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

71–80 of 230 posts

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

#71

Post by wilimitis »

Kuinox wrote: post #62
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.

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 comp…

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". You might be new to analytical thinking, and I would recommend diving a bit deeper into "burden of proof" type arguments before proceeding further.

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

#72

Post by Kuinox »

wilimitis wrote: post #67
ksaj wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tr…

Are saying that all artists that got fooled by AI art, have untrained eyes ?

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

#73

Post by wilimitis »

GaggiX wrote: post #69
wilimitis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm pointing out that your "AI Effect" is one-sided in the wrong direction.

Surely you agree that we care more to prove the affirmative of whether a machine is conscious rather than prove that it isn't. If not, I don't think we can proceed.

The issue is that the AI Effect you linked is often actually used in the reverse, including by yourself, where the burden of proof should be to prove a machine is NOT conscious. However, like we've agreed, we care for proof in the affirmative.

Thus, the paradox lies in that the "AI Effect" concept is critical of those demanding the proof which is more valuable.

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

#74

Post by wilimitis »

ksaj wrote: post #43
harry8 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The photographers who took those stock photos also trained on stock photos.

That's an interesting observation. Painters are trained by copying the Masters. Shredding guitar players are trained on violin caprices. Martha Stewart was trained by watching Julia Child.

And the Masters developed their style over decades pushing beyond the previously systematized constraints of their peers, something which can definitionally not be achieved by AI which works within the dimensionality of the training set and thus will always lag behind the next artistic stylistic advancements.

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

#75

Post by voxadam »

Isn't the uncopyrightable nature of AI generated artwork a potential issue here?

If I produce ad content for a company whose public image is incredibly important (e.g. Apple) and that content includes AI art what is to stop a competitor, or anyone else, from reusing that same art in a counter ad or to produce other content to similarly harm the original company?

On the other hand, if I were to use images from a stock photo company I could simply purchase an exclusive license the artwork used (and likely the entirety of the similar work from the shoot, used or not) to avoid this type of imitation.

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

#76

Post by Kuinox »

wilimitis wrote: post #71
Kuinox wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 comp…

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". You might be new to analytical thinking, and I would recommend diving a bit deeper into "burden of proof" type arguments before proceeding further.

> You might be new to analytical thinking, and I would recommend diving a bit deeper into "burden of proof" type arguments before proceeding further.

I guess my last response was too hard for you to understand since you respond with this. Perhaps you are new to things like "reading between the lines".

You are the one who made this claim:

> That is an incredibly strong assertion that evidence does not seem to support currently.

To avoid loosing more time, I'll write what you failed to understand: "That evidence does not seem to support currently" is your claim, something you can prove, shows the evidence you are talking about.

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

#77

Post by Aerroon »

zirgs wrote: post #37
two_in_one wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Real time might be difficult right now anyway. It takes too long to figure out what the AI would do with the more powerful LLMs.

On the bright side, compute power is probably going to continue increasing. Consumers might be able to run current LLMs on home hardware in a decade or two.

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

#78

Post by dontlaugh »

aloisdg wrote: post #63
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All road lead to revolution, but it takes time to build.

Until then, some sabotage may be in order.

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

#79

Post by GaggiX »

wilimitis wrote: post #73
GaggiX wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm pointing out that your "AI Effect" is one-sided in the wrong direction. Surely you agree that we care more to prove the affirmative of whether a machine is conscious rather than prove that it isn't . If not, I don't think we can proceed. The issue is that the AI Effect you linked is often actually used in the reverse, including by yourself, where the burden of proof should be to prove a machine is NOT conscious.…

I don't know where the concept of "consciousness" came from in the discussion but as I said in the first comment these models already empirically show intelligence and creativity, proving otherwise would be much more meaningful than aligning with the evidence.

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

#80

Post by candiodari »

wilimitis wrote: post #74
ksaj wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting observation. Painters are trained by copying the Masters. Shredding guitar players are trained on violin caprices. Martha Stewart was trained by watching Julia Child.

And the Masters developed their style over decades pushing beyond the previously systematized constraints of their peers, something which can definitionally not be achieved by AI which works within the dimensionality of the training set and thus will always lag behind the next artistic stylistic advancements.

Then how come everybody thinks AI has a more or less distinct style? Incredible amounts of detail everywhere, whereas human artists tend to focus details in service of the "object" or purpose of the artwork.

AI art is more like what would happen if you took Baroque art and applied it to modern styles. For a human artist the effort is not worth it.

Post reply on HN