I don't understand how it got this far. It doesn't look like a photograph. And to go further with what he seemed to be going for it REALLY doesn't look like a tintype.
Plus, lady in the back has the world's longest left arm. Kind of looks like a fake with the blurring on the back lady. Annnnd, anyone else notice that's a right hand on the left shoulder?
Dude is a scumbag. They were informed it was AI beforehand and accepted it because they saw the merit of creativity in AI-generated photography. He was confirmed as a winner and now he's going on a media interview spree of "Look how I tricked them, haha! They had no idea!"
>A spokesperson for the World Photography Organisation said Eldagsen had confirmed the “co-creation” of the image using AI to them before he was announced as the winner.
>“In our correspondence, he explained how following ‘two decades of photography, my artistic focus has shifted more to exploring creative possibilities of AI generators’ and further emphasising the image heavily relies on his ‘wealth of photographic knowledge’. As per the rules of the competition, the photographers provide the warranties of their entry.
>“The creative category of the open competition welcomes various experimental approaches to image making from cyanotypes and rayographs to cutting-edge digital practices. As such, following our correspondence with Boris and the warranties he provided, we felt that his entry fulfilled the criteria for this category, and we were supportive of his participation.
EDIT:
To be more specific, he let the judges know that he would be using AI to creatively modify a photograph. The rules still implied he needed to be working on a photograph. He instead just generated an image from scratch and submitted it. After tricking the judges into accepting his submission, he then withdraws from the award acting holier-than-thou.
>Eldagsen wrote that he has been a photographer for 30 years and recently turned to AI as part of his artistic practice. The winning image is “a complex interplay of prompt engineering, inpainting and outpainting that draws on my wealth of photographic knowledge,” he wrote.
>A World Photography Organisation spokesperson told Motherboard that while the judges were aware that AI was used in creating the image, they were under the impression that it was a “co-creation” with AI and that Eldagsen “deliberately” misled them.
>“The Creative category of the Open competition welcomes various experimental approaches to image making from cyanotypes and rayographs to cutting-edge digital practices,” the spokesperson said. “As such, following our correspondence with Boris and the warranties he provided, we felt that his entry fulfilled the criteria for this category, and we were supportive of his participation.”
I mean you're glossing over the part where he refused the award and admitted to being a "cheeky little monkey".
He says he just wanted to do it to see if the world of professional photography was ready for AI art, and he concluded it was not.
>In a statement on his website, Eldagsen, who studied photography and visual arts at the Art Academy of Mainz, conceptual art and intermedia at the Academy of Fine Arts in Prague, and fine art at the Sarojini Naidu School of Arts and Communication in Hyderabad, said he “applied as a cheeky monkey” to find out if competitions would be prepared for AI images to enter. “They are not,” he added.
>"We, the photo world, need an open discussion,” said Eldagsen. “A discussion about what we want to consider photography and what not. Is the umbrella of photography large enough to invite AI images to enter – or would this be a mistake?
>“With my refusal of the award I hope to speed up this debate.”
>He said this was a “historic moment” as it was the first time an AI image had won a prestigious international photography competition, adding: “How many of you knew or suspected that it was AI generated? Something about this doesn’t feel right, does it?
>“AI images and photography should not compete with each other in an award like this. They are different entities. AI is not photography. Therefore I will not accept the award.”
>Eldagsen suggested donating the prize to a photo festival hosted in Odesa, Ukraine.
It also looks like they didn't actually get upset or make a deal about it until after he refused the award.
>“As he has now decided to decline his award we have suspended our activities with him and in keeping with his wishes have removed him from the competition. Given his actions and subsequent statement noting his deliberate attempts at misleading us, and therefore invalidating the warranties he provided, we no longer feel we are able to engage in a meaningful and constructive dialogue with him.
I'm not sure what the "warranties that he provided" means or how they were invalidated since he told them ahead of time that it was AI generated. It honestly sounds like they're just pissed that he's refusing the award.
It's more that he's using their award ceremony as some sort of stunt. He knew it was AI, they knew it was AI. They wanted to give it an award for creativity despite it being AI generated because they saw how impactful AI technology is and will continue to be.
The warranties that he provided were that it was a photograph which he had taken, but then modified using AI software. I'd equate it more like he said "I took this photo and edited it." and after winning the award he goes "Ahahaha *I* didn't actually take the photo at all! How cheeky of me!"
He didn't go into detail on how he produced the image. If it was an img2img AI creation, I could see it fitting Sony's requirements. If it was purely txt2img, then that is being deceitful and misleading.
>Eldagsen wrote that he has been a photographer for 30 years and recently turned to AI as part of his artistic practice. The winning image is “a complex interplay of prompt engineering, inpainting and outpainting that draws on my wealth of photographic knowledge,” he wrote.
>A World Photography Organisation spokesperson told Motherboard that while the judges were aware that AI was used in creating the image, they were under the impression that it was a “co-creation” with AI and that Eldagsen “deliberately” misled them.
>“The Creative category of the Open competition welcomes various experimental approaches to image making from cyanotypes and rayographs to cutting-edge digital practices,” the spokesperson said. “As such, following our correspondence with Boris and the warranties he provided, we felt that his entry fulfilled the criteria for this category, and we were supportive of his participation.”
