Given the tiny percentage they pay the actual photographer, I doubt many will be upset by that.
Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective
181–190 of 230 posts
Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective
#182I 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.
> The ability to charge a high price for stock photography is over though. Yes. Selling stock photos for crappy ads will be dead in a year. Unless you're at the level of Ansel Adams or Margeret Bourke-White, your content is not worth much.
Even Margaret Bourke-White's content isn't worth much. Her vintage silver gelatin prints, sure, but none of her LOC-housed imagery, and certainly none of her work available through Getty.
Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective
#183another way in which AI is killing the stock photo industry:
https://twitter.com/drivenbyboredom/status/16618473784276090...
Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you truly believed this you would never turn off a computer.
There are many humans I'd turn off if it wasn't illegal. And even more of them I'd turn off only if I knew with certainty that I could turn them back on whenever I want, and that their memories would simply continue where they stopped.
Frame this - iconic.
How many people would you estimate are deserving of your judgement? “Billions”?
Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
The capitalist system doesn't preclude workers from acquiring capital or capitalist from working. It also doesn't dictate the relative return on capital investment versus worker labor. The rate of return on capital is what dictates the concentration of wealth, or conversely, the dispersal of wealth. The conceptual systems introduced by Marx and others is that only workers can own capital and are based on a set of ass…
> The capitalist system doesn't preclude workers from acquiring capital or capitalist from working. In the same sense that the US electoral system doesn’t preclude more than two viable parties. The system of property rights that defines capitalism doesn’t specify any limit, but the structure it creates promotes it in function. > The conceptual systems introduced by Marx and others is that only workers can own capital…
I understand the carve out in Marx's Theory for non-productive personal property in contrast to the means of production.
That said, I don't see you the distinction between controlling the means of production use for one's labor and owning it, when controlling the means of production also includes allocation of the additional value created using them.
It also is also worth noting how far current thoughts on socialism and communism have come from Marxist theories. contemporary sentiment seem to advocate that individuals (working or not) are entitled share of the labor value created by others, even if they are in another workplace.
All this is really an aside from what I thought my greater point was about the underpinning assumptions or conditions that lead to the "expected" systemic outcomes. The US federal electoral system currently favors two parties, but this could change with different conditions. For example, ranked choice voting, and proportion state electoral allocation could impact this without overturning the entire governmental system.
Similarly, the concentration of capital is based on an number of conditional assumptions. For example, if the real rate of return on capital is less than the rate of capital creation, you would not expect the concentration of wealth to increase. under this condition, capital investment could only serve to slow the losses due to inflation.
Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mandatory "AI generated" mark may help a bit This will never happen, promise you that a major CGI sequence will ship completely AI generated in a Marvel movie within 3 years. This tech will be so integrated into workflows of Disney and the like that the idea of an "AI Generated" watermark will be as ridiculous to them as a "3D Rendered" watermark and if any legislation comes about they'll be against it.
I could potentially see movies needing to credit AI in the end credits. Not sure how that would work out. Maybe list all the scenes and what AI was used? But none-the-less, not an easy clear cut solution.
Why? What would this actually accomplish?
Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective
#187There 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).
Images generated by these systems look nice because the models were trained on photos that had already made it through curation filters before being published or distributed. Most people toss out their garbage photos and don't share them online.
Without that, computer-generated images would be far uglier and weirder. And if the computers had to get their new material from, say, a bunch of webcam feeds, the composition of their output would be terrible.
Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The capitalist system doesn't preclude workers from acquiring capital or capitalist from working. In the same sense that the US electoral system doesn’t preclude more than two viable parties. The system of property rights that defines capitalism doesn’t specify any limit, but the structure it creates promotes it in function. > The conceptual systems introduced by Marx and others is that only workers can own capital…
I understand the carve out in Marx's Theory for non-productive personal property in contrast to the means of production. That said, I don't see you the distinction between controlling the means of production use for one's labor and owning it, when controlling the means of production also includes allocation of the additional value created using them. It also is also worth noting how far current thoughts on socialism…
> That said, I don't see you the distinction between controlling the means of production use for one's labor and owning it
Conditional control while you are a laborer whose labor is applied to particular capital (which, to be fair, is one of many patterns advocated within Marxist-influenced socialism, not the only operationalization of the concept) is distinct from ownership which persists until the owner chooses to alienate the property.
> It also is also worth noting how far current thoughts on socialism and communism have come from Marxist theories. contemporary sentiment seem to advocate that individuals (working or not) are entitled share of the labor value created by others, even if they are in another workplace.
Yeah, its not like Marx said anything like: “In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!” [0]
[0] Except, of course, that he did, in Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875.
Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the carve out in Marx's Theory for non-productive personal property in contrast to the means of production. That said, I don't see you the distinction between controlling the means of production use for one's labor and owning it, when controlling the means of production also includes allocation of the additional value created using them. It also is also worth noting how far current thoughts on socialism…
> That said, I don't see you the distinction between controlling the means of production use for one's labor and owning it Conditional control while you are a laborer whose labor is applied to particular capital (which, to be fair, is one of many patterns advocated within Marxist-influenced socialism, not the only operationalization of the concept) is distinct from ownership which persists until the owner chooses to…
Im not sure if you are plugging the quote in support or disagreement. The internet is funny that way. Is a very modern take to utterly ignore the lengthy preconditions laid out and jump straight to the conclusion if it means the reader is entitled to free stuff. Why wait for a society where the products of human labor are given freely and consensually when they can simply be taken today.
Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective
#190Earlier 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.
That's a very fancy way with lots of fancy words to say "I have no idea how NN work, but if I sound smart maybe ppl will not figure out how stupid I sound". Well, you sound stupid and nothing what you said makes sense. Delineate? Diffusion models can't be further away for delineating. They literally work by throwing random shit at the wall. Input set? There is no input set once training is complete. Human creativity?…
Incorrect - I'm clearly using delineate to mean providing the exact set of computational instructions which produce the output (image), which by the definition of "computable" must be true.
You seem emotional, "you sound stupid and nothing what you said makes sense", I wonder, why are you so triggered by a challenging idea?
The very point of computation is to evaluate clear, distinct, mathematical expressions (like reading a list of algorithmic steps to produce an NN).
Hmmm. Did I threaten your religious belief in the power of AI? :)