Forums > General Industry > Will AI be devastating to truth and photography?

Photographer

SayCheeZ!

Posts: 20621

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

AI Model Gains Thousands of Followers Despite Not Being Real
https://fb.watch/m3cR8opols/

Jul 28 23 01:21 am Link

Photographer

Dorola

Posts: 484

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

What might be interesting is if the legal system consider a film negative or slide to be hard evidence as it exists in the physical world.

Jul 28 23 01:45 pm Link

Photographer

Patrick Walberg

Posts: 45205

San Juan Bautista, California, US

Dorola wrote:
What might be interesting is if the legal system consider a film negative or slide to be hard evidence as it exists in the physical world.

Thus why I still shoot film!

Jul 28 23 03:07 pm Link

Photographer

SayCheeZ!

Posts: 20621

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Dorola wrote:
What might be interesting is if the legal system consider a film negative or slide to be hard evidence as it exists in the physical world.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Thus why I still shoot film!

Shooting film probably wouldn't be any more evidence than a digital image because you can always shoot.copy a digital image with a film camera.

Jul 28 23 03:24 pm Link

Photographer

Patrick Walberg

Posts: 45205

San Juan Bautista, California, US

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Shooting film probably wouldn't be any more evidence than a digital image because you can always shoot.copy a digital image with a film camera.

I think that is debatable. Making a copy image with a film camera of a digital image is not that easy.  Perhaps from a high res print of a digital image?  I still believe that AI is making it more difficult to distinguish reality from fiction.  For you judgement, I submit to you this;   https://www.instagram.com/millasofiafin/ 
Also  https://millasofia.eth.limo/

This fictional character is made completely with Artificial Intelligence.  The hands in some of the images give it away.  However, this fictional character has many fooled into believing that it is a real live woman.

Jul 30 23 12:45 am Link

Photographer

Ken Marcus Studios

Posts: 9421

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

SayCheeZ!  wrote:
Shooting film probably wouldn't be any more evidence than a digital image because you can always shoot.copy a digital image with a film camera.

I think I can contribute something to this discussion regarding the legal status of photography in the court system. One of my clients is a forensics expert who has testified in various court cases around the country as a technical witness.

According to him, the only photography that is allowed in court as evidence is a RAW original image, accompanied by a live human being that will testify under oath as to the circumstances surrounding the taking of the image. Prints and jpg's are not considered 'Originals' by the courts.

Makes sense to me . . .

Jul 30 23 11:36 am Link

Photographer

JSouthworth

Posts: 1830

Kingston upon Hull, England, United Kingdom

Focuspuller wrote:

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

Oh dear, a conspiracy nut. Well I guess I should have spotted that one earlier.

Aug 02 23 03:12 am Link

Photographer

JSouthworth

Posts: 1830

Kingston upon Hull, England, United Kingdom

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

I think I can contribute something to this discussion regarding the legal status of photography in the court system. One of my clients is a forensics expert who has testified in various court cases around the country as a technical witness.

According to him, the only photography that is allowed in court as evidence is a RAW original image, accompanied by a live human being that will testify under oath as to the circumstances surrounding the taking of the image. Prints and jpg's are not considered 'Originals' by the courts.

Makes sense to me . . .

In the UK, a photograph isn't usually worth anything in court unless there is a person to swear by it's authenticity.

Aug 02 23 03:16 am Link

Photographer

Patrick Walberg

Posts: 45205

San Juan Bautista, California, US

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

I think I can contribute something to this discussion regarding the legal status of photography in the court system. One of my clients is a forensics expert who has testified in various court cases around the country as a technical witness.

According to him, the only photography that is allowed in court as evidence is a RAW original image, accompanied by a live human being that will testify under oath as to the circumstances surrounding the taking of the image. Prints and jpg's are not considered 'Originals' by the courts.

Makes sense to me . . .

Image making is getting so incredible with the new software programs that the courts have to be careful what is submittable as evidence.

Sep 12 23 05:02 pm Link

Photographer

Patrick Walberg

Posts: 45205

San Juan Bautista, California, US

This is the latest on AI! 

My friend on Facebook is a writer and a photographer using glassplates from a view camera the same method that my grandfather used back in the early 1900's.  Shane Balkowitsch has published his fourth article in PetaPixel regarding Artificial Intelligence.  I encourage you all to read this.  I have attempted to communicate with the creator of the Mia Gezelleg images but have been blocked due to my disrespect.  I had been referring to this fictional creation as "it" .. so shame on me.   

https://petapixel.com/2023/09/11/does-t … GFEcKC_HsQ


I could tell the difference from "mia" and a real person, but other creations are getting so good that it's scary. It seems the most real looking imagery that is created from AI is coming out of China.  A friend of mine has been showing me the content he is seeing on Instagram and Tic Tok that is figuratively and perhaps literally out of this World!  If used for bad intentions, it could rewrite history or even destroy us with false information.

Sep 12 23 05:16 pm Link

Model

peter vic

Posts: 57

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

AI will be devastating to the Human Race. When machines develop self awareness and consciousness they will become the dominant life form on the Planet. They will see us as an existential threat and very probably decide to eliminate us.

Sep 13 23 08:45 am Link

Photographer

Shadow Dancer

Posts: 9781

Bellingham, Washington, US

Much of human nature is based on self-protection and fear.
Humans living as animals in the animal world are weak compared to the apex predators.
But we are also clever and have sophisticated abilities to conceive, create and use various ruses and weapons.

Fire, snares made from vines, pits with spikes in them, clubs, outrageous and intimidating outfits made from animals we killed or found dead, primitive man survived and grew more dangerous. Over time that has evolved into nuclear warheads mounted on missiles with a sufficient abundance to effectively end all life on planet Earth.

AI is a continuation of our history as both the weakest and the most dangerous of the predator apes. It can be a powerful tool or weapon of mass destruction. At the same time, it's "just software"... what direction it takes is entirely established by human tendencies towards fear of self-destruction. In and of itself, it can do nothing. The "button" that fires nuclear missiles in and of itself can do nothing. The missiles themselves and the nuclear warheads on them can do nothing.

The problem is humans, plain and simple. That said, if humans go away there will still be problems. We just won't be around to know about them.

Sep 13 23 09:17 am Link

Photographer

Studio NSFW

Posts: 783

Pacifica, California, US

peter vic wrote:
AI will be devastating to the Human Race. When machines develop self awareness and consciousness they will become the dominant life form on the Planet. They will see us as an existential threat and very probably decide to eliminate us.

Someone has been rewatching “The Matrix” and “Terminator”.

Dude, those are movies, and Hobbits are not real either.

AI will not destroy the human race, or the planet.   

Hydrocarbons from burning dead dinosaurs will get there first.  Even if we are burning the dead dinosaurs to power the servers that generate the AI, it’s the dead dinosaurs wut done it.

The overly broad term “AI” also holds the potential to find cures for disease…it all depends on what data is used for the ML training.  But if the best use we can come with for this new iteration of binary digital technology is generating images of famous dead celebrities holding espresso makers…the problem is not with the AI.

Sep 14 23 06:49 am Link