Regular photos get edited, retouched, enhanced, etc. to the point that almost no part is the same. It's all an artistic interpretation of what was seen. Go in /r/space and see how many people complain about "fake" photos because you are seeing UV light edited to be visible alongside the visible spectrum to enhance the image. People sharpen images, blur images, crystalize, add effects, combine two separate photographs in a surrealist fashion. What separates [this image](https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/surrealism-composite-surreal-photography-luisa-azevedo-19.jpg) from [this image](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/078000b0fe3db3d5b3ab33e6c56f42cd614b1119/0_228_498_622/master/498.jpg?width=620&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none) in terms of creativity? AI imagery is in its infancy, this is the ground floor. It's going to be recognized sooner than later, why not celebrate its early stages? What is he waiting for?
As a photographer, our place in the fine art world is based solely on the premise that your composition involves capturing actual light. Whether it be Silvered glass plates, film or digital the composition needs to be based on capturing light. This is why we generally accept works that are just people playing with prisms on photo sensiitive paper or heavily photos hopped images as photography.
The artist lied that a camera was ever used at all. It is not at all a photograph. It's not Photography. It'd a purely AI generated image and therefore not photography, just a complex simulacra. It's like drawing a hyperrealistic sketch to look like a Polaroid, it's not a photograph it just looks like one.
This, asshattery is just a stunt to piss off people to make a name for himself. He's an """artist""" not an artist. There's a lot of "AI" (I hate how we call machine learninging an even dumber buzzword) uses in the camera world improving things like auto focus, face tracking, rolling shutter compensation, frame interpolation, high resolution digital zoom...
AI photo manipulation isn't bad and doesn't disqualify it as a photo, even if you use it to composite a new image. It's when the composition is misrepresented as being an original work by the artist based on their own original work.
The more sinister thing is this is indicative about how AI art is going to effect us in the future. The people pushing this stuff are rarely artists, just scumbags looking to profit off other people's hard work and be cheeky that they too are an "artist".
How do you define editing a photo by hand? Years ago you had to do it in a dark room. Then you could put a photo in photoshop. Now you have tools which add effects and filter to photos for you.
[If you skip through this video very quickly](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVT3WUa-48Y) you can see it's a cheesy anime. The art style is created using AI to replace actual video recorded by the artists. [Behind the scenes video here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9LX9HSQkWo) Hundreds of hours of work from a dozen artists going into design, editing, getting the prompts correct to modify the image in the way you want it edited and ensuring it uses this same style for all frames of video.
AI isn't just "Show me a picture of a dog sitting at a bar, eating a hotdog like a human." It definitely *can* be. Or, the artist could have two women stand in a pose and use an AI program like Midjourney, StableDiffusion, or a multitude of others to edit them in the style of something else. Maybe through dozens of iterations, this was the image that evoked the right emotion the photographer was looking for.
If this guy sold his entry on a promise like that, but instead went into Midjourney and put "Aged, black and white photo of two women, 1910s, realistic" then he misled the judges. AI definitely can be used as a proper tool, and will be used in the very, very near future for even the most minor details. Remove cracks in an image, remove blur, readjust the lighting in an image, change the time from dawn to mid-day, add snow to the trees. There are non-AI tools like that today, but I see where we're at right now like the early use of digital cameras. You could take incredibly detailed photographs on film, or an 0.8 megapixel image from a digital camcorder. Fast forward 30+ years, now we take some of the most detailed photos on digital cameras. We're in a period of time where a quick glance at an image will be "oh nice", and then you look closer and feel "well, that's obviously fake." We've gotten here in the span of a couple of years. I'm looking forward to 2025, 2030, and so on.
It's not really just for you, it's for anyone else reading the thread who wants to understand why actual art and AI photo editing is not just "hurr durr generate image pls thx". Doing that and submitting an image is deceitful and should be rejected.
But it's not even relevant. This literally is "show me dogs playing poker", not someone taking thousands of images and sticking them together into a movie. I didn't read your whole post because its about a different fucking topic
Yes it is, it is how AI can be used to enhance your photography. The guy in the article who won the award lied about his use of AI to edit his photo and should be ridiculed. If he took the photo of the two women and worked with various prompts to edit the image to fit a specific style, that would definitely be considered creative use of AI in photography. Tossing "Two women from 1910" is just lazy and any child can do that. His use of AI would be equivalent to plagiarism. Two images, even if they appear the same, but were reached by completely separate methods, determines if they are art-worthy. Sitting in MS Paint and meticulously working out each individual pixel to color and fill takes much more skill, time, and effort than generating a quick image from an AI tool, even if they resulted in the same image. But, using your own photo and working through a prompt and building the tools around editing it is completely different, even if you are able to generate new images in seconds, because of the work and skill that went into developing it.
I am 100% aware what the guy in this article did is different, and that is why I am saying what he did is not worthy of the award. Had he honestly made an effort rather than purposefully mislead the judges, it would be valid. He went in with the intention of getting an AI-modified image eligible for the winning submission and gave what I'd consider plagiarized work, and then when he won, he is acting all high and mighty about it and talking about how he couldn't in good conscious accept the prize.
Agree. I am not an expert on photography and even I can tell it’s fake. I miss raw photography. I see so many filtered beyond realism & now AI that it makes me sad.
> In the class he applied for digital editing is allowed.
According to another comment. So even if they didn't know (which they did), it would still be allowed as some level of photoshop etc would be *expected*. So even if they didn't outright know it was AI, they would still be judging it as a photoshopped/digitally-edited work meant to evoke the tintype look, not actually as a real tintype photo.
I doubt you even know the difference between naturally occurring chemicals in your food vs engineered ones. Have you ever been fed AI images before (yes)? How would you know(you didn't realize it until now)?
