what kind of images will AI start replacing...?

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

looked at several POTM lightboxes;

noticed all images look polished planned near perfect commercial;

are these the kind of images AI will start replacing...?

[Sally Robertson]

Hi Jeff, I expect it is commercial-type images, especially still life shots of things like food and concept photos, that will be the first that AI significantly starts to replace. Basically the kinds of images you see a lot on microstock sites. I am not sure which POTM images you've been looking at, but I guess there too that an image of something like a lake with a mountain behind it or a generic looking jetty at a beach could also be constructed through AI. Such images would be like an imaginary place that AI has been trained to create based on what actual places look like.

 

From the examples I've seen, I still feel like I can detect something a bit fake and not quite right when I see an AI image of a cake, for example. I think I'd feel the same about an AI generated landscape. AI images of people are even more uncomfortable to look at for me. It's like I can sense something is wrong with it. Personally, if I was buying stock images, I would prefer to buy a real photo of a real subject over an AI generated one. I do wonder if a market will always remain for real images over AI.

 

As for as the editorial content you see a lot of on Alamy, that cannot be replaced by AI. A while ago I thought about either building or buying my own lightbox for doing still life images for stock, but that now no longer seems like a good investment. I feel like I am better off photographing places and people in an editorial context.

 

It will be interesting to see how the AI situation pans out 🤔

[Jill Morgan]

Any editorial images would be difficult to replace with AI, simply because AI is feeding off of a whole pile of images so always has the chance of getting it wrong.  If you are a image editor and want something of a specific place, then AI may not come up with exactly how it looks.  If you are buying the image as opposed to creating it yourself with AI, then cheaper and safer to go with a real image.  For editors to even do their own AI images, it can take many tries to get what you want and the image will still need to be processed as it won't be perfect.  Time is money, and it would still be cheaper to buy than to create your own. And none of these services are free.  It can get expensive,

 

I do a lot with AI (not images but arty stuff to put on my pet products) and it can take me awhile to get what I want. Still a major time investment.

[Martin L]

AI already has a reputation of being 'fake'.

If any websites/mags/news etc use AI images they run the risk of the whole story being viewed with suspicion.

It maybe used to create humorous pics or even concept pics in a way CGI is used to create sci-fi films but I believe there will always be a market for 'real' pics.

Me not scared

 

[Michael Ventura]

AI will or is replacing "concept" photos and photo illustrations.  Real people, real places should be okay...for now.

[Arvy777]

Borrowed from another page  🤫 

Noam Chomsky on Artificial Intelligence:

"The human mind is not, like ChatGPT and its ilk, a lumbering statistical engine for pattern matching, gorging on hundreds of terabytes of data and extrapolating the most likely conversational response or most probable answer to a scientific question. On the contrary, the human mind is a surprisingly efficient and even elegant system that operates with small amounts of information; it seeks not to infer brute correlations among data points but to create explanations..."

"... Let's stop calling it "Artificial Intelligence" then and call it for what it is and makes "plagiarism software" because "It doesn't create anything, but copies existing works, of existing artists, modifying them enough to escape copyright laws....

- Dr. Noam Chomsky, Dr. lan Roberts, Dr. Jeffrey

Watumull

New York Times, March 8 2023

Edited May 27 by Arvy777

[Ed Rooney]

 

Jeff, I understand that you had a post disappear on you. Me too. Could this be that we're both Brooklyn lads? 

[wiskerke]

27 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Jeff, I understand that you had a post disappear on you. Me too. Could this be that we're both Brooklyn lads? 

Gaslighting?

 

wim

[Ed Rooney]

 

Who's gaslighting whom? 

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

4 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

you had a post disappear on you...
...we're both Brooklyn lads? 

Recently?  Unaware...

 

Brooklyn, never, me online mate.

I'm more of a DC-MD-KS-AR-MD-AL-MD-TX-MD-AL-LA-AR-NJ-FL lad...

Edited May 27 by Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg

[Ed Rooney]

 

🤪

 

  I'm in a state of confusion.

[wiskerke]

2 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

🤪

 

  I'm in a state of confusion.

 

See - it works!

😁

Gaslight trailer.

Oh Ingrid Bergman.

