acknowledge that they exist but I don't understand cheaters' motivations. Unless just for the cash prize? How can you proudly display a prize that you know you didn't earn? Maybe pride in one's craftiness? Displaying the award as a token of a completely different accomplishment (fooling the system)?

 

I acknowledge that they exist but I don't understand cheaters' motivations. Unless just for the cash prize? How can you proudly display a prize that you know you didn't earn? Maybe pride in one's craftiness? Displaying the award as a token of a completely different accomplishment (fooling the system)?

Lying to oneself is one of humanity's oldest vices ... it's rooted in narcissism

 

I acknowledge that they exist but I don't understand cheaters' motivations. Unless just for the cash prize? How can you proudly display a prize that you know you didn't earn? Maybe pride in one's craftiness? Displaying the award as a token of a completely different accomplishment (fooling the system)?

Oh, I've known lots of people that have no problem lying, cheating, or stealing to get what they want and they sleep just fine at night. While I'm sure some of them have other motivations along the lines you mention, most just simply just want what they want and don't care about what they do to get it.

 

Even modest cameras these days have automation features (e.g. red-eye reduction, contrast adjustment)

And it is a small step from those automated features to a phone's filter that removes acne in portrait mode.

Not really.

Red eye reduction is a function of the camera’s strobe light. The light is made to flash in a short series of pulses to cause the subject’s pupils to constrict so that when it fires for the shot they are too small to produce the red eye effect.

Contrast adjustment is a simple post processing operation that requires no AI. In fact, unless you are shooting RAW, the camera(’s firmware) is making dozens of decisions about how to interpret the scene’s light, shadow, and color. SooC (Straight out of Camera) is an odd mythical thing. The process of producing a JPEG is a matter of æsthetic choices made by the camera’s programmer’s in the overwhelming majority of cases since almost no one adjusts the profiles that decide these things even when they are accessible (most times).

There is no “real scene” when taking a photograph because we don’t see the way a camera operates. In fact things like HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography and focus stacking which rely on many photos are more like our visual system than a snapshot. Photos must be interpretive because they don’t represent anything objectively “real”, and any attempt to pin down such a set of criteria is arbitrary with no special value.

I think the ethical aspect of photography may demand that photos not be intentionally misleading for the purpose of gain or harm, but that’s just applying a general principle to photography—there is nothing domain specific involved.

So what matter’s isn’t how the photo came to be, it’s what it is represented as depicting and why. When I shoot a sunrise, I work hard in post to make it look how I experienced the scene, something which no simple single exposure can do. We look around and create a composite of exposure which affects light, shadow, and color—the camera can only focus on one point and use one exposure setting. Photos are inherently and literally “artificial”. They are man made, and not natural.

A sunrise, everything here was present and visible to a person
but the photo showed only black clouds and tree line because
it had to expose for the brightest area.


A sunset, the sunstar (radial projections from the sun) is an artifact of the lens,
the stopped motion of Lake Michigan is a falsehood of the camera as well.
The light, shadow, and color at all things I experienced.
​

 

Lying to oneself is one of humanity's oldest vices ... it's rooted in narcissism

Oh, I've known lots of people that have no problem lying, cheating, or stealing to get what they want and they sleep just fine at night. While I'm sure some of them have other motivations along the lines you mention, most just simply just want what they want and don't care about what they do to get it.

I don't condone it, but I can understand lying/cheating to:
-get a promotion
-pass a course
-win a car
-sign a more lucrative deal with a better sports team
-take home a $5M jackpot

I can't understand it for:
-setting a Guinness world record
-taking home a trophy from a martial arts tournament
-winning a marathon
-Winning a beauty pageant

I mean, you might as well buy an old trophy off ebay and scratch your name into it or draw yourself a certificate of achievement with crayons. I don't see how it's any different apart from it precludes depriving someone else of an award they actually deserved. When the award is a recognition of the effort you've put in, and you know that you haven't put in the effort, how can the kudos be anything other than absolutely unfulfilling? Like being complemented by a blind person on having a muscular physique when you're built like Mr. Potato Head.

But, there are enough videos of stolen valor "war heroes" on the internet for me to concede that narcissism exists and is not logical. I guess I don't need to understand it; knowing it's out there is enough.

 

Not really.

Red eye reduction is a function of the camera’s strobe light. The light is made to flash in a short series of pulses to cause the subject’s pupils to constrict so that when it fires for the shot they are too small to produce the red eye effect.

Contrast adjustment is a simple post processing operation that requires no AI. In fact, unless you are shooting RAW, the camera(’s firmware) is making dozens of decisions about how to interpret the scene’s light, shadow, and color. SooC (Straight out of Camera) is an odd mythical thing. The process of producing a JPEG is a matter of æsthetic choices made by the camera’s programmer’s in the overwhelming majority of cases since almost no one adjusts the profiles that decide these things even when they are accessible (most times).

