This is a recurring theme that I discuss with my digital literacy classes. I end up reminding them that what once took the resources of an office building in St. Petersburg can now be done in your basement with a single computer and soon may well be done on your phone in-device.
Photography is insidious because it pretends to represent an objective reality while rendering editorial decisions invisible, placing them outside the frame.
There will be an epistemological dislocation, but I'm hopeful for a future where people think more critically about what they are shown.
Was there ever a time without cheating? Even before technology, there was make-up, hairpieces and false teeth. Hand-painted pictures lied with perspective and flattery, with photos came retouches, with films the cuts and effects. Omit and add, conceal or deceive, the lie is unfortunately highly human.
it doesn't take a fancy statistical machine to fool people. Fraud and fakery have been around long time. If anything I think it's already increased skepticism.
Is it different that you can now pay a company's machine to help with the lying that was mostly done with people?
For all AI's many foibles, it's frustrating that But What Will We Do About Photos has been such a trap for otherwise really smart folk in the media. They're wasting so much time and effort pacing the same path back and forth, over and over, when they've fully explored it already and there's so much more to say elsewhere!
I went with qualified no because I think society overall will adapt. But some people will remain stuck in old paradigms, and it will be very problematic for them.
I would have been a moderate no. We're seeing the first election cycle with plausible AI generated photos and videos. So far, none have made it to the mainstream, but they still circulate on social media.
I'm a qualified yes, simply because of how visually illiterate a lot of people are and how people reflexively fall into "seeing is believing" mistakes in general. Images are very powerful. We've built whole industries around using them to influence people, in fact that's the machine that keeps capitalism going (aka advertising, which is propaganda and psychological manipulation). So-called AI makes it much easier to generate convincing fakes quickly and cheaply, people usually only glance at images, etc.
Stephen Michael Kellat
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •enantiomer
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •enantiomer
in reply to enantiomer • • •Photography is insidious because it pretends to represent an objective reality while rendering editorial decisions invisible, placing them outside the frame.
There will be an epistemological dislocation, but I'm hopeful for a future where people think more critically about what they are shown.
enantiomer
in reply to enantiomer • • •enantiomer
in reply to enantiomer • • •John Abbe (aka Slow)
in reply to enantiomer • • •@enantiomer Or in any case, some of them will be people with machines.
(I believe it's possible, but also believe we may be quite far from, "person" software/ computers.)
Evan Prodromou
in reply to John Abbe (aka Slow) • • •Evan Prodromou
in reply to enantiomer • • •enantiomer
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •diesUndDas
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Was there ever a time without cheating? Even before technology, there was make-up, hairpieces and false teeth. Hand-painted pictures lied with perspective and flattery, with photos came retouches, with films the cuts and effects. Omit and add, conceal or deceive, the lie is unfortunately highly human.
Human deception, as always.
John Francis
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •it doesn't take a fancy statistical machine to fool people. Fraud and fakery have been around long time. If anything I think it's already increased skepticism.
Is it different that you can now pay a company's machine to help with the lying that was mostly done with people?
Lambic
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Khleedril
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •JT Leskinen
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Paul McO'Smith III
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •"manipulated" and "generated" are completely different use cases, and so need different answers.
google "enhancing" my photos is "manipulated". "generated" is "fake", more or less like expressionist art and has the potential to be harmful. or not.
Evan Prodromou
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •David Penfold :verified:
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Ryne Hager
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Ted Gould
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Dave Neary
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •Fifi Lamoura
in reply to Evan Prodromou • • •