 

wim

[Sally Robertson]

8 hours ago, Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg said:

Recently?  Unaware...

 

Brooklyn, never, me online mate.

I'm more of a DC-MD-KS-AR-MD-AL-MD-TX-MD-AL-LA-AR-NJ-FL lad...

Hi Jeff, it was me who mentioned to Ed a post of yours disappeared (one of Ed’s also just disappeared). I can’t remember your original topic but I remember Betty and I had both replied in the thread and Betty was mentioning putting furniture together then I mentioned something about IKEA furniture. All of a sudden it wasn’t there and I can only think Alamy thought we’d gone off topic. Or maybe it’s still there somewhere and I just can’t remember where it is but I’m pretty sure it disappeared.

 

Hi again, just found your post that was deleted Jeff by going back through my notifications. It was entitled "BETTY !! Dangerous, dramatic photo ops today". That was when tornado activity was happening in Betty's part of the world. It has indeed been deleted because if I click on the notification your post is no longer there.

Edited May 28 by Sally Robertson

[Betty LaRue]

5 hours ago, Sally Robertson said:

Hi Jeff, it was me who mentioned to Ed a post of yours disappeared (one of Ed’s also just disappeared). I can’t remember your original topic but I remember Betty and I had both replied in the thread and Betty was mentioning putting furniture together then I mentioned something about IKEA furniture. All of a sudden it wasn’t there and I can only think Alamy thought we’d gone off topic. Or maybe it’s still there somewhere and I just can’t remember where it is but I’m pretty sure it disappeared.

 

Hi again, just found your post that was deleted Jeff by going back through my notifications. It was entitled "BETTY !! Dangerous, dramatic photo ops today". That was when tornado activity was happening in Betty's part of the world. It has indeed been deleted because if I click on the notification your post is no longer there.

Sally, ah-hem, someone, or some entity, is trying to suck the life out of us, me thinks.

[Sally Robertson]

2 hours ago, Betty LaRue said:

Sally, ah-hem, someone, or some entity, is trying to suck the life out of us, me thinks.

Hi Betty, yes, mysterious happenings 🤔

[Ed Rooney]

8 hours ago, Sally Robertson said:

Hi Jeff, it was me who mentioned to Ed a post of yours disappeared (one of Ed’s also just disappeared). I can’t remember your original topic but I remember Betty and I had both replied in the thread and Betty was mentioning putting furniture together then I mentioned something about IKEA furniture. All of a sudden it wasn’t there and I can only think Alamy thought we’d gone off topic. Or maybe it’s still there somewhere and I just can’t remember where it is but I’m pretty sure it disappeared.

 

Hi again, just found your post that was deleted Jeff by going back through my notifications. It was entitled "BETTY !! Dangerous, dramatic photo ops today". That was when tornado activity was happening in Betty's part of the world. It has indeed been deleted because if I click on the notification your post is no longer there.

 

Sally, do you think this could mean that Jeff is from Brooklyn afterall, but he's forgotten? 

[Sally Robertson]

2 hours ago, Ed Rooney said:

 

Sally, do you think this could mean that Jeff is from Brooklyn afterall, but he's forgotten? 

 

I don't know Ed. A number of things seem to be disappearing into a sort of Bermuda Triangle so I'm not sure what's happening.

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

the most recent (12) posts on this thread

including (1) by me & this one by me

are unrelated to OP

THAT FOLKS IS HOW...

[John Mitchell]

On 26/05/2024 at 16:52, Arvy777 said:

Borrowed from another page  🤫 

Noam Chomsky on Artificial Intelligence:

"The human mind is not, like ChatGPT and its ilk, a lumbering statistical engine for pattern matching, gorging on hundreds of terabytes of data and extrapolating the most likely conversational response or most probable answer to a scientific question. On the contrary, the human mind is a surprisingly efficient and even elegant system that operates with small amounts of information; it seeks not to infer brute correlations among data points but to create explanations..."

"... Let's stop calling it "Artificial Intelligence" then and call it for what it is and makes "plagiarism software" because "It doesn't create anything, but copies existing works, of existing artists, modifying them enough to escape copyright laws....