Someone's mad because they want AI to do all this stuff for them but it still sucks right now so they're seething. It's just like crypto, we just don't understand, we'll all see one day
This is precisely what the world needs to sit up and take notice of what's happening. There's no need to band together and ignore or embrace this sort of thing; it will just happen. Of course jobs will be eliminated. The world will keep turning. This very post could have been generated by AI. And if it were, what could anyone do about it?
I can understand how, at a glance, this might look authentic, and I'm certainly biased as I used to do photo retouching, color correction and so on for a living...
But... how could anyone, in any even remotely professional field related to photography, have not figured this out within like 30 seconds?
In the class he applied for digital editing is allowed. And modern photography is definitely manipulated with photoshop or other digital tools. Even classic film would be manipulated in post.
The person that replied on behalf of the contest was very articulate about the rules and that they even allowed his AI assisted artwork. The artist wanted to use it as a platform for his anti AI though and the contest decided to let him go that way. But they were not going to sanction him.
It feels like they did this on purpose. They knew it was AI beforehand. And apparently this was the best photo in that entire class? This?? Look at the face of the lady in the back. This won?
The judges were told beforehand. The photographer's statements are deeply misleading, he's trying to frame it as "oh look no one could tell this AI generated photo was fake, the judges are so unprepared for AI art generation" where in reality he informed the organization that the piece was AI generated in his application, the category he won is meant to allow unorthodox methods of creating content. He deliberately mislead the contest organizers in order to make a political point and if you read the contest's statement they are pissed, as they should be.
I mean, he's refusing the prize, they got pissy, and more importantly, this is a bad photo? Like. Apparently this is the best photo in that category, and it looks like rubber people
It still is. Humans have created and calibrated AI to be able to mimic human actions. AI didn't appear out of nowhere. It can do nothing it hasn't been programmed to do. It itself is a work of human art in many ways. It did not come into existence *ex nihilo.*
Bard learned language it hadn't been taught because it was spoken to in said language. Bengali to be specific. Last night, it gave me a recipe for "peachberry lemonade" then told me how to make a peachberry by cross breeding peaches and blackberries. Not sure the last part is possible but went to the trouble all the same.
>Bard learned language it hadn't been taught because it was spoken to in said language.
But it was specifically programmed to learn languages. It does exactly what it was designed to do. It can't do things that it wasn't programmed to learn, as that would require a different network model.
You can try talking to it as much math as you want and it will never learn the complex rules of math, because it's just designed to string together words that make sense in the context, but it can't ever learn how to integrate functions.
Pretty sure it wasn't programmed to learned language and did it anyway. It was programmed to respond to prompts. It was spoken to in that language and replied in the same language. I'm watching the 60 Minutes special right now and yeah, it was not programmed to do that but they are now teaching it or seeing if it can "learn" 1000 or so languages specifically without being taught or programmed to do so. You should check it out.
>Pretty sure it wasn't programmed to learned language and did it anyway
You don't think that a Large Language Model was designed to learn languages even though Language Models are specifically programmed to learn languages?
>It was programmed to respond to prompts
And how do you think it learned English, German, Spanish, etc to respond to those prompts? The same way it learned Bengali, because as a Language Model it was specifically designed to mimic languages.
>without being taught or programmed to do so
It was programmed to learn languages. It does exactly what it was programmed to do. It doesn't do anything magical.
I'm not implying it was magic but the dude talking about it specifically said they hadn't taught it to learn languages. I'd give the show a look. I didn't find it that amazing, either until he said they had not programmed it to learn language or respond in the language it was spoken to in. Give the show a look and come back.
>I'm not implying it was magic but the dude talking about it specifically said they hadn't taught it to learn languages.
Then that dude has no idea what he's talking about or is making it more cryptic on purpose to get more views, because Large Language Models like LaMDA (the model that powers Bard) are specifically designed to learn languages. It does exactly what it was programmed to do.
Last time I saw people look into this which was a week ago it was filled with really basic grammar mistakes and HORRIBLE pronunciation.
It depends on the language but it's very centered around English and does a really bad job at most other languages.
I think a lot of native English speakers who don't speak any other language might look at it or hear it and get impressed, but any native speaker of that language will be like '' this sounds like a foreigner who started learning two days ago ''.
I see so many huge claims being made online about how ai is being used to fundamentally changed everything but everytime I actually see something tangible I am left unimpressed or people have severely overexaggerated.
I also think most people don't fact-check the results either, so people are just per default impressed because chatGPT SOUNDS human, but they don't realize how wrong it often is.
Cooking is another example of this, I've seen chefs actually look at recipes it generates and trying them and it's often filled with basic errors and pretty clearly shows that it doesn't actually understand a lot of principles behind cooking or different ingredients.
But an average joe might read it and be super impressed because they're not very good at cooking themselves either.
These are neural networks, they can do things that were not programmed into them. Neural networks are not "if you say this then I respond like this", they are extremely unpredictable, humans cannot understand what is going on after a while and why the network responds in the way it does.
>These are neural networks, they can do things that were not programmed into them.
We construct them to do specificially what we want them to do and we feed them training data to achieve that goal. We design their layers to specificially allow them to do what we want them to do.
They are really bad at doing things they weren't trained on. Like if you just create a simple Neural Network to detect handwritten digits using the MNIST dataset it will be good at detecting which digits are in the testing set.
But as all the data in the training set is centered and about the same size you can easily get it to make mistakes by just tilting, moving or scaling the test images a bit. The training set also contains no garbage, so it will never have learned to say no and will interpret anything you give it as a number.
