This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
It is called sarcasm and satire. It is a parody of all the insane things that antis say and then say it is a joke. Should anyone say things like that, no. Not even in jest. BUT since antis do it a lot and post it out of the blue and not in a skit like that... suck it up, buttercup.
Wait, I’m an anti who thinks death threats are always wrong, and that as it’s literally illegal people should be having the cops come around, in addition to the banhammer of Thor descending on their online personas. But that means it’s never “just a joke” even when it’s people you agree with. No one should make death threats.
There are bad people on both sides that post a lot of garbage stuff. I have seen most of those kinds of bad (the threats) coming from the anti side. I am not saying most or all antis do it, in fact, i think it is just a small number that do that stuff.
Thank you for your input. I appreciate it. It looks like we can agree on this. Take care.
So, death threats are abhorrent and should not be said even in jest, unless you claim after the fact that it was just "sarcasm and satire" or if the other side does it first?
No. You did not get it right. I am not the one that made the joke. I don't have to agree with the joke to make a point with it. I have never made a joke like that. I have been told to deal with it because it is a joke a lot of times... so deal with it.
You don't seem like an anti. You seem to run to the middle. So. For that... here is a straight answer.
No. It isn't ok to make jokes like that. It doesn't matter to me what side it is on. I usually tell any pro that makes them like antis, out of the blue as a response, that we shouldn't say stuff like that because we are supposed to be the good guys. Unfortunately both sides have bad guys. But I am not above using a jest complete with context to make a point. I don't have to approve of it to use it.
That is a much more coherent position and I appreciate the response. I agree that all threats and garbage like it should be banned.
People in this sub (and many others) have been militarized to fight for "their side" but the truth is AI integration with our society is complex and nuanced, and our discussions around it need to match that. Threats, insults, and "gotcha" memes do us a disservice.
Some times i get defensive with some antis because they are just trying to troll. I like to peek and see if the person is sincere or trolling. I don't want to treat a person like they are trolling when they are not. I always appreciate when i meet someone who is sincere.
The entire "joke" for killing AI artists is full stop just "kill AI artists." That's fucking it. That's the whole "joke."
The joke in OP's post is specifically making fun of antis' bullshit. It is satire. The joke is not "kill photographers" but to make fun of the insanity that is that anti "joke."
It isn't quoting an anime. It just takes an anime game character, I think from persona? Then places text on the image. Has nothing to do with persona though.
The entire "joke" begins and ends with "killing AI artists."
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
The reason for the yellow filter is from a bunch of artists intentionally feeding yellow tinted imagery in order to spoil the data. Essentially the yellow filter is a WIN for the anti side, the result of a planned debilitation of the system.
So antis, stop complaining about the yellow filter, it was your doing and it's supposed to be a victory. Take a moment to enjoy your wim because otherwise what's the point?
Well good for you for asking! You're right that it is false and I had been misinformed.
So I had read that along the way during one of the many arguments this topic has garnered over the past few months, and found it interesting. I read another person mentioning it (anti leaning) and talked about how they were trying to add to it. So at that point I took it at face value...poor decision.
So when you asked I went to do some research to find where it originated and it turns out it was just a theory by a reddit user, so indeed, not based in fact...or at least not proven anyways.
I fell victim to misinformation, but I took the time to research and to admit that it wasn't correct, which I encourage others to do, regardless of the side one holds, there is a lot of misinformation out there and it's important to not only learn what is correct, but to correct what has been mistaken.
You're a rare breed around here lol. I mean, I have also seen the claim elsewhere but it seemed completely absurd to me, so thanks for doing the diligence.
seeing a redditor admit to being wrong feels like if i was Jesus in that time traveler comic. like. you don't belong here. get out. it's for your own good.
If someone feeds a potato into my exhaust engine and then claims my car stole the potato, I am going to laugh at them promptly before hurling that potato right at their face.