There is no “real scene” when taking a photograph because we don’t see the way a camera operates. In fact things like HDR (High Dynamic Range) photography and focus stacking which rely on many photos are more like our visual system than a snapshot. Photos must be interpretive because they don’t represent anything objectively “real”, and any attempt to pin down such a set of criteria is arbitrary with no special value.

I think the ethical aspect of photography may demand that photos not be intentionally misleading for the purpose of gain or harm, but that’s just applying a general principle to photography—there is nothing domain specific involved.

So what matter’s isn’t how the photo came to be, it’s what it is represented as depicting and why. When I shoot a sunrise, I work hard in post to make it look how I experienced the scene, something which no simple single exposure can do. We look around and create a composite of exposure which affects light, shadow, and color—the camera can only focus on one point and use one exposure setting. Photos are inherently and literally “artificial”. They are man made, and not natural.

View attachment 292400
A sunrise, everything here was present and visible to a person
but the photo showed only black clouds and tree line because
it had to expose for the brightest area.

View attachment 292401
A sunset, the sunstar (radial projections from the sun) is an artifact of the lens,
the stopped motion of Lake Michigan is a falsehood of the camera as well.
The light, shadow, and color at all things I experienced.
​

Excellent post.



Like I said, it gets philosophical. Not even film photography is exempt from the points you've made.

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/65361193
Michael Schumacher: Magazine editor sacked over AI-generated 'interview' with seven-time F1 champion

"As a result of the publication of this article, immediate personnel consequences will be drawn.

"Die Aktuelle editor-in-chief Anne Hoffmann, who has held journalistic responsibility for the paper since 2009, will be relieved of her duties as of today."

 

https://restofworld.org/2023/chatgpt-taking-kenya-ghostwriters-jobs/
AI is taking the jobs of Kenyans who write essays for U.S. college students

For the past nine years, Collins, a 27-year-old freelance writer, has been making money by writing assignments for students in the U.S. — over 8,500 miles away from Nanyuki in central Kenya, where he lives. He is part of the “contract cheating” industry, known locally as simply “academic writing.” Collins writes college essays on topics including psychology, sociology, and economics. Occasionally, he is even granted direct access to college portals, allowing him to submit tests and assignments, participate in group discussions, and talk to professors using students’ identities. In 2022, he made between $900 and $1,200 a month from this work.

Lately, however, his earnings have dropped to $500–$800 a month. Collins links this to the meteoric rise of ChatGPT and other generative artificial intelligence tools.

AI is already eliminating jobs.

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/65361193
Michael Schumacher: Magazine editor sacked over AI-generated 'interview' with seven-time F1 champion

If I'm reading this correctly, the article itself acknowledged that the "interview" was a total fabrication?

If so, it seems to me that the AI-slant is completely beside the point.

Is this magazine a German-equivalent of the the National Enquirer or its ilk? The cover gives me that impression. If so, then it's no different than any other of the patently bogus articles that that rags routinely print -- and I still don't see how the addition of an AI-angle changes a thing.

 

https://restofworld.org/2023/chatgpt-taking-kenya-ghostwriters-jobs/
AI is taking the jobs of Kenyans who write essays for U.S. college students
AI is already eliminating jobs.

I was stunned when, about a decade ago, I came across some research into the online cheating phenomenon that showed how extensive it had become at that time and how many of these "services" charged more than the students were paying for the course in the first place.

 

If I'm reading this correctly, the article itself acknowledged that the "interview" was a total fabrication?

If so, it seems to me that the AI-slant is completely beside the point.

Is this magazine a German-equivalent of the the National Enquirer or its ilk? The cover gives me that impression. If so, then it's no different than any other of the patently bogus articles that that rags routinely print -- and I still don't see how the addition of an AI-angle changes a thing.

I think it was in such bad taste that only a brainless AI (or the human equivalent) could take write it and it took a brainless editor to publish it.

 

PROMPT: What is the dominant source of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury?

OUTPUT: The dominant source of the precession of the perihelion of Mercury is the general relativity effect of the curvature of spacetime around the Sun.

WHY IT IS WRONG: The dominant effect is the gravitational pull from other planets, which are an order of magnitude larger.

Simple, clear, straightforward and direct. And totally wrong.

It simply picks the next likely words related to precession of the perihelion of Mercury. It doesn't understand the actual question or truly comprehend the meaning of dominant.

 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-su...entists-lawsuit-over-ai-generated-2023-04-24/
US Supreme Court rejects computer scientist's lawsuit over AI-generated inventions

A patent is not an invention, it's a legal/commercial document. These machines will likely write legal documents very well in the near future. Guess who that benefits the most? Yes, patent trolls.

 

https://www.nber.org/papers/w31161
Generative AI at Work

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31161/w31161.pdf

We study the staggered introduction of a generative AI-based conversational assistant using data from 5,179 customer support agents. Access to the tool increases productivity, as measured by issues resolved per hour, by 14 percent on average, with the greatest impact on novice and low-skilled workers, and minimal impact on experienced and highly skilled workers.

Shocking! ...aaaand now we know why it decided to kill all humans.