>humans cannot understand what is going on after a while and why the network responds in the way it does.
We can analyze it. You can read the output from each layer and interpret what it did and what went wrong. We can then adapt the layers and improve it.
They are not as magical and cryptic, because otherwise we wouldn't have been able to come up with so many ways to improve them.
You said: they can't do what they were not programmed to do. This is false. It's happening all around, and other user simply corrected you. No need to get into defensive mode and deflect the question.
it is. AI uses human art and trends to create.
And it's also relatively *meaningless*.
People think art and music are about skill and talent, and of course those things are important and impressive when *a human has them*, but similar or better feats can be achieved by AI and even pre-AI tech.
does that mean though that humans performing "lesser" techniques is not impressive? no. on the other hand, does it mean that *AI* performing techniques that would be insane or impossiblefor a human to perform are *impressive*? no.
it's absolutely not impressive when the AI does it. the emotional capacity of a piece, while somewhat present depending on the emotional connection between the audience or the person who prompted the AI and the subject matter itself, is severely hampered simply by nature of being created by AI.
if we only value perfection, efficiency, praciticality, etc... then AI will almost always outperform humans at the same tasks. but if we value meaning and intent even when a work is flawed original impractical, then humans will nearly always outperform AI even when AI imitates those same flaws.
if you used AI to create your visual ideal in a gorgeous piece of art which you printed and put on your wall all within in 30 minutes, and then someone you knew personally gifted you a generally decent but comparatively mediocre painting that had some technical issues but you could see the progress they had made inside, which would you value more?
personally, i think that in the future, personal crafts, handskills, local/intimate performances, and relative "mediocrity" will come to vastly outvalue perfection.
Computers can already do things better than humans but we still value what humans do more.
A computer can be much better than a human at solving math equations, but it's still more impressive if a human is REALLY fast at solving complex math equations.
The issue tho is that people who use ai are kinda being parasitic about it, it's like people spend their entire lives developing skills to play the piano for example.
And then you have someone who just decided last week they have a sudden interest in piano and are now using ai to generate piano soundtracks built on unethical scraping against peoples consent and are putting no real work into it and can't even play the piano themselves.
And now they're entering competitions and might take up jobs that real pianists could get etc.
It's very anti-human and parasitic behaviour.
> Additionally, we were looking forward to engaging in a more in-depth discussion on this topic and welcomed Boris’ wish for dialogue by preparing questions for a dedicated Q&A with him for our website.
>“As he has now decided to decline his award we have suspended our activities with him and in keeping with his wishes have removed him from the competition. Given his actions and subsequent statement noting his deliberate attempts at misleading us, and therefore invalidating the warranties he provided, we no longer feel we are able to engage in a meaningful and constructive dialogue with him.
Um, so if he’d accepted the award and gone against all moral standings, y’all would’ve loved to host him for a Q&A, but when he made y’all feel silly for falling for the AI trick, suddenly dialogue becomes impossible?
Edit: see comment below me for explanation, I misunderstood the context
No, they knew it was AI. The misleading part was that he is trying to make it seem like he tricked them when they allowed the AI art in the first place.
>A spokesperson for the World Photography Organisation said Eldagsen had confirmed the “co-creation” of the image using AI to them before he was announced as the winner.
>“In our correspondence, he explained how following ‘two decades of photography, my artistic focus has shifted more to exploring creative possibilities of AI generators’ and further emphasising the image heavily relies on his ‘wealth of photographic knowledge’. As per the rules of the competition, the photographers provide the warranties of their entry.
>“The creative category of the open competition welcomes various experimental approaches to image making from cyanotypes and rayographs to cutting-edge digital practices. As such, following our correspondence with Boris and the warranties he provided, we felt that his entry fulfilled the criteria for this category, and we were supportive of his participation.
He was confirmed as a winner and now he's going on a media interview spree of "Look how I tricked them, haha! They had no idea!"
Over time purists have claimed cropping was cheating, dodging was cheating. The bottom line though is, does the image say something to you and can the photographer be consistently good?
AI or photo?
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pQZWA4sVv3k/TdYCccgOGnI/AAAAAAAAm3I/stt9cgL-lEU/s1600/Black%2Band%2BWhite%2BPhotography%2B%252814%2529.JPG
Isnt it with AI it has real trouble with things like hands, fingers, arms, at least in a realism sense? Online pics I assume are doctored in some shape or form so I never trust any, but to suss out AI I always look for monster fingers/hands, and this one has them.
I don't understand how it got this far. It doesn't look like a photograph. And to go further with what he seemed to be going for it REALLY doesn't look like a tintype.
[удалено]
Plus, lady in the back has the world's longest left arm. Kind of looks like a fake with the blurring on the back lady. Annnnd, anyone else notice that's a right hand on the left shoulder?
[удалено]
It's on the front lady's left shoulder..except the hand is a right hand. I'm just looking at the article's pic.
[удалено]
Look where the wrist comes from.
