3 ms·

AI images are not photography.

pixelesque 3mo ago
I mean, it's a spectrum, surely... What about stock photography, IMO as much as I personally hate "overcooked" AI-generated imagery, it doesn't annoy me that much more than stock photography does on blogs. I do however use it as a gauge of "if the images are generated by AI, how much of the text content is?" though, so...
- sodapopcan 3mo ago
  Yes, stock photography is also lame, but at least their creators gave permission. It's my dream that "AI" is going to make us look back and reconsider some of the pre-era slop we've accepted in the name of convenience. I doubt it, though.
- CrzyLngPwd 3mo ago
  It's not a specturm. It's quite simple; AI jpegs are not photography, because no photons were involved in the AI halucinations.
CuriouslyC 3mo ago
Yet the kids can't stop doing either... Which was the OP's point.
- r_lee 3mo ago
  "the kids" it's mostly boomers falling for this and being obsessed with it "the kids" are the ones who can spot AI slop pretty easily from what I know
iamwil 3mo ago
Charles Baudelaire argued photography could not be considered a fine art because it merely produced mechanical replicas of reality without input from human imagination. He called photography "art's most mortal enemy" and the "refuge of all failed painters" who lacked artistic talent and training. And if he's to be believed in 1859, photography isn't art. But today, it's widely accepted that it is. And in all likelihood, you think it is too. Why is that? And if you have an answer, you'd have to argue why AI generated images wouldn't follow the same trajectory.
- CrzyLngPwd 3mo ago
  Putting aside your desire to debate whether photography is art or not. AI jpegs are not photography, because no photons were involved in the AI halucinations.
  - ModernMech 3mo ago
    There's no debate over whether photography is art or not, and that's the point. Photons are neither here nor there. The AI debate will be settled the same way and for the same reasons.
    - CrzyLngPwd 3mo ago
      What does that even mean??

I mean, it's a spectrum, surely... What about stock photography, IMO as much as I personally hate "overcooked" AI-generated imagery, it doesn't annoy me that much more than stock photography does on blogs. I do however use it as a gauge of "if the images are generated by AI, how much of the text content is?" though, so...

sodapopcan 3mo ago
Yes, stock photography is also lame, but at least their creators gave permission. It's my dream that "AI" is going to make us look back and reconsider some of the pre-era slop we've accepted in the name of convenience. I doubt it, though.
CrzyLngPwd 3mo ago
It's not a specturm. It's quite simple; AI jpegs are not photography, because no photons were involved in the AI halucinations.

CuriouslyC 3mo ago

Yet the kids can't stop doing either... Which was the OP's point.

r_lee 3mo ago
"the kids" it's mostly boomers falling for this and being obsessed with it "the kids" are the ones who can spot AI slop pretty easily from what I know

iamwil 3mo ago

Charles Baudelaire argued photography could not be considered a fine art because it merely produced mechanical replicas of reality without input from human imagination. He called photography "art's most mortal enemy" and the "refuge of all failed painters" who lacked artistic talent and training. And if he's to be believed in 1859, photography isn't art. But today, it's widely accepted that it is. And in all likelihood, you think it is too. Why is that? And if you have an answer, you'd have to argue why AI generated images wouldn't follow the same trajectory.

CrzyLngPwd 3mo ago
Putting aside your desire to debate whether photography is art or not. AI jpegs are not photography, because no photons were involved in the AI halucinations.
- ModernMech 3mo ago
  There's no debate over whether photography is art or not, and that's the point. Photons are neither here nor there. The AI debate will be settled the same way and for the same reasons.
  - CrzyLngPwd 3mo ago
    What does that even mean??