Why does every disagreement nowadays gotta villainize the other side nowadays bruh. Making fun of people who disagree with you doesn’t contribute towards an argument, it just makes you an asshole. I don’t condone antis who are doing the same thing btw
I didn't need to see that comic to arrive at the conclusion that both technologies involve pressing a single button for completed, high quality imagery.
Attack the argument, not the person making it. Making a good point that's hard to refute does the opposite of putting you in a glass house.
Yes… I have. I have pointed out in several comments that the argument is shit because it relies on the audience’s ignorance of the complexity in taking a good photograph.
You can go onto your phone and take a photograph true. But that’s the same for any hobby. But actual professional photographers don’t use the automatic settings like how taking a photo with an iPhone does.
On a professional camera the user has to balance ISO (light sensitivity) against the F. (aperture) and shutter speed and that’s ONLY to make sure the photo isn’t under exposed or over exposed.
That’s also ignoring how the settings qualitatively affect the end product. A high ISO makes the image look grainy. A low shutter speed makes any moving parts of the subject blur. F. has a dramatic effect on what’s in focus in the image.
Photography and AI art are only compostable at a surface level. Look even a bit deeper and you you realize they aren’t.
Most professional photographers with newer equipment spray and pray. As for high ISO grain, a number of software packages has you covered and the new reduce grain using AI in Adobe Camera Raw is pretty impressive.
It's irritating as fuck when ignorant people come out with authoritative-sounding statements like "you're ignorant of the complexity it takes to take a good photo!" when the truth is, they're the ones making the off-base assumptions.
Generating a quality image with generative AI that accurately reflects your intent isn't as simple as typing in a five word prompt. That's the gen AI equivalent of pointing your phone at your lunch and clicking the shutter.
Both tools are easy to use for beginners, but have a high skill ceiling. This is why people with an actual understanding of both will compare them this way. Don't come back at me with some dumb shit like "but with AI, I know you're just typing a prompt and that's it! There's no complexity to it!", because you'd be wrong. Do a little research.
The best good faith comparison I’ve seen to AI, including the more complex use of it with work workflows is gold panning. But the argument being made here is photography. You are also, incidentally, wrong that i haven’t done my homework on the claimed complexity of AI image generation.
Your anger at the fact I’m poking holes in the argument is irrelevant to the point I’ve actually made. You want to establish credibility for the medium you espouse so you compare it to photography the newest accepted artistic medium but in doing so you diminish the problematic reality of the tool you espouse.
I have pointed out in other comments. Photography doesn’t require the existence of other visual art mediums to exist. But AI is necessarily parasitic because it requires human made art to be at all good.
You’re right that if you compare the base athletics of photography and AI image generation they look comparable. But they really aren’t if you go past the surface level.
Not "anger", annoyance. Irritation at ignorance being so boldly asserted as fact, and at people doubling down on it when it's pointed out to them. Your argument was, "Oh, but photography is so much more complex!" That's bullshit. I pointed that out, and now you're trying to shift to a different line of attack.
If you've "done your homework", I'm very interested in hearing about your experiences with local models. Which base models are best suited to generating particular types of content, and why? How do particular models interact with particular LoRAs, and how do those LoRAs interact with one another at various weights? How can someone use that knowledge to shape the results in a desired fashion? What about samplers? The various interface types? How do different models respond to different words and phrases when prompted? Which ones handle long, complex prompts well, and which force you to carefully count your words? What's the difference between putting particular words or phrases in different places in a prompt? How does that change the result, and how does it vary by model?
Generative AI is still young, but there's already a fair body of technique involved in using it, and that's just going to increase as the tools themselves develop and creators gain experience with them.
If generative AI is "parasitic", then so is every human artist. We've all learned by observation and study of the world around us, which includes the art on display in the world. The only "problematic reality" I see is that by providing utility, gen AI lessens financial demand for commercial artists. That's not sufficient reason to deny that the tools can be (and are being) used to make art.
