• circuitfarmer
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7811 months ago

    Yeah, this is a great example of a true statement that just serves to muddy the water of the actual argument.

    A better way to think about it is: an AI-dependent photo is less representative of whatever is in the photo versus a regular photo.

    • sab
      link
      fedilink
      40
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It’s not even a true statement. “A real picture of a pipe” has never once in history been interpreted as “my golly - there’s an actual goddamn pipe trapped inside this piece of paper”. We know it’s a freaking representation.

      The “real” part refers to how it’s a product of mechanically capturing the light that was reflected off an actual pipe at some moment in time. You could have a real picture with adjusted colours, at which point it’s real but manipulated. Of course with digital photography it’s more complicated as the camera will try to figure out what the colours should be, but it doesn’t mean the notion of a real picture is suddenly ready for the scrapyard. Monet’s painting is still a painting.

      Everyone knows exactly what you mean when you say a real picture. Imposing a 3D model over the moon to make it more detailed, for example, constitutes “not a real picture”. Pretending this is some impossible philosophical dilemma is just a corporate exercise in doublespeak.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1011 months ago

        To play devil’s advocate, even traditional photography involves a lot of subjective/artistic decisions before you get a photo. The type of film used can massively affect the image reproduced, and then once the photos are being developed, there’s a load of choices made there which determine what the photo looks like.

        There’s obviously a line where a photo definitely becomes “edited”, but people often believe that an objective photo is something that exists, and I don’t think that’s ever been the case.

        • sab
          link
          fedilink
          1211 months ago

          Of course - there’s a huge difference between a “real photo” and “objective reality”, and there always has been. In the same way an impressionistic painting might capture reality accurately while not really looking like it that much.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          511 months ago

          It’s actually way worse. Modern smartphones do a LOT of postprocessing that is basically just AI, and have been for years. Noise reduction, upscaling, auto-HDR and bokeh are all achieved through “AI” and are way further removed from reality than a film print or a DSLR picture. Smartphone sensors aren’t nearly as good as a decent DSLR, they just make up for it with compute power and extremely advanced processing pipelines so we can’t tell the difference at a glance.

          Zoom into even a simple picture of a landscape, and you can obviously tell whether it was shot on smartphone. HDR artifacting and weird hallucinogenic blobs in low-light details are telltale signs, and not coincidentally rather similar to telltale sign of AI-generated photorealistic pictures.

          Anyway it’s still important to draw a line in the sand for what constitutes a “doctored” picture, but the line isn’t so obviously placed once you realize just how wildly different a “no filter” smartphone pic is from the raw image straight from the sensor.

    • @Drewelite
      link
      English
      411 months ago

      An AI edited photo might not necessarily be less representative of whatever is in the photo. Imagine an image taken in a very dark room, then an AI enhancement makes it look like the lights are on. You can actually get a much better idea of what’s in the room, but a less good idea of what the lighting was like. So it comes down to opinion, which one is more representative of reality? Because no photo since the beginning of time has been completely representative of what humans actually see with their eyes. It’s always been a trade-off of: what do we change to give humans the image they want with the technology we have.

        • @Drewelite
          link
          English
          211 months ago

          Do you think night vision produces a ‘fake’ image? Maybe you do, but my point is, that’s your opinion. You might think that accurate representation of the light level is more important than accurate representation of the objects in front of the lens. But someone else might not. Same way a colorized photo can give a more accurate representation of reality with false information.

          • circuitfarmer
            link
            fedilink
            English
            411 months ago

            I mean, you’re debating the meaning of “accurate representation”. We may as well debate the meaning of perception, too, but I don’t think it changes the point of my original argument.

            • @Drewelite
              link
              English
              3
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              I think it does, because photos have always been an inaccurate representation of what a person sees. You zoom in on my face in a picture and you see a bunch of pixels. That’s not what my face looks like, I’m not made of tiny boxes. If I AI upscale it, it looks a lot closer. My argument here is simply: the statement that an AI dependent image is inherently less representative of reality, is not necessarily true.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                311 months ago

                The fact that it’s AI generated and not directly light-into-image makes it untrustworthy.

                Like actual film photos are a lot harder to fake and therefore are more trustworthy.

                In principle, that image AI software can be programmed to generate whatever it wants. It can even censor your own film footage.

                Like if a revolution happens in this country next year, you bet your ass the police and military will exact atrocities on the American people to stop it, and the corporations they’re in bed with can reprogram everyone’s phones to censor out the footage of it, so genocide cannot be proven.

                Watch and see it happen.