More on AI
Nov 24, 2023 07:50:05 #
With photo certification being a big deal to show the history and additions or modifications of a photo to fight AI in the news one wonders.
This is just digital information so how many hours will it take to get software to totally defeat digital certification? And make the certificate itself suspect.
This is just digital information so how many hours will it take to get software to totally defeat digital certification? And make the certificate itself suspect.
Nov 24, 2023 08:24:36 #
Architect1776 wrote:
With photo certification being a big deal to show the history and additions or modifications of a photo to fight AI in the news one wonders.
This is just digital information so how many hours will it take to get software to totally defeat digital certification? And make the certificate itself suspect.
This is just digital information so how many hours will it take to get software to totally defeat digital certification? And make the certificate itself suspect.
Nov 24, 2023 10:14:54 #
Architect1776 wrote:
With photo certification being a big deal to show the history and additions or modifications of a photo to fight AI in the news one wonders.
This is just digital information so how many hours will it take to get software to totally defeat digital certification? And make the certificate itself suspect.
This is just digital information so how many hours will it take to get software to totally defeat digital certification? And make the certificate itself suspect.
I am sure that will happen in the not too distant future.
Nov 24, 2023 12:37:19 #
If someone is going to cheat, they're going to cheat. The only way to stop it is to handle it the way the Mob did in
Vegas.
Vegas.
Nov 24, 2023 13:17:56 #
Architect1776 wrote:
With photo certification being a big deal to show the history and additions or modifications of a photo to fight AI in the news one wonders.
This is just digital information so how many hours will it take to get software to totally defeat digital certification? And make the certificate itself suspect.
This is just digital information so how many hours will it take to get software to totally defeat digital certification? And make the certificate itself suspect.
Seems honesty and ethics in general are not En Vogue today. Sad state the world is in, in so many ways.
Nov 24, 2023 13:34:13 #
lamiaceae wrote:
Seems honesty and ethics in general are not En Vogue today. Sad state the world is in, in so many ways.
Sadly, I agree.
Nov 24, 2023 14:50:07 #
lamiaceae wrote:
Seems honesty and ethics in general are not En Vogue today. Sad state the world is in, in so many ways.
True, fake skies etc.
Nov 24, 2023 19:49:43 #
I am skeptic of the new institution of AI in our world.
I was reflecting on an (older) Hollywood movie, where the political party tried to replace the current President
of the U.S. with an identical (Lookalike) actor. With AI, who could tell the difference????
Maybe we would be in better shape with an AI President?
I'm thinking, that in the near future, there will be no place in (Hollywood) for real
actors or even singers.
They will simply be "knock-off" characters produced in a Lab or put together in a
computer environment by people hired from Silicon Valley.
The music industry (fake producers), have already put out synthesized vocals and
instruments that (hardly) represent the magnificent voices of real human beings.
As for the actors and actresses, I'm waiting for the next generation Clint Eastwood
or Clark Gable to hit the "silver screens" of the movie theaters.
I was reflecting on an (older) Hollywood movie, where the political party tried to replace the current President
of the U.S. with an identical (Lookalike) actor. With AI, who could tell the difference????
Maybe we would be in better shape with an AI President?
I'm thinking, that in the near future, there will be no place in (Hollywood) for real
actors or even singers.
They will simply be "knock-off" characters produced in a Lab or put together in a
computer environment by people hired from Silicon Valley.
The music industry (fake producers), have already put out synthesized vocals and
instruments that (hardly) represent the magnificent voices of real human beings.
As for the actors and actresses, I'm waiting for the next generation Clint Eastwood
or Clark Gable to hit the "silver screens" of the movie theaters.
Nov 24, 2023 20:35:43 #
Architect1776 wrote:
True, fake skies etc.
En Vogue today? Photographers were swapping skies in the darkroom when they were still using glass plate negs.
Nov 24, 2023 22:32:51 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
En Vogue today? Photographers were swapping skies in the darkroom when they were still using glass plate negs.
Did they click a button, or did they do it with hard learned skill and talent?
Nov 24, 2023 22:41:45 #
Mac wrote:
Did they click a button, or did they do it with hard learned skill and talent?
Why does it matter how easy it is to do? If you believe swapping skies is fakery, is it not fakery if it is difficult to do? I believe it is a legitimate technique that has been done since the beginnings of photography and not a recent development since photography went digital.
Nov 25, 2023 02:12:21 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
En Vogue today? Photographers were swapping skies in the darkroom when they were still using glass plate negs.
Still fake and not anything that was there.
No different from any other falsification of an image and passing it off as real.
So what if I add sky, people, building or silly bird. They are all falsifications of what was really there. Thus any generated fake manipulation is still fake. Unless you admit that it is a fake generation of an image. AI just uses learned previous images to create a fake image. So yes, a fake sky, regardless of when created, is a fake sky and used to create a fantasy image no matter how one lies to try to justify it. AI certification will now allow a quick determination of what is added and fake until software lets one manipulate the certification. This then proves the levels one will go to tell a lie.
Nov 25, 2023 06:23:20 #
JohnSwanda wrote:
Why does it matter how easy it is to do? If you believe swapping skies is fakery, is it not fakery if it is difficult to do? I believe it is a legitimate technique that has been done since the beginnings of photography and not a recent development since photography went digital.
Did you just say that faking is legitimate?
Nov 25, 2023 08:31:48 #
Delderby wrote:
Did you just say that faking is legitimate?
Except for photojournalism or documentary photography, there is no rule that photography must be an accurate representation of what the photographer saw, any more than painters do. There have always been photographers who intended to portray "reality" and those who create their own vision. Your view of photography is extremely limited. Some of our greatest photographers in history have been fakers by your standards.
Nov 25, 2023 08:45:41 #
Cropping out a tree branch that interferes with composition is ok. Digitally removing it can also be ok, if cropping it would also remove elements of the subject. Though I've never done sky replacement, I can see its benefits, especially if it could be a typical sky of that location. What I really don't like is when I see sky replacements, such as brightness, or even a sun directly across from the camera, yet shadows on buildings or rocks that slant to angles impossible, given the sun's or bright sky's position. I also have a peeve about giant moons stuffed into photos for eye-grabbing effects, though totally out of character for lighting, sky position, moon phase etc.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.