Modelphilia wrote:
There is already a thread and discussion on this same story:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/forums/post/983256

A Photographer Tried to Get His Photos Removed from an AI Dataset. He Got an Invoice Instead.

I don't get why there is not more of a concern for the protection of our created works?  Check this article out!  THIS is for all creatives to read!   I have hundreds of thousands of images from my 40+ years of photography, along with my grandfathers work that has not been published.  Much of my best work has not been posted on the Internet for this very reason that AI is using posted images to create artificially made creations which maybe historically wrong.  As a journalistic photographer, I find this disturbing!  What do you think?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkapb7/ … ce-instead


Also models should be concerned because this could reduce the need for them when creating images.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
With the use of lens distortion, angles, and other tools of our trade is how we can manipulate what we capture, and also what we can do in post production, so it is possible to make anything appear real, is it not?

the difference as I see it between lens selection/post production and AI generated images is this.
The photographer creates an image based in the reality of a moment in time,
What AI creates may be based entirely on fiction.

Chris Macan wrote:
the difference as I see it between lens selection/post production and AI generated images is this.
The photographer creates an image based in the reality of a moment in time,
What AI creates may be based entirely on fiction.

How will we know the difference?

I posted this on my Facebook, and Michael Beckerman who I am "Friends" with there wrote this comment;

"AI is Photoshop on steroids. Very soon, you won't be able to trust a single thing that you see OR hear. This won't just destroy photography and reporting, it will destroy the entire concept of "news" itself. That's the world we are now heading into. Get ready."

He is a longtime member here on MM but not logged on since 2015.
https://www.modelmayhem.com/michaelbeckermanphotography

LightDreams wrote:
Hell, think about Ansel Adams famous black and white Yosemite work including, at least from what I understand, his remarkable eye, technical ability and DARKROOM work (although I'll definitely yield to Ken's Marcus' personal experience with him in these areas).

The point is, "accurate" or "real" has all too often NOT been the purpose of all sorts of genres of photography.  And yes, the tools keep constantly changing over time, allowing you to do more and more in a simpler manner.

I would love to hear from Ken Marcus on this subject.  Some people I've talked with have been of the opinion that if Ansel Adams were alive today and still active with photography that he would welcome the use of Photoshop, Lightroom, and probably AI as well.  After all, we should not stand in the way of progress.

You are correct that photography does not have to be "real" or "accurate" as it is subjective and with many purposes.  My thinking is from a journalistic perspective.  I can produce art, but because of my knack for writing and the desire to speak the truth, I tend to slip away from my artistic state of mind.  So much of the great music I enjoy is fictional even if some is based on real stories. Sadly we just lost one of the greatest musical story tellers the other day with Gordon Lightfoot's passing.  As for photography, most images do tell stories that are not necessarily real or accurate.   

Life is not perfect.  I think my concern about AI is that it feels like we are striving for perfection so much so that we create  with such a thin line between what is real and what is an illusion.  Will AI change history?  Who knows?  Maybe one day we shall be able to travel back in time and change history ourselves.  Would we do that to correct our mistakes?  I hope not because our mistakes and imperfections make us who we are today.  The desire for perfection could one day be our demise.

JSouthworth wrote:
The term AI refers to the ability of computers to emulate human intelligence, for example in game play or in conversation, when they are programmed to do that by humans. But can humans emulate AI? Certainly there are people who would like us to be like computers. Or robots.

As always your post is off topic. Having nothing to do with the question asked. So you created one of your own. Stop derailing threads.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
How will we know the difference?

In this age of MAGAtruth and doublethink, THAT is the pertinent  question of our time.

Focuspuller wrote:

In this age of MAGAtruth and doublethink, THAT is the pertinent  question of our time.

Fair observation.
We are close to the point of no news photos or videos being believable.
It is simply becoming too easy to make fakes out of whole cloth,
and there are too many willing to do it for personal gain. (or just to sow discord)

Shadow Dancer wrote:
Just another phase in history...

https://www.businessinsider.com/fake-ph … esthetic-7

And, this is a composite image I created in Photoshop.
M for Mature, you have been warned.
It would have been impossible to shoot this in a grocery store without causing a commotion or legal action, etc. Plus, the model would have been really cold!!!

https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/47802081

Great example!   Although this is not "critique"  I think I'm allowed to tell you that I like that image though.

Chris Macan wrote:

Fair observation.
We are close to the point of no news photos or videos being believable.
It is simply becoming too easy to make fakes out of whole cloth,
and there are too many willing to do it for personal gain. (or just to sow discord)

Many years ago while this website and forum were a fast paced and popular place, a photographer from the LA area created a profile for a "model" that did not exist.  Of course most of us have heard of catfishing and fake profiles, but this one fooled everyone it seemed. The "person" was made a moderator of the forums for a time, then "she" died of cancer .. all over a period of time gaining the live and sympathy of many of us including me.  When "she" died, I called a photographer (a woman) that I know personally and ugly cried on the phone to her over a person who did not exist.  I felt like such a fool when it was reviled shortly after that the "model" in LA who I wanted to meet did not actually exist at all. The photographer of course was banned from this website. 

