bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

If you feel like driving over the Cascades to Lacey on Saturday, you can be my guest!

jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY

Linda has hit the nail on the head and talked about the challenges of separating discussions/sections of images captured with a camera versus those CREATED, whether in part or total, with another device-computer.
UHH, is a Photography Forum. Not primarily a Cinematography, Special Effects, or 'Creative Artistry' forum. Sections have been created for those who wish to discuss/display their work generated using AI. It will be moderated as long as it meets the business model of UHH Admin. And, if you participate in these sections and don't get the feedback you expect, then it is time to find another outlet for your creativity, instead of trying to get your AI created 'images' included in the main Photography sections of UHH.
Parsing words is not constructive to an important discussion. 'Removing a branch' from a photo of a bird does not qualify to define one's photo as AI generated. And everyone knows that. Adding another bird through AI is contradictory to how Photography is usually defined..."the science, art, application and practice of creating images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor, or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film." (Many attributions-one is Smithsonian American Art Museum). From Latin...'drawing with light'.
Bottom line....AI is here to stay. It does not mean a forum dedicated to Photography needs to recognize and include one's AI generated product in their main sections/discussions.
Moderators and Admin..thank you for your time and patience.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

I think it's because the vast majority of people who use Photoshop do so for commercial purposes in commercial settings and want to get things done as quickly and efficiently as possible. The machine learning tools can retouch photos or add/remove backgrounds or remove and replace distractions much more quickly and easily than the manual cloning that we have done for more than 20 years, and in most cases, do it better.

I once was given a photo of a church wedding to fix a situation where the light on the background dropped off on one side suddenly and the photographer wanted the background evenly lit. Trying to blend one side with the other with only a clone tool was incredibly time-consuming and never fully blended into a coherent rendition. Using a gradient didn't work because of the elements in the foreground that couldn't be changed, so I was left with cloning a little at a time until it looked "pretty good." Today, a simple selection with the Patch Tool and you're perfectly blended in a couple of seconds.

It's about saving time and getting good results the first time, for the commercial photographer or designer on a deadline. If you're an amateur or hobbyist, you may not need all that editing power, and that is borne out by the many people right here who use only Lightroom or Elements or other programs without Photoshop's advanced tools. Photoshop is first of all a tool for professionals, and professionals will always be looking for better ways to save time and get more done.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, and keep AI images SEPARATE from REAL photography

rcarol

What about an image that is not AI generated but rather is an image that has been AI enhanced?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Advancing in photography includes developing our understanding of imagery. Photography is just one small part of the subject of imagery, but understanding other forms of imagery can help us to understand the imagery that relates directly to photography. In fact there is much to be gained from exploring and trying to understand other forms of imagery, so there is much to be said for a photography forum making an effort to accommodate those types of imagery that have characteristics in common with photography. All that's needed is clear guidelines for including other types of imagery. Doing so doesn't mean that the forum will lose its identity as a photography forum.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

They are one in the same .....

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

A. I. Is here to stay. Governments around the globe are working on rules surrounding the use of artificial intelligence. Laws may then flow once an ethic for use, designation rules and so on are developed. We seem to be in the defining terms phase thrashing around looking for a framework to hang the rules onto. Nikon and other manufacturers are looking at ways to “mark” images files to prevent fraudulent use of images. They need laws and rules to guide and inform this area of AI use.

We need to differentiate between AI-aided images versus AI-generated images and develop definitions.

I believe this forum can embrace AI as long as the images are so marked or noted.

terryMc Loc: Arizona's White Mountains

Not even close...

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Actually they are not.
► AI Generated = Pure AI, nothing is realistic or even close to it.
► AI enhanced = The base of the image is a digital capture.

AI picture enhanced comment:
→ Every edit we make is using software is using AI under a different name. Difference? We do it using buttons, sliders, whatever.
→ As a buzz word, AI is just another way to instruct the software to do something w/o having to learn the software. However, because AI cannot read our mind and understand subtleties, we are far from having anything truly usable when editing an image. As long as we do not take the above into account, we will never agree into anything.

rcarol

Not in my opinion. AI generated, to me, means that an image has been created from nothing while an AI enhanced photo has an existing image as it's basis for alteration.

Horseart Loc: Alabama

Example?
In 1998, I found a picture of a muscle man and a woman with a knockout figure, both wearing bathing suits to show their body building efforts and great tans. I took their heads off and put my Mother-in-law's and Father-in-law's heads on it, printed, framed it and gave it to them. They loved it and put it on the wall in their den.
It's been almost forever that one could not believe everything you see.

MJPerini

I think 'A.I.' is a losing (or winning) battle, depending on your point of View.
Linda from Maine has been articulate about the futility of "drawing lines"
AI is in its infancy, it will only get more powerful and "Harder to detect" (if that is your aim)
As technology advances, what is truly under our control tends to diminish.
The ubiquity of AI makes it increasingly difficult to avoid, even if you want to.
If you learned with film, and define that as relatively pure (because even manipulations were done by the photographer) To a large extent, That ship has sailed.
If you edit RAW files, most editing applications will increasingly include machine learning to some degree.
If you "Replace skies" the reality of the capture is gone.
Like many, I tend to think of myself as a relative purist. But, also like many, I love having an iPhone in my pocket, and 'take credit' for the good pictures, when the truth is none of them are entirely my doing. At best I can take credit for the timing of the snap, and the general direction in which the phone was pointed.
Even our cameras sometimes do lens corrections without consulting us.
So, for Me & my work, about the best I can do, is to state upfront what I do, and what I don't do, and then make an honest attempt to stick to that.
But even that approach is not sustainable, because we will each have a different set of things we do & don't do---even in the big things. The nuances, I suspect are a lost cause.
It would seem to me that the most rational approach is to evolve with technology while attempting to create what we believe to be honest work.
I think the OP was correct is raising the question, we should all think about it, but there won't be a single answer.
At least that is where I am now.
The other issue is that I must confess is that I feel a bit less motivated to go out & make landscapes the "Old fashioned way" because the expectation seems to be "These may not be real" I have been turning more towards pictures of people because the reality is easier to confirm.
I don't think any of what I say here is necessarily "correct' but just an honest shot at a thoughtful response to rapidly advancing technology.
Creative people will always use whatever technology is available, and any new technology gets over used and abused on its way to honest work. (Think Fisheye lenses)
These are growing pains.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I think there’s a pretty clear distinction between using the AI tools for removing objects and filling background on an expanded canvas and creating subjects or wholesale creation of an image.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which images to just use AI.