3 ms·

Photographs haven't been able to be trusted since almost the beginning. Trusted as an image of a real scene that is. Indeed, people viewing photographs have al

Photographs haven't been able to be trusted since almost the beginning. Trusted as an image of a real scene that is. Indeed, people viewing photographs have always been able to be manipulated by presentation as fact something that is not true -- you dress up smart, in borrowed clothes, when you're really poor; you stand with a person you don't know to indicate association; you get photographed with a dead person as if they're alive; you use a back drop or set; et cetera.

jprete 3y ago
These aren’t even remotely comparable to AI photo manipulation.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  Agreed. My point was that trusting images ('seeing is believing') has always been at issue whilst we might imagine it is a new thing, the scale of the issue is different -- phenomenally so -- but it's not a category difference. Many people were convinced by the fairy hoaxes based on image manipulation in the early 20th Century (~1917). They fell for it hook-line-and-sinker, images made with ML weren't needed.
- froggit 3y ago
  This is a bit of a stretch, but the end results from either manipulation technique would be comparable if they were meant to skew the truth the same way. However, that sounds stupid as shit when I read it back, but I'm not entirely sure why. I think a use case for AI image manipulation could be more like if I need a picture where I'm poor but wearing smart borrowed clothes, standing with an unassociated associate and a dead alive, with a backdrop, with the only source image beimg selfie of someone else that incidentally caught half of me way in the background The intent or use cases for these two (lacking a better term) manipulators aren't orthogonal here. The purpose of AI image generation is, well, images generated by AI. It could technically generate images that misrepresent info, but that's more of a side effect reached in a totally different way than staging a scene in an actual photo. It seems like using manipulation to stage misleading photos would be used primarily for the purpose of deceptive activities or subversive fuckery.

jprete 3y ago

These aren’t even remotely comparable to AI photo manipulation.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
Agreed. My point was that trusting images ('seeing is believing') has always been at issue whilst we might imagine it is a new thing, the scale of the issue is different -- phenomenally so -- but it's not a category difference. Many people were convinced by the fairy hoaxes based on image manipulation in the early 20th Century (~1917). They fell for it hook-line-and-sinker, images made with ML weren't needed.
froggit 3y ago
This is a bit of a stretch, but the end results from either manipulation technique would be comparable if they were meant to skew the truth the same way. However, that sounds stupid as shit when I read it back, but I'm not entirely sure why. I think a use case for AI image manipulation could be more like if I need a picture where I'm poor but wearing smart borrowed clothes, standing with an unassociated associate and a dead alive, with a backdrop, with the only source image beimg selfie of someone else that incidentally caught half of me way in the background The intent or use cases for these two (lacking a better term) manipulators aren't orthogonal here. The purpose of AI image generation is, well, images generated by AI. It could technically generate images that misrepresent info, but that's more of a side effect reached in a totally different way than staging a scene in an actual photo. It seems like using manipulation to stage misleading photos would be used primarily for the purpose of deceptive activities or subversive fuckery.