How do any of you know that I exist.  Maybe I'm a bot? In person contact is critical for mental health.  If there is a clear distinction between reality, organic art and AI, that would be helpful.

Chris Macan wrote:

Fair observation.
We are close to the point of no news photos or videos being believable.
It is simply becoming too easy to make fakes out of whole cloth,
and there are too many willing to do it for personal gain. (or just to sow discord)

We are already at the point where clear truth is doubted and proven lies are believed. A.I. combined with VR will erase the line completely. Consider this:

In 1938 a 24-year old virtuoso, by simply manipulating sound over radio, convinced millions that the United States was actually being invaded by Martians.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Great example!   Although this is not "critique"  I think I'm allowed to tell you that I like that image though.

Thanks, it looks simple but the process is a bit complex. We had fun creating that image!

Simon Rob wrote:
Does it mean that photographers don't need models because it can create images without models and probably without photographers. On TV a while back they were saying that sporting goods manufacturers are using it to get images of people that could not exist to market their goods. I do not see any reason why they will not get rid of photography as much as they can because the computer will be cheaper and more convenient. Maybe I am wrong but I definately see a model problem for fitness models because they have to physically exist.

Those would not be "photographers" but creators. They may reach the point where there are so many images on the Internet that they no longer need anything but the web to create.   It's a scary thought!

Patrick Walberg wrote:

Those would not be "photographers" but creators. They may reach the point where there are so many images on the Internet that they no longer need anything but the web to create.   It's a scary thought!

won't even need the web. AI Image models are already trained and work offline. like Stable Diffusion.

JSouthworth wrote:
When photography was invented, some people predicted the death of art as a consequence.

Well, how certain are you that if I looked at your portfolio I'd find art?

LightDreams wrote:
RE:  "Will AI be devastating to truth and photography?"

I was thinking about "truth"...

I would suggest that people have shown an amazing ability to believe any complete lie that happens to appeal to them.  And no amount of "fact checking" makes the slightest difference.  And, I would point out that's been true WITHOUT AI'S INVOLVEMENT.

I suspect that the same "I'll believe any (so-called) FACT that backs up whatever it is I want to believe" dynamic, will STILL be at play with any (very suspect) AI created content.

If they WANT to believe it then AI content, or AI generated "photographs", will be viewed as "Proof".   

If they DON'T want to believe it, then (whether it's real or just AI generated), it will be regarded as "Fake".

It's pretty sad, really, but that's the world we live in.  The days of "you can have your own opinions but not your own FACTS" are long gone.   Yes, facts still matter, but NOT to those who are deliberately, or even subconsciously, selective as to what they are willing to accept as fact.

AI generated content just gives them more opportunities to believe whatever they were going to believe.

I was a photo major in college. Photographs that were patently dishonest were printed many times in the late 1800's and early 1900's and that has never stopped. The idea that photography has been based on honesty and integrity up to now is hysterically funny to me!

Shadow Dancer wrote:

I was a photo major in college. Photographs that were patently dishonest were printed many times in the late 1800's and early 1900's and that has never stopped. The idea that photography has been based on honesty and integrity up to now is hysterically funny to me!

There has always been photo manipulation, but done by humans, with human sensibility. Who knows where non-human AI machines will lead us?

Focuspuller wrote:

There has always been photo manipulation, but done by humans, with human sensibility. Who knows where non-human AI machines will lead us?

"Non-Human AI" did not invent itself, it is programmed by humans. Maybe not photographers, I'll give you that.
Yes, it may be a different perspective. Yes, it may be socially unacceptable or cut into a profession that is already compromised to the vanishing point. I can't fix or stall "progress" anymore than I can change the direction the wind blows.
So it goes.

And, FWIW I'm astounded by how good the sharpening tool is in 2021 Photoshop Elements, not everything done using AI will be weird or bad. In some cases it will make life easier and better.

Shadow Dancer wrote:

"Non-Human AI" did not invent itself, it is programmed by humans. Maybe not photographers, I'll give you that.
Yes, it may be a different perspective. Yes, it may be socially unacceptable or cut into a profession that is already compromised to the vanishing point. I can't fix or stall "progress" anymore than I can change the direction the wind blows.
So it goes.

And, FWIW I'm astounded by how good the sharpening tool is in 2021 Photoshop Elements, not everything done using AI will be weird or bad. In some cases it will make life easier and better.

I think you are right.  Humans created it, and AI is already useful, and it is not perfect.  My concern as mentioned in my OP is about images (photographs) being created to support a false narrative for selfish purposes, however I have reminded myself that images have been created to support false narratives or for selfish reasons for a very long time.  It's just sad for me to hear conspiracy believers claim that Apollo 11 didn't land on the moon for an example. Skepticism is not a bad thing though. It is getting more difficult to tell the difference between what is the truth and what is an illusion.

