Drewelite

Well blogs and new sites used to just show you the content. Now they show you this.

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.

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.

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.

I think the reality is that there is no reality, there is only perception. Composition does add to remove things from the photo. Light, both the amount and its wavelength, is a thing. Whether the lens picks up the pores on a person's face is a thing. Whether The background seems close or far as a thing. But I agree that camera makers would tow any philosophical line to help them drive profits.

I'll argue it's always been that way. It's Just that the pool of data that people are pulling from these days is more homogeneous. It used to be that people had a lot more unique and personal experiences that weren't known to the world. But today everything is shared and given a label by our culture. So if you come up with an idea it's much more likely that someone that has had similar experiences to you, thought of it already. People say there's no more new ideas. Maybe that's true in a sense, but I'd argue nothing's changed except that people know about all the ideas.

Yeah I've seen a lot of weird takes on AI. It all seems to come down to ego guarding: But it can't take my job, it just regurgitates combinations of what it was taught unlike me, only humans can be creative, who wants coffee made by a machine, well you still need a person to do things in the physical world, etc.. Really highlights how difficult it is for people to think about change. Especially a change that might not end with a place for them.

Well if they think that's your fault they're pretty shitty

Yeah same. Empowering people to be more creative has never stuck me as something that needs to be gatekept. Tools have constantly improved allowing more people to become artists. If it's the copying of styles you're worried about, I'd take it up with every artist that's learned from Picasso or Da Vinci.

A very compelling solution! Allows a model of free use while providing an avenue for business to spend time developing it

I feel like this is a symptom of the writers saying, "What would make a good headline?" And not "Would this headline be misleading?"

Yikes. We're at a complicated crossroads where discussion around copyright is as important as ever. You're against someone choosing a path that will empower a major corporation, so you want to... *checks notes* strengthen copyright law? You should work for Disney.

Copyright was meant to be for 30 years. It's corporate greed that push that number up. Every version of consciousness requires the intake of ideas and transforming them. A higher quality and wider variety of ideas the better. I'm all for creators having time to profit from their works. But fighting for more restrictive copyright law is a fight against humanity and A.I.. You're going to lose that fight.