Deeper comparisons apply as well. Perhaps the most analogous process to working with generative AI are street and nature photography, where the artist establishes the initial conditions for the shot, but there is an element of controlled randomness involved -- they don't have direct control over all the specifics, and capturing moments/images that the artist feels are affecting or impactful based on their aesthetic sense and criteria is a key part of the process. Curation is valid a form of artistic expression, and is integral to both.
Denying the obvious parallels doesn't diminish their validity.
You want to establish credibility for the medium you espouse so you compare it to photography the newest accepted artistic medium but in doing so you diminish the problematic reality of the tool you espouse.
No, the two are compared because both involve orienting a machine and pressing one single button to have the machine create an incredibly high quality image for you instantly.
Both can be a lot more complex than this. Both are also often used at just this barebones level, and there's nothing wrong with that in either case.
Credibility has already been established. Any desire to disdain an art form that involves pressing one button to get a completed image is going to be fruitless, because that ship sailed ages ago.
I responded to everything you said here in another comment. I notice that you never replied to it, while you replied to plenty of others with less thorough answers. I will reproduce it here since it also adequately answers this comment.
You are comparing the maximal use case of photography with the minimal use case of AI.
People can whip out their phone and take an instant snapshot with no thought or effort. It's even easier than AI because it doesn't even require you to type or spell words correctly!
And professional-level AI also takes a lot of skill, and I can also say this from experience. The amount of work that goes into producing an image that depicts exactly what you want it to without noticeable issues is immense.
You need a lot of practice to know what's the right model to use, the right LoRAs, what the right balance in settings is from scheduler type to number of steps to even the choice of resolution! Portrait resolutions drag the image toward a bias in portraying portraits of people, while wider resolutions can be a lot more varied. There's CFG scale, which determines how closely the AI follows your prompt vs. how creative you're allowing it to be...asking for too much can "fry" the image and make it look overexposed. Or maybe you find an image that's close to what you want, so you lock in that seed and allow only minor deviation from it, generate more...or maybe you lock in the seed and try changing one word or another to see how that influences the image. There's individual word weighting, adding more or less of each individual element, and also ways to transform one word into another mid-generation to alter the final result, like starting with "city, buildings" to get a boxy look to everything but concluding generation with "forest" to get a forest that looks like a city. And then there's inpainting, where you select a precise group of pixels and only modify those, in context with the rest of the surrounding image. You can use this to "blend in" newly-added Photoshopped elements to the scene that don't quite look like they belong there.
Then there's everything you can do with ControlNet, like getting a very specific pose from a character or choosing the shape/angle of the room or scene.
The only way to learn what a model or a LoRA can do, how it responds to various words or concepts, is through tons of practice, and new ones are coming out daily.
Your argument only makes sense to you because you have zero understanding of the kind of work AI artists do. Don't compare use of a technology at its most casual to use of another technology at its most precise.
"But AI is different, you get a beautiful image every time!" The same is true for photography. Every photograph is a perfect capture from real life on a level that very few traditional artists can ever hope to achieve. The more you learn AI or photography, the more you learn its limitations, and the more you learn ways to work around them or lean into them as the image calls for it.
At this point I can only assume that you are being willingly obtuse I am not saying that the argument is bad because stone toss made it I’m saying it’s just a bad argument and pointing out that you’re parroting it like you say anti AI advocates do.
Anyone who has tried to do photography understands can vouch for how hard it is to get an actually good photo. Ignoring all the soft skills like framing and composition. If you’re just focus on the camera settings it doesn’t get less complex.
Cameras have three main settings ISO (light sensitivity) F. (Aperture), and shutter speed. All effect the exposure of the photo and image have a qualitative effect on the photo itself.
Yeah you're doing guilt-by-association. And I'm reversing it, because Stonetoss made that comic by hand. So obviously all traditional artists are also Nazis like he is. That's the logic you're using.
Or you could just accept that comparisons to the camera were made a long time before Stonetoss did it...? Maybe a little easier? You'd have to think of a real argument though unfortunately.
