AI doesn't have to be evil

[Rich42]

Wouldn't it be easier to just ask AI to generate a bucket of lollipops?

I asked ChatGPT to

"Create an image of a shiny metal pail of multi-colored, cellophane-wrapped lollipops with white stems."



It misunderstood the context of "multicolored." or I miscommunicated the idea. It's a great image!

But it's not the bucket of pops in the restaurant for which the brochure is being made.

Now if I could only actually find such lollipops as these and have the restaurant use them instead . . . !

Create an image of a shiny metal pail full of cellophane-wrapped lollipops with white stems, each lollipop a different, bright, saturated color . . .



It's good!

But . . . Nah! Looks fake.

But it's sharper! :-D

Yup.

Too sharp. Too clean. Too mathematically perfect to be believed. And two white stems are be-headed!

--
Rich
"That's like, just your opinion, man." ;-)

 

[JimKasson]

...

Photography has included composites since the very beginning. I've always thought of these as art pieces made with photographs.

I think that's a reasonable way to think about it! If I apply the same standards to my own images though, I begin to hesitate: I've used non-generative fill, clone stamping, and similar tools in the past.

How about Spotone? Pencil on the negative, a la Dorothea Lange? Masks? Cross development? Polaroid transfers? Pen on the negative, a la Karsh?

 

[UsherFellig]

It's like text messaging--confined to tight parameters, such as, "They have chocolate and vanilla,plus raspberry sorbet, what flavor shall I bring home?", it's harmless, even useful, potentially life-saving.

But confinement to tight parameters isn't what happened, is it? Same with so-called "social media," which went a fun way to keep up with friends and relatives (for those so inclined) to joining ubiquitous text communication as a toxic malignancy on civilisation.

And so it shall go, is already starting to go, with AI. Personally, from my perspective the Butlerian Jihad can not get going soon enough.

 

[Rich42]

Butlerian Jihad

Had to Google that. Don't get out much.

Put it on my to-do list.

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

Or the reboot of Battlestar Galactica. No networks. Phones with cords. That sort of thing. Because the overly advanced computers became the enemy.

I have many computers doing specific jobs which are not networked or ever connected online.

Ironically, I worked on networking computers (wired, wireless and optical) at IBM all through the 80s. Then all wireless via cellular throughout the 90s. And then moved on to combining the two as the smartphone until I got out of that in 2014.

Stan

--
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

 

[Rich42]

Hi,

Or the reboot of Battlestar Galactica. No networks. Phones with cords.

Adama's "mic" on the bridge was a corded phone handset put in the cradle upside-down and used that way.

Absolutely brilliant.

Greatest episode ever: Battlestar Galactica Razor.

That sort of thing. Because the overly advanced computers became the enemy.

I have many computers doing specific jobs which are not networked or ever connected online.

Ironically, I worked on networking computers (wired, wireless and optical) at IBM all through the 80s. Then all wireless via cellular throughout the 90s. And then moved on to combining the two as the smartphone until I got out of that in 2014.

Stan

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi

That comes from real-life trunked radio systems, such as GE/Ericsson's EDACS. They can operate Group Call, Individual Call or Telephone Interconnect. That last being a private cell phone operation. As such, telephone style handsets were often used instead of hand microphones.

Except the handset sported a push to talk switch. So when used.as a 2 way radio, we would flip the handset upside down and speak directly into the microphone end. You know, as a hand mic, keeping the earphone down low.

These radios also sported large speakers, so when used as a radio the receive audio came out of those. Only when operated as a telephone did the speaker in the handset become active.

Stan

 

[boastar]

I avoid generative AI tools completely in post-processing. This isn't a moral judgement. Rather, images made using generative AI are not photographs in the way I think of the concept, so they don't interest me.

I recently came to the same conclusion after some internal debate. To me, a photograph is a photograph because it is a projection of a state of the real world at the time of capture,

So Jerry Uelsmann and Mortensen didn't make photographs? How about Man Ray?

and generative AI by nature can never meet that criterion. We could call it an image perhaps, but to me it would not be a photograph.

That's not to say that an image with varying proportions of photograph and generative AI cannot be art, but consuming and producing such art does not interest me in the same way photography does (not to mention the mass theft and ethical problems surrounding most modern generative AI models).

I did have one dilemma, which was whether it would be unfair to treat generative AI in this way, but not traditional composites, content-aware fill, retouching and so on. My current thought is that in those cases, the manipulated content almost always comes from other photographs as well - but I can't help but wonder if the final modified photograph as a whole is less of a photograph than before? I'm sure some might disagree on this, especially seeing as such techniques are quite widely accepted and used.

Using multiple enlargers to combine images, or placing objects on photopaper, or using solarization and other techniques, to me is distinctly different from using generative AI tools.

The former are creative methods to combine or manipulate photographic information. The latter ads to that information additional information out of thin air. The AI interpolates and “invents” pixels and details. And you also run into the problem of how much AI is too much.