- Dr. Noam Chomsky, Dr. lan Roberts, Dr. Jeffrey

Watumull

New York Times, March 8 2023

 

That sounds like a pretty accurate assessment of the current state of AI. Perhaps it should be renamed FI (Fake Intelligence) as it isn't really creating fresh new images, just cobbling together different ones from existing data. Good old Noam Chomsky. He's 95 and still at it.

[geogphotos]

Chomsky clearly mixes with a different set of humans to me. 

[John Mitchell]

26 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

Chomsky clearly mixes with a different set of humans to me. 

 

Is that why you updated your avatar? 😉

[Steve F]

On 26/05/2024 at 14:48, Jill Morgan said:

Any editorial images would be difficult to replace with AI, simply because AI is feeding off of a whole pile of images so always has the chance of getting it wrong.  If you are a image editor and want something of a specific place, then AI may not come up with exactly how it looks.  If you are buying the image as opposed to creating it yourself with AI, then cheaper and safer to go with a real image.  For editors to even do their own AI images, it can take many tries to get what you want and the image will still need to be processed as it won't be perfect.  Time is money, and it would still be cheaper to buy than to create your own. And none of these services are free.  It can get expensive

I agree, a specific place image will always have to be a 'real' image, I don't think people will ever want to see fake AI generated images of real places.

 

On 26/05/2024 at 06:02, Sally Robertson said:

Hi Jeff, I expect it is commercial-type images, especially still life shots of things like food and concept photos, that will be the first that AI significantly starts to replace. Basically the kinds of images you see a lot on microstock sites.

I do quite well with those sorts of images here!! 🙈

 

On 26/05/2024 at 15:21, Martin L said:

AI already has a reputation of being 'fake'.

If any websites/mags/news etc use AI images they run the risk of the whole story being viewed with suspicion.

It maybe used to create humorous pics or even concept pics in a way CGI is used to create sci-fi films but I believe there will always be a market for 'real' pics.

Me not scared

+1. Will destroy a lot of my sales though, which are mainly home studio shots.

 

 

 

 

[Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg]

On 26/05/2024 at 19:52, Arvy777 said:

Borrowed from another page  🤫 

Noam Chomsky on Artificial Intelligence:

"The human mind is not, like ChatGPT...

ChatGPT responds with great vigor:

 

Chomsky's perspective on AI raises important questions about the nature of intelligence and creativity. While AI systems like ChatGPT excel at processing vast amounts of data and generating responses based on statistical patterns, they indeed lack the depth of understanding and creativity that characterize human cognition.

However, it's essential to recognize that AI serves various purposes beyond mere pattern matching. It aids in data analysis, problem-solving, and even creative tasks like generating art or music. While AI may not possess consciousness or true understanding in the human sense, it can still produce valuable outputs that contribute to various fields.

Regarding Chomsky's analogy of AI as "plagiarism software," it's a provocative way to highlight the difference between original creation and algorithmic generation. AI often operates by synthesizing existing data or patterns to produce new outputs, which some might argue is derivative rather than truly innovative. However, this overlooks the potential for AI to assist and augment human creativity rather than replace it entirely.

Ultimately, discussions like these prompt us to consider the ethical, philosophical, and societal implications of AI development and deployment. It's crucial to approach these technologies with a critical eye while also recognizing their potential benefits and limitations in shaping the future of humanity.

[John Mitchell]

Have to admit that ChatGPT cobbled together quite a "thoughtful" and balanced response to Mr. Chomsky.

 

However, the old saying, "We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us” comes to mind for some reason.

 

I'm old enough to remember HAL. He too sounded very reasonable. 😨

[Sally Robertson]

I just watched a YouTube video on AI and photography by one of my favourite bird photographers, Duade Paton. He talks about both AI generated images competing with photographs, and the development of AI technologies in cameras. I found it very interesting. He shows examples of images of birds in Australian landscapes generated by AI that do look pretty realistic. He identifies if you look at them closely you can see some signs they are AI, but otherwise they can pass pretty well in terms of looking like an actual photo. I thought I would share the video as I found his thoughts on the topic interesting and insightful:

 

 

Edited May 30 by Sally Robertson
re-embedding video as started part way through