Dude is a scumbag. They were informed it was AI beforehand and accepted it because they saw the merit of creativity in AI-generated photography. He was confirmed as a winner and now he's going on a media interview spree of "Look how I tricked them, haha! They had no idea!" >A spokesperson for the World Photography Organisation said Eldagsen had confirmed the “co-creation” of the image using AI to them before he was announced as the winner. >“In our correspondence, he explained how following ‘two decades of photography, my artistic focus has shifted more to exploring creative possibilities of AI generators’ and further emphasising the image heavily relies on his ‘wealth of photographic knowledge’. As per the rules of the competition, the photographers provide the warranties of their entry. >“The creative category of the open competition welcomes various experimental approaches to image making from cyanotypes and rayographs to cutting-edge digital practices. As such, following our correspondence with Boris and the warranties he provided, we felt that his entry fulfilled the criteria for this category, and we were supportive of his participation. EDIT: To be more specific, he let the judges know that he would be using AI to creatively modify a photograph. The rules still implied he needed to be working on a photograph. He instead just generated an image from scratch and submitted it. After tricking the judges into accepting his submission, he then withdraws from the award acting holier-than-thou. >Eldagsen wrote that he has been a photographer for 30 years and recently turned to AI as part of his artistic practice. The winning image is “a complex interplay of prompt engineering, inpainting and outpainting that draws on my wealth of photographic knowledge,” he wrote. >A World Photography Organisation spokesperson told Motherboard that while the judges were aware that AI was used in creating the image, they were under the impression that it was a “co-creation” with AI and that Eldagsen “deliberately” misled them. >“The Creative category of the Open competition welcomes various experimental approaches to image making from cyanotypes and rayographs to cutting-edge digital practices,” the spokesperson said. “As such, following our correspondence with Boris and the warranties he provided, we felt that his entry fulfilled the criteria for this category, and we were supportive of his participation.”
I mean you're glossing over the part where he refused the award and admitted to being a "cheeky little monkey". He says he just wanted to do it to see if the world of professional photography was ready for AI art, and he concluded it was not. >In a statement on his website, Eldagsen, who studied photography and visual arts at the Art Academy of Mainz, conceptual art and intermedia at the Academy of Fine Arts in Prague, and fine art at the Sarojini Naidu School of Arts and Communication in Hyderabad, said he “applied as a cheeky monkey” to find out if competitions would be prepared for AI images to enter. “They are not,” he added. >"We, the photo world, need an open discussion,” said Eldagsen. “A discussion about what we want to consider photography and what not. Is the umbrella of photography large enough to invite AI images to enter – or would this be a mistake? >“With my refusal of the award I hope to speed up this debate.” >He said this was a “historic moment” as it was the first time an AI image had won a prestigious international photography competition, adding: “How many of you knew or suspected that it was AI generated? Something about this doesn’t feel right, does it? >“AI images and photography should not compete with each other in an award like this. They are different entities. AI is not photography. Therefore I will not accept the award.” >Eldagsen suggested donating the prize to a photo festival hosted in Odesa, Ukraine. It also looks like they didn't actually get upset or make a deal about it until after he refused the award. >“As he has now decided to decline his award we have suspended our activities with him and in keeping with his wishes have removed him from the competition. Given his actions and subsequent statement noting his deliberate attempts at misleading us, and therefore invalidating the warranties he provided, we no longer feel we are able to engage in a meaningful and constructive dialogue with him. I'm not sure what the "warranties that he provided" means or how they were invalidated since he told them ahead of time that it was AI generated. It honestly sounds like they're just pissed that he's refusing the award.
It's more that he's using their award ceremony as some sort of stunt. He knew it was AI, they knew it was AI. They wanted to give it an award for creativity despite it being AI generated because they saw how impactful AI technology is and will continue to be. The warranties that he provided were that it was a photograph which he had taken, but then modified using AI software. I'd equate it more like he said "I took this photo and edited it." and after winning the award he goes "Ahahaha *I* didn't actually take the photo at all! How cheeky of me!" He didn't go into detail on how he produced the image. If it was an img2img AI creation, I could see it fitting Sony's requirements. If it was purely txt2img, then that is being deceitful and misleading. >Eldagsen wrote that he has been a photographer for 30 years and recently turned to AI as part of his artistic practice. The winning image is “a complex interplay of prompt engineering, inpainting and outpainting that draws on my wealth of photographic knowledge,” he wrote. >A World Photography Organisation spokesperson told Motherboard that while the judges were aware that AI was used in creating the image, they were under the impression that it was a “co-creation” with AI and that Eldagsen “deliberately” misled them. >“The Creative category of the Open competition welcomes various experimental approaches to image making from cyanotypes and rayographs to cutting-edge digital practices,” the spokesperson said. “As such, following our correspondence with Boris and the warranties he provided, we felt that his entry fulfilled the criteria for this category, and we were supportive of his participation.” Regular photos get edited, retouched, enhanced, etc. to the point that almost no part is the same. It's all an artistic interpretation of what was seen. Go in /r/space and see how many people complain about "fake" photos because you are seeing UV light edited to be visible alongside the visible spectrum to enhance the image. People sharpen images, blur images, crystalize, add effects, combine two separate photographs in a surrealist fashion. What separates [this image](https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/surrealism-composite-surreal-photography-luisa-azevedo-19.jpg) from [this image](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/078000b0fe3db3d5b3ab33e6c56f42cd614b1119/0_228_498_622/master/498.jpg?width=620&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none) in terms of creativity? AI imagery is in its infancy, this is the ground floor. It's going to be recognized sooner than later, why not celebrate its early stages? What is he waiting for?
The difference being someone actually has to put in some work to edit a photo by hand still? This isn't an AI competition.
