3 ms·
I can understand that there are some good arguments for using AI generated pics. Using AI means not having to pay for photographers who'd either have to spend a
by autoexec 1y ago
I can understand that there are some good arguments for using AI generated pics. Using AI means not having to pay for photographers who'd either have to spend a lot of time taking or staging pictures, and not having to pay for their travel expenses which means that money can be spent on aid instead of marketing. Also it can feel a bit exploitative to photograph vulnerable people, especially children.
As long as the images they end up with accurately reflect the situation on the ground and the use of AI is transparent it seems like a good idea to use AI for attention grabbing images and supplement with candid photos from aid workers who aren't professional photographers.
- aethrum 1y agoBut its not... real.
- wmeredith 1y agoTake AI out of the conversation. Now revisit the argument that it's OK for people to make fake pics, testimonials, stories, and videos to solicit donations. I'm pretty sure that's just called a con or perhaps fraud in legal terms.
- autoexec 1y agoWould hand drawn illustrations of a starving child or a battered woman be fraud if they were used to help raise money that was going to feed actual starving children or help battered women?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ryandrake 1y agoThe way I see it: What can I reasonably assume about "the situation on the ground" if you're giving me fake photographs? If an organization is willing to fake one thing, what aren't they willing to fake? Are they faking what they are doing with donation money, too? You have to assume yes if they're willing to fake other things.