It strikes me that, in a world where "photos" are generated from non-optical data, there would likely be a counter-movement of artists who deliberately seek or

It strikes me that, in a world where "photos" are generated from non-optical data, there would likely be a counter-movement of artists who deliberately seek or build scenes that could not be generated at the time. (In some ways this is just a continuation of our current novelty-seeking; "interesting" images are those that you couldn't simply find on the internet.) I don't disbelieve for a second that the expressiveness and realism of automatically-composed images won't have a huge explosion and become part of popular media. But I think there will be very long period during which some datasets will be much more salient than others. Think of how many orders of magnitude photos we have of dogs and cats compared to frogs and yaks... can they take the camera off of a product that can't image my friends petting a yak? I'm very curious when is enough, because the human ability to contrive absurd scenarios is frustratingly extensive, and unique "outlier" moments are exactly the ones many people want to capture. Also I think I _have_ seen a similar art project like this, where the artist took a photo album of Paris(?) and gave people "cameras" that just identified the closest image location by GPS and would just keep regurgitating that image no matter how many you took. I can't seem to find it now...