P R E S T O N wrote:

Well, how certain are you that if I looked at your portfolio I'd find art?

How certain are you that if you looked in a mirror, you'd see anything more than an undercover cop with a head problem?

Patrick Walberg wrote:

I think you are right.  Humans created it, and AI is already useful, and it is not perfect.  My concern as mentioned in my OP is about images (photographs) being created to support a false narrative for selfish purposes, however I have reminded myself that images have been created to support false narratives or for selfish reasons for a very long time.  It's just sad for me to hear conspiracy believers claim that Apollo 11 didn't land on the moon for an example. Skepticism is not a bad thing though. It is getting more difficult to tell the difference between what is the truth and what is an illusion.

The example of Apollo 11 demonstrates the tendency of some people to believe what they want to believe irrespective of the evidence. Or AI generated imagery

Shadow Dancer wrote:

"Non-Human AI" did not invent itself, it is programmed by humans.

Hmmmm. Let's see. Can you think of ANY technology, originally "programmed by humans," that has overtaken human attempts to control it? Nuclear physics? Internet? Social media? Genetic engineering? This isn't about Photoshop smart plugins. This is about AI's seductive appeal inducing humans to allow increasing decision-making to be done by machines, including the design of next generation machines. At some point, will AI jump the shark and not need any human involvement whatsoever, having ingested the totality of human knowledge but lacking the one thing that can't be programmed - a human conscience? What then?

JSouthworth wrote:
The example of Apollo 11 demonstrates the tendency of some people to believe what they want to believe irrespective of the evidence. Or AI generated imagery

Old son, you may find that quote biting you in the bum one day. 😂😂😂

Focuspuller wrote:
Hmmmm. Let's see. Can you think of ANY technology, originally "programmed by humans," that has overtaken human attempts to control it? Nuclear physics? Internet? Social media? Genetic engineering? This isn't about Photoshop smart plugins. This is about AI's seductive appeal inducing humans to allow increasing decision-making to be done by machines, including the design of next generation machines. At some point, will AI jump the shark and not need any human involvement whatsoever, having ingested the totality of human knowledge but lacking the one thing that can't be programmed - a human conscience? What then?

I only mentioned that not all AI is inherently evil, nothing more. For you, perhaps "This is about AI's seductive appeal inducing humans to allow increasing decision-making to be done by machines, including the design of next generation machines."
I am not saying that is not possible, not by any means.
As to what you are speaking of, total nuclear devastation has been possible since the 1950's and that has not changed, AI or no AI.
There have been and will be insane people who caused massive conflict since there have been humans.
It may well be that this planet will be destroyed before you can read my post. That's been true for a long time. Another button to push, another plug to pull (remember Hal in 2001, A Space Odyssey?).
The human urge to survive and be supreme still exists. That doesn't mean some madman won't program AI to initiate total devastation. I never said that.

Please read the title and the OP, I chose to discuss the photography aspect.
"Will AI be devastating to truth and photography?"

Shadow Dancer wrote:

I only mentioned that not all AI is inherently evil, nothing more. For you, perhaps "This is about AI's seductive appeal inducing humans to allow increasing decision-making to be done by machines, including the design of next generation machines."
I am not saying that is not possible, not by any means.
As to what you are speaking of, total nuclear devastation has been possible since the 1950's and that has not changed, AI or no AI.
There have been and will be insane people who caused massive conflict since there have been humans.
It may well be that this planet will be destroyed before you can read my post. That's been true for a long time. Another button to push, another plug to pull (remember Hal in 2001, A Space Odyssey?).
The human urge to survive and be supreme still exists. That doesn't mean some madman won't program AI to initiate total devastation. I never said that.

Please read the title and the OP, I chose to discuss the photography aspect.
"Will AI be devastating to truth and photography?"

And I'm not saying AI is inherently evil. Like every new tech it is about who implements and how, as you say. So far, humanity has not done a very good job in dealing with unforeseen consequences. Yes, we are still here, but a couple of strategic miscalculations away from Midnight (and good night) on the Doomsday Clock. Was there a discussion about pollution caused by internal combustion engines when Henry Ford rolled Model T's off the assembly line?

But who knows, maybe AI will be better at predicting dire consequences of tech progress than humans. Until, of course, AI comes to conclude that WE are the worst unforeseen consequence of all.

As to AI in photography, smart tools are one thing; adding and/or modifying elements, misrepresenting the original capture is another. What is beyond all that is AI-generated images from scratch, which appear to be real captures. Can human-made photography compete? Will photographers become like blacksmiths, catering to a tiny niche of nostalgia-freaks, performing in before-times tourist villages, like Colonial Williamsburg or Old Sturbridge Village?

Will AI devastate photography? Probably. And not only photography.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ54GDm1eL0&t=01s