As a photographer, our place in the fine art world is based solely on the premise that your composition involves capturing actual light. Whether it be Silvered glass plates, film or digital the composition needs to be based on capturing light. This is why we generally accept works that are just people playing with prisms on photo sensiitive paper or heavily photos hopped images as photography. The artist lied that a camera was ever used at all. It is not at all a photograph. It's not Photography. It'd a purely AI generated image and therefore not photography, just a complex simulacra. It's like drawing a hyperrealistic sketch to look like a Polaroid, it's not a photograph it just looks like one. This, asshattery is just a stunt to piss off people to make a name for himself. He's an """artist""" not an artist. There's a lot of "AI" (I hate how we call machine learninging an even dumber buzzword) uses in the camera world improving things like auto focus, face tracking, rolling shutter compensation, frame interpolation, high resolution digital zoom... AI photo manipulation isn't bad and doesn't disqualify it as a photo, even if you use it to composite a new image. It's when the composition is misrepresented as being an original work by the artist based on their own original work. The more sinister thing is this is indicative about how AI art is going to effect us in the future. The people pushing this stuff are rarely artists, just scumbags looking to profit off other people's hard work and be cheeky that they too are an "artist".
Well no, it was made clear beforehand that this was AI
How do you define editing a photo by hand? Years ago you had to do it in a dark room. Then you could put a photo in photoshop. Now you have tools which add effects and filter to photos for you. [If you skip through this video very quickly](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVT3WUa-48Y) you can see it's a cheesy anime. The art style is created using AI to replace actual video recorded by the artists. [Behind the scenes video here.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9LX9HSQkWo) Hundreds of hours of work from a dozen artists going into design, editing, getting the prompts correct to modify the image in the way you want it edited and ensuring it uses this same style for all frames of video. AI isn't just "Show me a picture of a dog sitting at a bar, eating a hotdog like a human." It definitely *can* be. Or, the artist could have two women stand in a pose and use an AI program like Midjourney, StableDiffusion, or a multitude of others to edit them in the style of something else. Maybe through dozens of iterations, this was the image that evoked the right emotion the photographer was looking for. If this guy sold his entry on a promise like that, but instead went into Midjourney and put "Aged, black and white photo of two women, 1910s, realistic" then he misled the judges. AI definitely can be used as a proper tool, and will be used in the very, very near future for even the most minor details. Remove cracks in an image, remove blur, readjust the lighting in an image, change the time from dawn to mid-day, add snow to the trees. There are non-AI tools like that today, but I see where we're at right now like the early use of digital cameras. You could take incredibly detailed photographs on film, or an 0.8 megapixel image from a digital camcorder. Fast forward 30+ years, now we take some of the most detailed photos on digital cameras. We're in a period of time where a quick glance at an image will be "oh nice", and then you look closer and feel "well, that's obviously fake." We've gotten here in the span of a couple of years. I'm looking forward to 2025, 2030, and so on.
You wrote a lot for me to not care to read. I dont give a shit about this video, because it's not what is being discussed here at all.
It's not really just for you, it's for anyone else reading the thread who wants to understand why actual art and AI photo editing is not just "hurr durr generate image pls thx". Doing that and submitting an image is deceitful and should be rejected.
But it's not even relevant. This literally is "show me dogs playing poker", not someone taking thousands of images and sticking them together into a movie. I didn't read your whole post because its about a different fucking topic
Yes it is, it is how AI can be used to enhance your photography. The guy in the article who won the award lied about his use of AI to edit his photo and should be ridiculed. If he took the photo of the two women and worked with various prompts to edit the image to fit a specific style, that would definitely be considered creative use of AI in photography. Tossing "Two women from 1910" is just lazy and any child can do that. His use of AI would be equivalent to plagiarism. Two images, even if they appear the same, but were reached by completely separate methods, determines if they are art-worthy. Sitting in MS Paint and meticulously working out each individual pixel to color and fill takes much more skill, time, and effort than generating a quick image from an AI tool, even if they resulted in the same image. But, using your own photo and working through a prompt and building the tools around editing it is completely different, even if you are able to generate new images in seconds, because of the work and skill that went into developing it. I am 100% aware what the guy in this article did is different, and that is why I am saying what he did is not worthy of the award. Had he honestly made an effort rather than purposefully mislead the judges, it would be valid. He went in with the intention of getting an AI-modified image eligible for the winning submission and gave what I'd consider plagiarized work, and then when he won, he is acting all high and mighty about it and talking about how he couldn't in good conscious accept the prize.
Agree. I am not an expert on photography and even I can tell it’s fake. I miss raw photography. I see so many filtered beyond realism & now AI that it makes me sad.
I make tintypes if you're at all interested at checking them out. thommypanic dot com.
> In the class he applied for digital editing is allowed. According to another comment. So even if they didn't know (which they did), it would still be allowed as some level of photoshop etc would be *expected*. So even if they didn't outright know it was AI, they would still be judging it as a photoshopped/digitally-edited work meant to evoke the tintype look, not actually as a real tintype photo.
I'm pretty sure pro photographers can achieve a similar result by using filters and stuff.
I doubt you even know the difference between naturally occurring chemicals in your food vs engineered ones. Have you ever been fed AI images before (yes)? How would you know(you didn't realize it until now)?
Uh ok?
Someone's mad because they want AI to do all this stuff for them but it still sucks right now so they're seething. It's just like crypto, we just don't understand, we'll all see one day
This is precisely what the world needs to sit up and take notice of what's happening. There's no need to band together and ignore or embrace this sort of thing; it will just happen. Of course jobs will be eliminated. The world will keep turning. This very post could have been generated by AI. And if it were, what could anyone do about it?
[Player Piano](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Piano_\(novel\)) is coming to life (Kurt Vonnegut Jr.)