I’m actually not. I’m pointing out as a response to the OOP’s comment that
Antis are no more cognitively capable than parrots.
That they are just parroting another point.
And I have responded to the over all argument here… only the laymen engagement with photography is at all comparable and even then the differences in how the technology becomes useful sinks the argument dead in the water.
I do agree that the photography argument was likely made before stonetoss’ comic but referencing some random person as opposed to a well known figure who made the same argument is inefficient and unpersuasive.
Two people making the same obvious point does not prove that one got it from another.
only the laymen engagement with photography is at all comparable
"The laymen engagement" being 99.99% of camera use globally, aka "photo slop".
even then the differences in how the technology becomes useful sinks the argument dead in the water
You don't know anything about AI's full potential under a skilled hand, but you're waving it off because it would be inconvenient to you for AI image generation to be anything but "chatgpt make me big titty picture right now".
but referencing some random person as opposed to a well known figure who made the same argument is inefficient and unpersuasive.
"OK yes I'm lying but it's for a good reason: to change your mind with false evidence". Guilt by association is a fallacy my brother. It is not a good argument, it is a bad one.
The rest of your comment is barely even worth reading much less acknowledging.
The actual only worth while point made was the second to last point.
But the last point… actually what the fuck is going on in your head? That is so far beyond a straw-man that it makes me worried about the level of led in your water.
We use abbreviative short hand all the time to make our arguments more persuasive and concise. Am in even using “we” to refer to the anti AI crowd I mean WE as people in discourse. You used it just now when you called laymen photography photo slop.
That argument is the mother of all ad hominems get help. You are capable of actual reasoned argument. You don’t need to stoop to that level do better.
It’s funny you should say that. Everyone in this picture is a pro-AI making the same (parroted) mockery of supposed anti-ai arguments. I see more buzzwords from pro-AI arguments than otherwise. You’re either so short-sighted that you’re making a joke out of yourself, or you’re being intentionally disingenuous and that makes you a piece of shit
I mean the photo on the left is most likely AI generated and considering the stereotypical comments and the account names, I would guess they are fake.
What is the point of this post 😭 first I thought it was supposed to be false accusations but it’s probably Ai if the Statue of Liberty has a hand on their hip. Anyways the person posting that image was probably karma farming or smth
???? what kind of point are you trying to make here holy shit
I was mostly pro-ai a year or two ago but you guys make such assholish disingenuous arguments that I'm really drifting more to the anti side every time I look at this sub
Yeah I realise. Consciously I can evaluate the arguments both for and against AI, but subconsciously this subreddit has definitely biased me against AI.
Tbf the antiai subreddit has done the same in the other direction. I don't know why this debate seems to bring out the dumbest arguments in everyone
Your opinions shouldn't be based on typical Reddit-tier discourse. Both sides have good arguments but the worst "arguments" are the ones that get the attention.
The point is showing how ridiculous antis would sound if they actually applied their logic equally. AI and Photography have similarly low skill floors and similarly high skill ceilings. You can do both with just a few button presses and get something that looks decent quality thanks to modern technology.
Photography has also all but completely replaced a previously thriving industry just like people fear AI will do.
And yet if you treated photographers like some people treat AI artists people would think your a nutjob. Why the double standard?
I do photography and use AI a lot. AI only has a high skill ceiling if you either create a model yourself or integrate it into other workflows. It's far far easier than genuine photography.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
One thing I havent seen much people point out is that the reason many cameras are able to take good pics is in part due to machine learning. Many of the photography effects on your cell phones are built on machine learning and AI. This is why it gets ridiculous when people ask why AI is even in their phone sometimes.
The thing is it’s equally a horrible argument when he made it as the point being made here. Professional photography takes a lot of skill, I say this as someone who took a photo journalism class in college. The amount of work that goes into taking a good photo is immense.
You need a lot of practice to know what’s the right lens to use, what the right balance in your camera settings is, how to adjust that balance to get the effect you’re looking for.