Im with Rob and aloli: I don’t use generative AI in my work. My red line is stuff like sensor spot removal. I don’t use upscale, denoise, generative fill, object removal etc.

 

[JimKasson]

I avoid generative AI tools completely in post-processing. This isn't a moral judgement. Rather, images made using generative AI are not photographs in the way I think of the concept, so they don't interest me.

I recently came to the same conclusion after some internal debate. To me, a photograph is a photograph because it is a projection of a state of the real world at the time of capture,

So Jerry Uelsmann and Mortensen didn't make photographs? How about Man Ray?

and generative AI by nature can never meet that criterion. We could call it an image perhaps, but to me it would not be a photograph.

That's not to say that an image with varying proportions of photograph and generative AI cannot be art, but consuming and producing such art does not interest me in the same way photography does (not to mention the mass theft and ethical problems surrounding most modern generative AI models).

I did have one dilemma, which was whether it would be unfair to treat generative AI in this way, but not traditional composites, content-aware fill, retouching and so on. My current thought is that in those cases, the manipulated content almost always comes from other photographs as well - but I can't help but wonder if the final modified photograph as a whole is less of a photograph than before? I'm sure some might disagree on this, especially seeing as such techniques are quite widely accepted and used.

Using multiple enlargers to combine images, or placing objects on photopaper, or using solarization and other techniques, to me is distinctly different from using generative AI tools.

The former are creative methods to combine or manipulate photographic information. The latter ads to that information additional information out of thin air. The AI interpolates and “invents” pixels and details. And you also run into the problem of how much AI is too much.

Im with Rob and aloli: I don’t use generative AI in my work. My red line is stuff like sensor spot removal. I don’t use upscale, denoise, generative fill, object removal etc.

I'm in between on this. I was happy to spot out stuff in the finishing room in the chemical photography days. I had no problem with what Mortenson or Jerry did, even though the results were far from "a projection of a state of the real world at the time of capture." I'm happy to call Holly Roberts images and some of the Kim Weston painted works photographs. I do think that What Dorothea Lange did was over the line if she presented the work as documentary, but not if presented as art. Context matters.

I call Huntington Witherill's Photo Synthesis series photographs.

I am happy to use generative AI to delete defects. I just consider it a better alternative to cloning. I am happy to use stitching and stacking software.

 

[Rob de Loe]

Something that often gets lost in these conversations is that barring some specific situations where there actually are moral or ethical bright lines and professional norms (e.g., photojournalism), we can all do whatever we want.

If you're making art, there are no rules. Go ahead and use AI if it helps you achieve your art.

I put up some personal "guardrails" for myself because I find they help me stay focused and on track with what I want to do. They also happen to fit well with how I'm using photography professionally at the moment.

Check back in a year: maybe I'll have a "Come to AI" moment and toss my current guardrails. (I doubt it because they haven't changed in the past 35 years, but who knows!)

 

[Rich42]

Something that often gets lost in these conversations is that barring some specific situations where there actually are moral or ethical bright lines and professional norms (e.g., photojournalism), we can all do whatever we want.

If you're making art, there are no rules. Go ahead and use AI if it helps you achieve your art.

I put up some personal "guardrails" for myself because I find they help me stay focused and on track with what I want to do. They also happen to fit well with how I'm using photography professionally at the moment.

Check back in a year: maybe I'll have a "Come to AI" moment and toss my current guardrails. (I doubt it because they haven't changed in the past 35 years, but who knows!)

Prior to this post I had never even visited the ChatGPT website. I kinda just "blindly" fumbled ahead with it for this example.

 

[Rob de Loe]

Something that often gets lost in these conversations is that barring some specific situations where there actually are moral or ethical bright lines and professional norms (e.g., photojournalism), we can all do whatever we want.

If you're making art, there are no rules. Go ahead and use AI if it helps you achieve your art.

I put up some personal "guardrails" for myself because I find they help me stay focused and on track with what I want to do. They also happen to fit well with how I'm using photography professionally at the moment.

Check back in a year: maybe I'll have a "Come to AI" moment and toss my current guardrails. (I doubt it because they haven't changed in the past 35 years, but who knows!)

Prior to this post I had never even visited the ChatGPT website. I kinda just "blindly" fumbled ahead with it for this example.

It's a fast moving area. Everything it can do today is going to seem quaint in a year (if that).

 

[JimKasson]

Something that often gets lost in these conversations is that barring some specific situations where there actually are moral or ethical bright lines and professional norms (e.g., photojournalism), we can all do whatever we want.

If you're making art, there are no rules. Go ahead and use AI if it helps you achieve your art.

I put up some personal "guardrails" for myself because I find they help me stay focused and on track with what I want to do. They also happen to fit well with how I'm using photography professionally at the moment.

Check back in a year: maybe I'll have a "Come to AI" moment and toss my current guardrails. (I doubt it because they haven't changed in the past 35 years, but who knows!)

Prior to this post I had never even visited the ChatGPT website. I kinda just "blindly" fumbled ahead with it for this example.