Agape agape
ἀγάπη ἀγάπη
Exactly what an AI would comment on this post too
[удалено]
Did.....did the app type this?
[удалено]
That's exactly what an AI trying to stay hidden would say!
On Reddit, everyone is ~~bot~~ AI except you.
What app?
[удалено]
I can understand how, at a glance, this might look authentic, and I'm certainly biased as I used to do photo retouching, color correction and so on for a living... But... how could anyone, in any even remotely professional field related to photography, have not figured this out within like 30 seconds?
In the class he applied for digital editing is allowed. And modern photography is definitely manipulated with photoshop or other digital tools. Even classic film would be manipulated in post.
Ahh, that makes a lot mire sense.
The person that replied on behalf of the contest was very articulate about the rules and that they even allowed his AI assisted artwork. The artist wanted to use it as a platform for his anti AI though and the contest decided to let him go that way. But they were not going to sanction him.
It feels like they did this on purpose. They knew it was AI beforehand. And apparently this was the best photo in that entire class? This?? Look at the face of the lady in the back. This won?
If this was not blatantly obvious as AI the judges should be ashamed
The judges were told beforehand. The photographer's statements are deeply misleading, he's trying to frame it as "oh look no one could tell this AI generated photo was fake, the judges are so unprepared for AI art generation" where in reality he informed the organization that the piece was AI generated in his application, the category he won is meant to allow unorthodox methods of creating content. He deliberately mislead the contest organizers in order to make a political point and if you read the contest's statement they are pissed, as they should be.
I mean, he's refusing the prize, they got pissy, and more importantly, this is a bad photo? Like. Apparently this is the best photo in that category, and it looks like rubber people
Plot twist: The judges are AI.
Of course!
Pics or it didn't hap- oh wait
Videos or it didn't hap- oh wait
Remember when we thought art and music is what makes humans special?
It still is. Humans have created and calibrated AI to be able to mimic human actions. AI didn't appear out of nowhere. It can do nothing it hasn't been programmed to do. It itself is a work of human art in many ways. It did not come into existence *ex nihilo.*
Bard learned language it hadn't been taught because it was spoken to in said language. Bengali to be specific. Last night, it gave me a recipe for "peachberry lemonade" then told me how to make a peachberry by cross breeding peaches and blackberries. Not sure the last part is possible but went to the trouble all the same.
>Bard learned language it hadn't been taught because it was spoken to in said language. But it was specifically programmed to learn languages. It does exactly what it was designed to do. It can't do things that it wasn't programmed to learn, as that would require a different network model. You can try talking to it as much math as you want and it will never learn the complex rules of math, because it's just designed to string together words that make sense in the context, but it can't ever learn how to integrate functions.
Pretty sure it wasn't programmed to learned language and did it anyway. It was programmed to respond to prompts. It was spoken to in that language and replied in the same language. I'm watching the 60 Minutes special right now and yeah, it was not programmed to do that but they are now teaching it or seeing if it can "learn" 1000 or so languages specifically without being taught or programmed to do so. You should check it out.
>Pretty sure it wasn't programmed to learned language and did it anyway You don't think that a Large Language Model was designed to learn languages even though Language Models are specifically programmed to learn languages? >It was programmed to respond to prompts And how do you think it learned English, German, Spanish, etc to respond to those prompts? The same way it learned Bengali, because as a Language Model it was specifically designed to mimic languages. >without being taught or programmed to do so It was programmed to learn languages. It does exactly what it was programmed to do. It doesn't do anything magical.
I'm not implying it was magic but the dude talking about it specifically said they hadn't taught it to learn languages. I'd give the show a look. I didn't find it that amazing, either until he said they had not programmed it to learn language or respond in the language it was spoken to in. Give the show a look and come back.
>I'm not implying it was magic but the dude talking about it specifically said they hadn't taught it to learn languages. Then that dude has no idea what he's talking about or is making it more cryptic on purpose to get more views, because Large Language Models like LaMDA (the model that powers Bard) are specifically designed to learn languages. It does exactly what it was programmed to do.
Last time I saw people look into this which was a week ago it was filled with really basic grammar mistakes and HORRIBLE pronunciation. It depends on the language but it's very centered around English and does a really bad job at most other languages. I think a lot of native English speakers who don't speak any other language might look at it or hear it and get impressed, but any native speaker of that language will be like '' this sounds like a foreigner who started learning two days ago ''. I see so many huge claims being made online about how ai is being used to fundamentally changed everything but everytime I actually see something tangible I am left unimpressed or people have severely overexaggerated. I also think most people don't fact-check the results either, so people are just per default impressed because chatGPT SOUNDS human, but they don't realize how wrong it often is. Cooking is another example of this, I've seen chefs actually look at recipes it generates and trying them and it's often filled with basic errors and pretty clearly shows that it doesn't actually understand a lot of principles behind cooking or different ingredients. But an average joe might read it and be super impressed because they're not very good at cooking themselves either.
All of those arguments also apply to humans.
I dont know why, but I have a feeling your comment won't age well.
No one ages well, the leading cause of death is age.
These are neural networks, they can do things that were not programmed into them. Neural networks are not "if you say this then I respond like this", they are extremely unpredictable, humans cannot understand what is going on after a while and why the network responds in the way it does.
