21–30 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the sad thing is that these models are most likely trained upon most of these stock photos to begin with. I can understand the frustration of the industry.
The photographers who took those stock photos also trained on stock photos.
There is a lot of potential for aspiring photographers in creating (and licensing) photo libraries for the specific purpose of AI training. Where previously you'd take 100 photos to choose the perfect one, now you'd include all of them, with labels that describe their quality or deficiences (which you do anyway as you curate the photos you took). This makes almost every shot the money shot. Less glamorous for sure, a…
Eventually, all the "photographer" will need to do is to take a 8K video recording of the subject and AI will generate a set of great looking pictures (it already knows what people like).
Like it or not, it's here like CGI in movies bestsellers. I don't envy artists, most of them will have to rethink their plans and switch to graphics or web designers, or something similar. Not sure who will be next. Probably GPT will take over virtual bookshelves on Amazon. Mandatory "AI generated" mark may help a bit. I will not waste my time reading it. I think we should expect a flood of "masterpieces" in differen…
Dunno, 'brand name' writers of airport novels have been forever accused of having ghost-written their novels, I think AI will allow writers of lesser budgets to also get help in writing their novels. Or who knows, even the 'King'-s of the world will use AI to fill out their chapters.
One domain where I welcome AI is computer games. Having more natural flexible characters will make games more interesting. As opposite to current pre-written texts.
Also education, where kids can ask questions and give the answers. Not just read or listen passively.
I had to put together a presentation that was somewhat graphic-heavy. I used Dall-e 2, and the ability to get things so tailored to what I needed, so quickly, was absolutely worth it. I don't know if AI will replace stock photography, but I wouldn't bet against it. The ability to charge a high price for stock photography is over though.
Some photographers just spam TONS of images on the platforms to get some cash by betting on the long tail. Someone, somewhere with a shutterstock subscription might need your image for a local magazine/paper and you get 2 dollars for it.
That kind of stock photography might suffer even more with generated images. Actual premium stock or for hire photography will not.
There is a certain class of images that will be largely unaffected - anything where authenticity matters. Such as a space walk photo from the ISS, a celebration moment in the Olympics, presidential speech, met gala fashion shots etc. and the authentic non generative photos could go up in value as photographers who do not have access to those moments either start to resort to AI or to fall out of the competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The photographers who took those stock photos also trained on stock photos.
Nope - a.i. is essentially just rearranging pixels because you can formally delineate (via mathematical expressions) how to arrive from input set to output image. To compare this in any respectable degree to human creativity is not reasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the sad thing is that these models are most likely trained upon most of these stock photos to begin with. I can understand the frustration of the industry.
The photographers who took those stock photos also trained on stock photos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope - a.i. is essentially just rearranging pixels because you can formally delineate (via mathematical expressions) how to arrive from input set to output image. To compare this in any respectable degree to human creativity is not reasonable.
How does human creativity work?