Will AI Take over Photography?
When the Sony World Photography Award prize was rejected by German artist Boris Eldagsen, the world started a debate about the dangers of AI-generated images. Eldagsen refused to accept the award because his winning photograph for the creative open category had been generated by Artificial Intelligence.
This, of course, sparked the discussion regarding where the truth ends, and puts a damper on Artificial Intelligence and its use. Now that many people laugh at the Minecraft videos with the voices of Donald Trump, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, it is important that we take note that ANYTHING can be altered now.
Images do not escape that phenomenon. AI generated photographs tend to be a little fictitious, depending on what type of image generator we use. I carried out the experiment of using a Free AI Art Generator to create an image of Cuba, and the result was pretty credible.
Image that resembles either Old Havana or Central Havana.|Photo credit: neural.love (Free AI Art Generator)
Except for some distortions, the image looks very real. We cannot forget that this was generating using a FREE website. With a paid website, the images can be even more realistic than the one above.
There is no wonder why now people have become increasingly worried about the uses of Artificial Intelligence. But the aspect that really stands out is that there has been several disputes regarding copyright of images.
As a professional photographer, it is outrageous and offensive when your image is used by somebody else and no credit is given. It becomes even worse when the use of the image generates some kind of revenue for whoever used it without providing any compensation for the author.
So, that’s where AI-generated images come into place and make perfect sense. Any scholar trying to write an analysis piece on a given subject and hoping to illustrate their article with an image, would have to pay the rights to the photographer, sometimes without getting any type of money out of the piece.
In that case, Artificial Intelligence not only makes sense, but also plays a pivotal role in spreading a message about an issue. Let’s be honest here: Internet and today’s generation are extremely visual. Ergo, they will only “read” articles that include compelling images for them to click on.
So, with that in mind, anyone writing and posting online knows that a good image is required to make people actually click.
A real image could probably be less pristine. Although the urban decay present in the AI-generated one shows some reality, the smooth street clashes with what many have seen. An image captured by a photographer in a similar area would throw a more poignant reality.
A scene on the streets in Centro Habana, Cuba. Notice the trash scattered around the area and the lack of vivid color in some of the buildings and the lingering humidity on some of the walls, something AI-generated images will bypass.|Photo credit: Reynaldo Cruz Diaz
What this type of documentary photography brings to the table is precisely the ugly side of life. Refusing to call out anyone who travels to a place like Cuba for “preying” on the country’s decay, I rather see them (because I did it myself) as people who are able to beautify the ugliness. It is always going to be important to capture and document reality, and making something sad or even morbid look “beautiful” doesn’t necessarily mean we are romanticizing it.
So, photographers will continue to be necessary and vital, and AI will never take the role from a documentarian so easily, simply because they will not be real. Period.
However, it can still be deceiving. The fact that Eldagsen won the award is a testament that it can fool us yet. What would have happened if he had generated the image with unethical motives, like actually winning and keeping a prize he did not deserve? What if the AI generated image had been that of something that has never happened and is made believed to be true?
The sad truth about this is perhaps that we are all too naïve sometimes. We have been inclined to believe things that are not true just because we saw it… but did we? Unfortunately, it is more and more difficult to tell the AI-generated apart from the real. Ergo, there might be a point in which we might even have to turn to the very Artificial Intelligence to prove the authenticity of certain things.
The same that AI generators were created and sophisticated, there needs to be an all-powerful AI content-detection tool. There has to be some AI detecting tool that even spots those instances in which a text or an image is so well generated and worked on that it can even bypass some of the most sophisticated countermeasures.
With the way things are unfolding nowadays, AI will most likely gain than lose followers and supporters. Many among the newer generations prioritize comfort and shortcuts over learning and creativity. The concepts of art becomes more rustic and abstract, and the threshold of what is real and false becomes blurrier and more confusing.
Artificial Intelligence might be taking over, making some people’s jobs less necessary and rendering us generally less capable. But an AI-generated photo will NEVER be able to replicate the emotion or the set of a motions a real photograph is able to bring to people. That’s because of the emotion a photographer puts in every pressing of the shutter.
The battle between conscience and undeserved credit is at a critical point right now. Seeing through all this in a critical manner might save us from demise.