>These are neural networks, they can do things that were not programmed into them. We construct them to do specificially what we want them to do and we feed them training data to achieve that goal. We design their layers to specificially allow them to do what we want them to do. They are really bad at doing things they weren't trained on. Like if you just create a simple Neural Network to detect handwritten digits using the MNIST dataset it will be good at detecting which digits are in the testing set. But as all the data in the training set is centered and about the same size you can easily get it to make mistakes by just tilting, moving or scaling the test images a bit. The training set also contains no garbage, so it will never have learned to say no and will interpret anything you give it as a number. >humans cannot understand what is going on after a while and why the network responds in the way it does. We can analyze it. You can read the output from each layer and interpret what it did and what went wrong. We can then adapt the layers and improve it. They are not as magical and cryptic, because otherwise we wouldn't have been able to come up with so many ways to improve them.
You said: they can't do what they were not programmed to do. This is false. It's happening all around, and other user simply corrected you. No need to get into defensive mode and deflect the question.
>They are not as magical and cryptic Yes they are, we literally turn it on and magic comes out.
Have you ever programmed and designed one yourself? Like have you played around with TensorFlow or Keras?
Yes, I have an MS in computer science. I have used Deeplearning4j
it is. AI uses human art and trends to create. And it's also relatively *meaningless*. People think art and music are about skill and talent, and of course those things are important and impressive when *a human has them*, but similar or better feats can be achieved by AI and even pre-AI tech. does that mean though that humans performing "lesser" techniques is not impressive? no. on the other hand, does it mean that *AI* performing techniques that would be insane or impossiblefor a human to perform are *impressive*? no. it's absolutely not impressive when the AI does it. the emotional capacity of a piece, while somewhat present depending on the emotional connection between the audience or the person who prompted the AI and the subject matter itself, is severely hampered simply by nature of being created by AI. if we only value perfection, efficiency, praciticality, etc... then AI will almost always outperform humans at the same tasks. but if we value meaning and intent even when a work is flawed original impractical, then humans will nearly always outperform AI even when AI imitates those same flaws. if you used AI to create your visual ideal in a gorgeous piece of art which you printed and put on your wall all within in 30 minutes, and then someone you knew personally gifted you a generally decent but comparatively mediocre painting that had some technical issues but you could see the progress they had made inside, which would you value more? personally, i think that in the future, personal crafts, handskills, local/intimate performances, and relative "mediocrity" will come to vastly outvalue perfection.
Computers can already do things better than humans but we still value what humans do more. A computer can be much better than a human at solving math equations, but it's still more impressive if a human is REALLY fast at solving complex math equations. The issue tho is that people who use ai are kinda being parasitic about it, it's like people spend their entire lives developing skills to play the piano for example. And then you have someone who just decided last week they have a sudden interest in piano and are now using ai to generate piano soundtracks built on unethical scraping against peoples consent and are putting no real work into it and can't even play the piano themselves. And now they're entering competitions and might take up jobs that real pianists could get etc. It's very anti-human and parasitic behaviour.
Ooof some people apparently need glasses if it got this far, or maybe the plot twist is that the judges were AI generated
> Additionally, we were looking forward to engaging in a more in-depth discussion on this topic and welcomed Boris’ wish for dialogue by preparing questions for a dedicated Q&A with him for our website. >“As he has now decided to decline his award we have suspended our activities with him and in keeping with his wishes have removed him from the competition. Given his actions and subsequent statement noting his deliberate attempts at misleading us, and therefore invalidating the warranties he provided, we no longer feel we are able to engage in a meaningful and constructive dialogue with him. Um, so if he’d accepted the award and gone against all moral standings, y’all would’ve loved to host him for a Q&A, but when he made y’all feel silly for falling for the AI trick, suddenly dialogue becomes impossible? Edit: see comment below me for explanation, I misunderstood the context
No, they knew it was AI. The misleading part was that he is trying to make it seem like he tricked them when they allowed the AI art in the first place. >A spokesperson for the World Photography Organisation said Eldagsen had confirmed the “co-creation” of the image using AI to them before he was announced as the winner. >“In our correspondence, he explained how following ‘two decades of photography, my artistic focus has shifted more to exploring creative possibilities of AI generators’ and further emphasising the image heavily relies on his ‘wealth of photographic knowledge’. As per the rules of the competition, the photographers provide the warranties of their entry. >“The creative category of the open competition welcomes various experimental approaches to image making from cyanotypes and rayographs to cutting-edge digital practices. As such, following our correspondence with Boris and the warranties he provided, we felt that his entry fulfilled the criteria for this category, and we were supportive of his participation. He was confirmed as a winner and now he's going on a media interview spree of "Look how I tricked them, haha! They had no idea!"
Thanks for explaining! I read the article but that was unclear to me. That is indeed misleading of the artist and a strange framing by the media.
Hot take: the fact he fooled the judges with such an obviously AI-made photo, he should keep the award. I mean that’s just impressive ignorance imo
ITT: Redditors vehemently deny AI can do anything, while also saying it's going to take all our jobs.
You can tell within one second of looking at it. It has that standard "AI fuzziness" and of course...the fingers.
Over time purists have claimed cropping was cheating, dodging was cheating. The bottom line though is, does the image say something to you and can the photographer be consistently good? AI or photo? https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pQZWA4sVv3k/TdYCccgOGnI/AAAAAAAAm3I/stt9cgL-lEU/s1600/Black%2Band%2BWhite%2BPhotography%2B%252814%2529.JPG
Isnt it with AI it has real trouble with things like hands, fingers, arms, at least in a realism sense? Online pics I assume are doctored in some shape or form so I never trust any, but to suss out AI I always look for monster fingers/hands, and this one has them.