Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

stockperformer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 230 posts

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#31

Post by senko »

The_Colonel wrote: post #23
senko wrote: post #20

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…

Where is the photographer's skill necessary in the process? 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).

AI work much better with high quality data (and that's not just resolution and noise level), and need boatloads of them.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#34

Post by wilimitis »

Kuinox wrote: post #30
vidarh wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does human creativity work?

With something representable with math functions that nobody knows yet.

That is an incredibly strong assertion that evidence does not seem to support currently. So, you may take it on faith if you wish, however there is growing interest in the notion that creativity itself is that which is not systemetizable.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#35

Post by Kuinox »

wilimitis wrote: post #34
Kuinox wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With something representable with math functions that nobody knows yet.

That is an incredibly strong assertion that evidence does not seem to support currently. So, you may take it on faith if you wish, however there is growing interest in the notion that creativity itself is that which is not systemetizable .

You gotta back up claims like that with a source. As far as I know, nobody can prove we are not in a simulation. Meaning everything is made out of math.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#36

Post by pulvinar »

wilimitis wrote: post #22
harry8 wrote: post #12

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.

Any output from a brain can also be represented mathematically-- it's a physical object, after all. Coming up with the parameters for those expressions is the much harder part, for both brain and AI.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#37

Post by zirgs »

two_in_one wrote: post #24
torginus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yes, and we can expect a flood of those 'lesser budget' works. 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.

Just need to figure out how to do AI inference without tanking rendering performance.

Offloading AI stuff to a cloud would make single player games unplayable offline and their servers won't stay online forever. Another solution would be to use a second GPU just for AI stuff. But that would make most current gaming devices useless.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#38

Post by worrycue »

two_in_one wrote: post #24
torginus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yes, and we can expect a flood of those 'lesser budget' works. 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.

> Also education, where kids can ask questions and give the answers.

Not sure how parents feel about putting kids in front of a machine that can fabricate lies.

I mean a encyclopaedia getting information wrong is one thing - garbage in, garbage out - but one that actively invents lies is like added another layer of bad to things.

Probably better for kids learn to search for information and evaluate information sources.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#39

Post by wilimitis »

Kuinox wrote: post #35
wilimitis wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an incredibly strong assertion that evidence does not seem to support currently. So, you may take it on faith if you wish, however there is growing interest in the notion that creativity itself is that which is not systemetizable .

You gotta back up claims like that with a source. As far as I know, nobody can prove we are not in a simulation. Meaning everything is made out of math.

I think my point flew over your head. The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that human creativity can be computed mathematically.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#40

Post by wilimitis »

pulvinar wrote: post #36
wilimitis wrote: post #22

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.

Any output from a brain can also be represented mathematically-- it's a physical object, after all. Coming up with the parameters for those expressions is the much harder part, for both brain and AI.

Once again, that is an incredibly strong assertion and if you wish to be reasonable then the burden of proof is on you to prove those parameters before making such claims (e.g. that creativity = math).

The notion that creativity lies beyond what is systemetizable (or otoh, the value in creativity is to defy that which can be computed), seems more in line with my sense of it.

Post reply on HN