It's a fast moving area. Everything it can do today is going to seem quaint in a year (if that).

There are some things that ChatGPT is great for:

Q: What's wrong with this code?

A: You left a comma out in the 14th line.

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

Maw dang. I hate when I do that!

Now, truly useful would be when AI says: I rewrote your code to fit in half the space and run twice as fast....

Stan

 

[JimKasson]

Hi,

Maw dang. I hate when I do that!

Now, truly useful would be when AI says: I rewrote your code to fit in half the space and run twice as fast....

I have been known to write and test Matlab code with for statements, test it, and then ask ChatGPT to vectorize it. That works pretty well, even if the code is all little opaque. Not APL opaque, but in that direction.

 

[boastar]

I avoid generative AI tools completely in post-processing. This isn't a moral judgement. Rather, images made using generative AI are not photographs in the way I think of the concept, so they don't interest me.

I recently came to the same conclusion after some internal debate. To me, a photograph is a photograph because it is a projection of a state of the real world at the time of capture,

So Jerry Uelsmann and Mortensen didn't make photographs? How about Man Ray?

and generative AI by nature can never meet that criterion. We could call it an image perhaps, but to me it would not be a photograph.

That's not to say that an image with varying proportions of photograph and generative AI cannot be art, but consuming and producing such art does not interest me in the same way photography does (not to mention the mass theft and ethical problems surrounding most modern generative AI models).

I did have one dilemma, which was whether it would be unfair to treat generative AI in this way, but not traditional composites, content-aware fill, retouching and so on. My current thought is that in those cases, the manipulated content almost always comes from other photographs as well - but I can't help but wonder if the final modified photograph as a whole is less of a photograph than before? I'm sure some might disagree on this, especially seeing as such techniques are quite widely accepted and used.

Using multiple enlargers to combine images, or placing objects on photopaper, or using solarization and other techniques, to me is distinctly different from using generative AI tools.

The former are creative methods to combine or manipulate photographic information. The latter ads to that information additional information out of thin air. The AI interpolates and “invents” pixels and details. And you also run into the problem of how much AI is too much.

Im with Rob and aloli: I don’t use generative AI in my work. My red line is stuff like sensor spot removal. I don’t use upscale, denoise, generative fill, object removal etc.

I'm in between on this. I was happy to spot out stuff in the finishing room in the chemical photography days. I had no problem with what Mortenson or Jerry did, even though the results were far from "a projection of a state of the real world at the time of capture." I'm happy to call Holly Roberts images and some of the Kim Weston painted works photographs. I do think that What Dorothea Lange did was over the line if she presented the work as documentary, but not if presented as art. Context matters.

I call Huntington Witherill's Photo Synthesis series photographs.

I am happy to use generative AI to delete defects. I just consider it a better alternative to cloning. I am happy to use stitching and stacking software.

The artists you mention are all using different techniques to „enhance“ the process of photography. Mortenson used paint, knifes, blades etc. Holly Robert’s to me is a (great) painter, who also uses photography collage in her paintings. Kim Weston I only know for her long exposure abstracts.

All of that is Art to me. I don’t need to put it into any further category. And any method these artists use is absolutely fine by me.

Lange is a different, a moral problem I think. I don’t like staged photography that pretends to be documentary. I don’t like staged photography per se, but at least someone like Crewdson is honest about what he does. Especially in artistic photography many are not. Lange went a step further though, by pretending staged work was documentary.

I see AI as a problem in so far, as it can lead to a uniformity in process and result. I’d rather see authentic work, even if it has some rough edges.

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

I shall have to give that a try.

Stan

 

[rbf]

Hi,

Maw dang. I hate when I do that!

Now, truly useful would be when AI says: I rewrote your code to fit in half the space and run twice as fast....

I have been known to write and test Matlab code with for statements, test it, and then ask ChatGPT to vectorize it. That works pretty well, even if the code is all little opaque. Not APL opaque, but in that direction.

You should use a language based on Hoare's CSP, then you likely would not have to vectorize it. Unless you're solving problems the inherently map more to SIMD architectures. The best language I've used for that was C* but it seems to have unfortunately died when the last Connection Machine powered down for the last time.

 

[DavidMillier]

Hi,

Maw dang. I hate when I do that!

Now, truly useful would be when AI says: I rewrote your code to fit in half the space and run twice as fast....

I have been known to write and test Matlab code with for statements, test it, and then ask ChatGPT to vectorize it. That works pretty well, even if the code is all little opaque. Not APL opaque, but in that direction.

What does vectorise mean?

 

[GonnaSnap]

Generative AI is destroying artists' copyrights. It would not be able to create a single image if it weren't trained on the works of millions of artists worldwide, without their permission. Those lollipops weren't magically imagined by AI. It saw them somewhere and ingested that artist's IP.

As photographers—and artists—ourselves, we should not be using and enabling this technology that wants to replace us. But not before taking all of our work for itself.