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

61–70 of 230 posts

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

#61

Post by baq »

wilimitis wrote: post #39
Kuinox wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that human creativity can be computed mathematically.

Note that the same can be said about the negation: show me a proof that it can't.

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

#62

Post by Kuinox »

wilimitis wrote: post #39
Kuinox wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think my point flew over your head. The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that we can't simulate the whole universe, humans included. This is something that cannot be proved to be true, even if it was the truth, it is possible that you can only prove it to be false, and nobody managed to do it yet. That's why it's on you to prove it to be false. Especially since you claim that something cannot be computed with maths.

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

#63

Post by aloisdg »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #50
wnkrshm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that now only the owner of a machine profits where before lots of individuals profited. More power to the owners, I guess.

The trajectory of ML appears to point towards massive transfer of wealth to capital owners and impoverishment of the working classes. We need to find a way to distribute the benefits of such developments.

Maybe there is something to do about workers owning their own means of production.

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

#64

Post by wilimitis »

GaggiX wrote: post #56
wilimitis wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

LLM and text-to-image models already show empirically that creativity is computable, of course, as the AI effect[1] says, if a machine did it, then it's just predicting the next word or rearranging pixels (which doesn't really make sense), if a human did it, then it's intelligence or creativity. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect

The reverse is also true which makes your entire point hypocritically paradoxical. If a human makes it we immediately assume it can be computed (creativity). That is the strong claim which I think requires the burden of proof.

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

#65

Post by ksaj »

giuliomagnifico wrote: post #6
ksaj wrote: post #2

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.

I don’t think AI will replace stock photos because AIs need some photos to build the AI photos. Probably AI will help photographers to cut costs, I mean by taking less “real” photos and using the AI to generate other similar variants, example: “Photos Used to Generate AI Images for Client So Photographer Never Shoots Again Photos Used to Generate AI Images for Client So Photographer Never Shoots Again” https://petapi…

What do you think of this article. https://hackaday.com/2023/06/02/ai-camera-imagines-a-photo-o...

It's not exactly what you've said, but it itches a scratch from around there.

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

#66

Post by wilimitis »

tsimionescu wrote: post #57
wilimitis wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First of all, we're discussing stock photography, not art. Second of all, Turing's arguments for why the Turing machine is a decent model of the brain seem pretty hard to bet against, and the Turing machine underlies all computation.

No - we're discussing whether someone producing stock photography can be trained in the same sense as a.i. However, I will give you that I'm potentially falsely assuming creativity is required to a comparable degree to art.

Also, gun-to-my-head I would not bet on creativity being systemetizable, so I completely disagree.

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

#67

Post by wilimitis »

ksaj wrote: post #55
wilimitis wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Today's AI has taught us that everything people show us they think is unique, isn't really. Everything comes from somewhere, including the things that add up to what we call creativity.

That's actually untrue to me as a professional artist. A.I. art has shown me that cheap permutations (which have been done in art even before A.I.) can still capture the untrained eye. I don't think that's anything particularly new.

And absolutely, however creativity is the tip of the spear which pushes beyond constraints to develop novel AND meaningful style (like Beksinski, Kopera, Kostetsky, Moebius, etc).

Nice try.

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

#68

Post by wnkrshm »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #50
wnkrshm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that now only the owner of a machine profits where before lots of individuals profited. More power to the owners, I guess.

The trajectory of ML appears to point towards massive transfer of wealth to capital owners and impoverishment of the working classes. We need to find a way to distribute the benefits of such developments.

Imo it's only right to have something that is made of public goods (i.e. everyone's data and human historic record) to become a public good in itself.

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

#69

Post by GaggiX »

wilimitis wrote: post #64
GaggiX wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLM and text-to-image models already show empirically that creativity is computable, of course, as the AI effect[1] says, if a machine did it, then it's just predicting the next word or rearranging pixels (which doesn't really make sense), if a human did it, then it's intelligence or creativity. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect

The reverse is also true which makes your entire point hypocritically paradoxical. If a human makes it we immediately assume it can be computed (creativity). That is the strong claim which I think requires the burden of proof.

What is the paradox of both humans and machines showing signs of creativity?

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

#70

Post by wilimitis »

baq wrote: post #61
wilimitis wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that human creativity can be computed mathematically. Note that the same can be said about the negation: show me a proof that it can't.

I never said it can't. And you're mistaken unfortunately - it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, as most people trained in philosophy intimately understand. For instance, "prove God is NOT real".
Post reply on HN