[deleted]
Photographer Disqualified from AI Image Contest After Winning with Real Photo
21–30 of 33 posts
Re: Photographer Disqualified from AI Image Contest After Winning with Real Photo
#22That actually makes sense - and partially an admission that AI can't compete with real artists yet. It's like a pro sending a picture to an event that only allows amateurs.
Re: Photographer Disqualified from AI Image Contest After Winning with Real Photo
#23Feels like humans cheering for Kasparov when he beat Deep Blue. That fleeting moment in time, a crest of a wave, before the change of times.
What changed exactly? Humans are still competing in chess, earning livelihoods, building fan bases. The ELO world rankings don't have any machines because the International Chess Federation only allows humans to enter competitions, just like all the other IOC sanctioned sports governing bodies. I'm sure Boston Dynamics has long been able to make a robot that can run faster than Usain Bolt, but nobody cared and it didn't matter because robots aren't allowed to compete in officially sanctioned track events. Similar to why MLB teams can't use pitching machines instead of pitchers. A Phalanx can't enter a shooting competition. Wrestling federations don't actually allow man versus car like in Rick and Morty's interdimensional cable.
In some endeavors, humans doing it is the entire point.
Re: Photographer Disqualified from AI Image Contest After Winning with Real Photo
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can AI come up with new novel things? A nature photographer could , through luck and hard work, photograph a new species of animal while traveling through an unexplored area. Could AI do that?
> Could AI do that? ... yes? Have you actually played around with photo generation tools? You can absolutely generate novel images.
At the risk of stating the obvious and wasting people's time, it seems pretty self-evident that knowing about the existence of a species we didn't know about before is more interesting than someone creating an image of something that may or may not exist.
Re: Photographer Disqualified from AI Image Contest After Winning with Real Photo
#25Disrespectful to the AI art medium. I don't want to see art from someone who has spent a hundred thousand hours looking at the real world. I want to see art from someone who has spent a hundred thousand hours looking at AI medium output For you see, the second artist will be quite mad. The first artist is just a pretentious fake who has not destroyed their own mind.
"Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore." -Dorothy
Re: Photographer Disqualified from AI Image Contest After Winning with Real Photo
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can AI come up with new novel things? A nature photographer could , through luck and hard work, photograph a new species of animal while traveling through an unexplored area. Could AI do that?
> Could AI do that? ... yes? Have you actually played around with photo generation tools? You can absolutely generate novel images.
Yes, AI can decide to go on a nature expedition on its own? The delusion has really gone out of hand.
Re: Photographer Disqualified from AI Image Contest After Winning with Real Photo
#27Re: Photographer Disqualified from AI Image Contest After Winning with Real Photo
#28It seems to me that this artist is just proving even more that we're art the stage where AI-generated art generally can't be distinguished from real-world art. This artist submitted a very thought-provoking work (still having a hard time thinking of that picture as a bird myself), and that's what won them the contest. It could just as easily have been generated.
Re: Photographer Disqualified from AI Image Contest After Winning with Real Photo
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Could AI do that? ... yes? Have you actually played around with photo generation tools? You can absolutely generate novel images.
Yes, AI can decide to go on a nature expedition on its own? The delusion has really gone out of hand.
What? That's not what they asked?
> Can AI come up with new novel things?
... still yes. You can use generative AI to general novel text, images, videos, and sounds just as much as you can record or photograph something that has never been captured before with a camera or microphone.
Why did you have such a negative emotional response to such a plain fact?
Edit: wait I said "they" because I thought you clearly misread the comment, but I just realized you posted it yourself. Now I'm really confused.
Re: Photographer Disqualified from AI Image Contest After Winning with Real Photo
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Could AI do that? ... yes? Have you actually played around with photo generation tools? You can absolutely generate novel images.
At the risk of stating the obvious and wasting people's time, it seems pretty self-evident that knowing about the existence of a species we didn't know about before is more interesting than someone creating an image of something that may or may not exist.
I think you're asserting your opinion about a strawman situation as fact...
Put another, slightly more concrete way: what is more interesting, a photograph of a newly discovered moon of Jupiter, or a new album by Taylor Swift? Obviously people are interested in different things. Believe it or not, many people would forget about the new moon or new species within seconds or minutes.
If someone used generative AI tools to create a visually impactful image, I could imagine someone hanging it on their wall, and being completely disinterested in a photo of a newly discovered jellyfish.
People simply have different interests.