The turns! They tabled.
this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2024
817 points (98.7% liked)
Not The Onion
12344 readers
912 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Disqualification seems appropriate. If it is against the rules to use AI photos in a normal photo category and the winner gets disqualified for that, which has happened, and it is against the rules to use a non-AI photo in this category, then the person should similarly be disqualified.
Not sure if the person behind this actually made the point they thought they were? Because it just shows that being consistent in rules and disqualification is good and the contest was consistent.
The stated point listed in the article was to prove that manual photography has merit and that 'nothing is more fascinating than Mother Nature herself', which he proved by winning the people's choice award. He didn't say the disqualification was inappropriate nor did he criticize the contest for inconsistent rules? It seems quite clear that he expected to be removed from the contest after making his statement, actually.
Personally I hope this doesn't become a trend of machine generation and manually shot/created work spoiling each other's contests.
So, does that mean that AI photos have merit when they win photo competitions, as has happened in the past? Seems like the point he was trying to make would go both ways.
Sure, AI photos have their merit. I believe manual and ai generated photos are their own categories and can be appreciated seperately as such.
Why limit AI photos to being a clone of real photos? Push expression of the subconscious, the psychedelic, the eldritch, etc. Make something creatively unique from the photoreal, something manual photos would struggle to recreate.
The monkey's paw curls....
Around hitlers dick
You're right. I'm trying to figure out what all the controversy is in this. I'm not seeing anything.
load more comments
(5 replies)
EVP of Samsung, Patrick Chomet, recently said that "there's no such thing as a real picture". So this artist should object to the disqualification 🙂
how can pictures be real if cameras aren't real?
Picture of a bird, no less. Nothing is real!
I'm also pretty sure the camera does use some ML algorithms in processing of the pictures, so it is an AI by today standarts.
AI photographer seems to me like an incredibly bizarre title
his entry has been disqualified in consideration for the other artists.
What artists? The ones who’s photographs have been scraped from the Internet with no consideration or credit to provide free artistic labour to techbros and companies?
Or the talentless hacks who think asking a machine to draw them a picture holds the same merits as creating the image themselves?
who’s photographs
'who is photographs' makes no sense.
Whom's*
Whomso'es*
Hummveee
Gottem!
That’s what you’ve taken away from this thread? A spelling error? You’ve got nothing to say on so many topics, except for the pedantic correction of minor spelling errors or word choice.
Argue my point, not my grammar.
HERE HERE!! Proofreading is the last retreat of COWARDS!!!!
nuance matters. brute
“Nuance matters. Brute.”
If we are playing that game.
u ran my comment thru an ai autocapitalizer whoooptie whoooop, brute
Man bites dog.
I mean I feel like this is the same as entering a soap box derby and coming to the race with a gas-powered go-kart.
His statement is so weird. No one said there is no merit in "real" artists. AI just makes it easier for non artists to add pictures into their projects. Like every industrial revolution it just takes work off of us.
I would love for robots to take over the boring jobs like making art, I think it's a great advancement that our overlords have engineered for us. Now we can get back to things we really enjoy like shoveling shit and suffocating in mines.
Thank god they didn't make robots more useful for everyday life tasks, freeing up a portion of the day. I have a hard enough time deciding what to do with my free 25 minutes every week as it is.
Got to go, my mining shift at the shit factor.... Never mind they made robots to mine shit now, guess I'll go starve to death in line waiting for free bread crumbs.
Software to "make" 2d artistic images is much easier to develop than robots to do household tasks. Not that we don't see advancements there either, for example robot vacuums are becoming more commonplace.
Robots and automation have been cutting 'mundane' jobs for literal centuries.
Artists are frankly out of touch and callous when they imply other people's jobs should be replaced.
Or you could just... learn to draw? Sure it takes a while to learn, sure it takes a lot of time to make things, but it genuinely is worth it for the journey alone.
Just let the AI be the judges. I think it's bullshit that's not how it works
... do you think AI is...?
view more: next ›