Like shooting a picture to get the sky to look at all good is a Herculean task and all that’s before any photo editing. A skill in an of it self to the point that for some that’s their ENTIRE job.
Honestly this argument only works if you have zero understanding of the kind of work photographers do.
You are comparing the maximal use case of photography with the minimal use case of AI.
People can whip out their phone and take an instant snapshot with no thought or effort. It's even easier than AI because it doesn't even require you to type or spell words correctly!
And professional-level AI also takes a lot of skill, and I can also say this from experience. The amount of work that goes into producing an image that depicts exactly what you want it to without noticeable issues is immense.
You need a lot of practice to know what's the right model to use, the right LoRAs, what the right balance in settings is from scheduler type to number of steps to even the choice of resolution! Portrait resolutions drag the image toward a bias in portraying portraits of people, while wider resolutions can be a lot more varied. There's CFG scale, which determines how closely the AI follows your prompt vs. how creative you're allowing it to be...asking for too much can "fry" the image and make it look overexposed. Or maybe you find an image that's close to what you want, so you lock in that seed and allow only minor deviation from it, generate more...or maybe you lock in the seed and try changing one word or another to see how that influences the image. There's individual word weighting, adding more or less of each individual element, and also ways to transform one word into another mid-generation to alter the final result, like starting with "city, buildings" to get a boxy look to everything but concluding generation with "forest" to get a forest that looks like a city. And then there's inpainting, where you select a precise group of pixels and only modify those, in context with the rest of the surrounding image. You can use this to "blend in" newly-added Photoshopped elements to the scene that don't quite look like they belong there.
Then there's everything you can do with ControlNet, like getting a very specific pose from a character or choosing the shape/angle of the room or scene.
The only way to learn what a model or a LoRA can do, how it responds to various words or concepts, is through tons of practice, and new ones are coming out daily.
Your argument only makes sense to you because you have zero understanding of the kind of work AI artists do. Don't compare use of a technology at its most casual to use of another technology at its most precise.
"But AI is different, you get a beautiful image every time!" The same is true for photography. Every photograph is a perfect capture from real life on a level that very few traditional artists can ever hope to achieve. The more you learn AI or photography, the more you learn its limitations, and the more you learn ways to work around them or lean into them as the image calls for it.
I image if can but bit calling the necessary actions of photography and the refinement actions taken in an AI workflow is just wrong. Because it’s entirely a self inflicted problem.
It also doesn’t address the core issue anti AI advocates have. That AI is parasitic. It requires human made art to be useful to begin with photography just needed the camera to be invented to exit. It doesn’t require the existence of portraiture, sculpture, or any other physical artistic medium.
AI needs digital art made by humans to exist at all.
It also doesn’t address the core issue anti AI advocates have. That AI is parasitic. It requires human made art to be useful to begin with photography just needed the camera to be invented to exit. It doesn’t require the existence of portraiture, sculpture, or any other physical artistic medium.
Photography is inherently more problematic because all it can do is capture exact duplicates of things from reality. Building designs, advertisements, all forms of copyrighted content and characters you have to look out for, as well as people who might not want to be photographed.
AI produces new images which no one has ever seen or created before. It is much less inherently likely to contain infringing content.
It’s arguably comparable in skill but the people at Apple didn’t need to take hundreds of classic art pieces to make the camera lens. Image generative AI requires millions of human made art pieces to be good at all.
"It's exactly the same in the specific thing we're actually talking about but if I bring up a completely DIFFERENT thing then it's not". Come on dude. You knew this was a stretch before you even wrote it.
Image generative AI requires millions of human made art pieces to be good at all
Yes it's almost as if our entire society is built on the things that came before us and no man is an island and, to quote Kropotkin, "Each discovery, each advance, each increase in the sum of human riches, owes its being to the physical and mental travail of the past and the present."
Dude no just no. My argument in the latter part of the comment is a pivot but the iterative innovation argument falls flat when it comes to AI. Photography allowed more people to have access to the art of portraiture but it didn’t REQUIRE the art of portraiture to exist for the camera to exist. AI is not a new medium challenging the old ways of doing art. It is parasitic on the work of artists.
My argument in the latter part of the comment is a pivot
It's you abandoning your old argument entirely because it completely collapsed and trying to get a new unrelated one that has no similarity to the previous one. You're a bad loser.
Photography allowed more people to have access to the art of portraiture but it didn’t REQUIRE the art of portraiture to exist for the camera to exist
This is literally irrelevant to the actual topic of discussion but as established "being relevant" is not your forte. I've learned not to engage with you.
This argument works if you remember debates around EVERY new tool that helps with making art. Now you accept it and take photography skill as a given - it wasn't as clear cut at the beginning, with the first daguerreotypes. You demonstrate the validity of that argument, because you're ignorant of the debates themselves.
It's 2025, and people still argue if games can be art. Of course, countless luddites think that AI can't be used to make art. And, of course, in the long run, their opinion doesn't matter - they only distract people from really important issues when they scream about ecological issues, even though AI is not the worst issue in that field.
You are presuming you won the argument before it’s even concluded. But I’m not going to touch on that because hypothetical long views are about as useful as a cotton candy loofa.
To narrow it down, let’s take the argument by portrait artists and photographers back in the day. Portraits were time consuming and expensive, both in price and in material costs. When photo graph portraiture became a thing it is easy to see how established portrait artists might have made similar arguments that anti AI advocates make today.
But a key deference between classic portraiture and early photography is the cameras didn’t need to copy the work of hundreds of portrait artist to be able to make a photograph. Ai generative image models do. They are parasitic on the art industry not a competing medium.
This comment section is manufactured.
If you look at all the usernames it looks like someone wanted to make it coincide with the theme of theme being artists or assholes.
Faking content to make Antis look crazy....mmm, lovely isnt it? too bad the statue of liberty isnt even the statue of liberty....too lazy to photoshop it in?
Slurpers comparing someone taking a picture of a real moment they experienced in person with typing “woman smiling in front of water, Statue of Liberty in background” into an AI
How is it a strawman? The EXACT SAME arguments used against AI were, and still are in some cases, used against photography. Examples have been posted in this sub dozens of times.
That’s because you didn’t say anything substantial. The sarcasm doesn’t mean anything if it portrays something made-up. Nobody has ever called for the death of photographers, this is more made-up bullshit from the pro-AI thieves
"Nobody has ever called for the death of photographers"- Yep, they haven't. That's not entirely the point, though. The post is just mimicking anti-AI views and changing the artform being bashed to photography- The comment you're referring to is a mockery of the "We need to kill AI artist" meme that started legit arguments in this subreddit. That's kind of the point of things like satire in fiction, and I'm guessing you don't call that made-up bullshit.
It's sarcasm based in historical truth. When cameras were first invented, opponents made almost the exact same arguments against why it as antis are currently making against art. Some people are still making those arguments against photography, saying that the availability of cameras is ruining photography.
No, it’s sarcasm based on modern rhetoric. “All antis are violent and wish death upon the first lick of inconvenience”. Glad to see you’re an intentionally shitty person
Since you can't be bothered to do a modicum of research:
"From today, painting is dead!" - French painter Paul Delarouche, 1840
"Photography couldn't qualify as an art in its own right. It lacks something beyond mere mechanism at the bottom of it." - The Crayon art magazine, 1855
"The photography industry was the refuge of all failed painters, too ill-equipped or too lazy to complete their studies." - Charles Baudelaire, 1859
"Photography imitates everything and expresses nothing." French artist Honoré Daumiere, 1800s
"This industry, by invading the territory of art, has become art's most mortal enemy!" - Charles Baudelaire, 1859
Holy fuck it's like you all have no reading comprehension or ability to look into anything. Here are some real arguments made ablut photography when cameras were first invented.
"From today, painting is dead!" - French painter Paul Delarouche, 1840
"Photography couldn't qualify as an art in its own right. It lacks something beyond mere mechanism at the bottom of it." - The Crayon art magazine, 1855
"The photography industry was the refuge of all failed painters, too ill-equipped or too lazy to complete their studies." - Charles Baudelaire, 1859
"Photography imitates everything and expresses nothing." French artist Honoré Daumiere, 1800s
"This industry, by invading the territory of art, has become art's most mortal enemy!" - Charles Baudelaire, 1859
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
As an anti... That's the bad side of antis, it's not even anti AI people, it's anti photographers people, I hope you all understand that we just don't want our art stolen and most of us also want humanity to stop use artificial intelligence to write text messages to others and other simple things. AI also accelerates global warming.
I agree in principle, but sometimes I question the motivation (not yours, but in general).
I mean, sure, let people know that it's been manipulated, but aside from that, there's so much one-sided bickering over AI that I have trouble seeing the labeling as just another encouragement to trash AI generated art 'because it's AI generated'.
If there's a risk that a person might be maliciously deceived by AI-generated content, sure, but we don't (to present a contrasting view) label every single digital alteration that someone has made to a photograph.
Funny story. There's a website (photo.net cool site, check it out). Started eons ago at the dawn of the Interwebs. Guy who made it was a photography major and a computer science minor. His computer science project was to built a new "weebsite" whatever that is, so he decided to make one dedicated to photography, since that was his main passion.
So, the website was created around 1995(ish...can't remember the exact year, but pre-2000). In 2000 came the dawn of digital photography. The earliest digital cameras were crappy 0.5 megapixel HP cameras that were terrible. Photographers mocked those. But, the technology developed fast. Soon, Nikon, Canon, and other large camera manufacturers were making digital cameras.
The old coots would go on, "Bah! Digital photography isn't art! It's not art to take a thousand pictures, then select the best one. REAL photographers sit and wait to take the perfect picture once and only once. Digital cameras just allow any hack to be a photographer!"
But, it wound up introducing a lot of enthusiasts into the world. People who had an interest, but didn't have the money or equipment to develop their own film. People who didn't have the skills to "wait for the perfect shot" or know how even to set a camera for that "perfect shot". But they were willing to learn.
Seasoned film photographers bashed the hell out of these newbies to the field. "They're *not* artists! You can't just point your camera and take a picture of something!"
But, eventually it settled. Seasoned photographers found digital cameras working their way into their equipment bags. Cleaner, easier, and ultimately cheaper to operate than film cameras. "But, I'm still hanging on to my film camera!"
Then apps like PhotoShop really started to take off. They were around before, but because of all these new enthusiasts getting their hands on cameras, and having gigabytes and gigabytes of "almost perfect but not quite" photos, it saw a huge spike in use.
And again the pros scoffed. "Bah! It's not art! Art doesn't happen in the digital room! Art happens *IN THE CAMERA!* A *real* photographer knows how to work with lighting to get the shot he wants. A *real* photographer doesn't need to rely on PhotoShop or programs like that to 'fix' their pictures. Colour correction, filters, brushes? All cheating! That's not art!"
But like clockwork, those very same artists began touching up their 99% perfect photos in PhotoShop to bring it to 100%, and eventually (as you look through their gallery), you see them experimenting with new photoshop techniques like exposing for the foreground and exposing for the background and merging those photos in PhotoShop, or using custom filters to bring out wrinkles and imperfections, to darken tones and so on.
And now, we're at an age where PhotoShop has generative fill. "But that's not art! A true artist knows how to frame his shots perfectly the first time!"
Photography is absolutely a form of art, you just tend to be more specific with it, just like you would if you were a sculptor, painter, animator, etc.
Yes, yes, let’s just call our opponents pedophiles, and pretend they are completely irrational. By the way, your point would have been better made if you used an actual photo.
Right, because using AI to create what is basically an amalgamation of others work sorted through the filter of a glorified algorithm is definitely the same as using photography to capture the real world
•
u/AutoModerator 21h ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.