It did not take long before AI to surface that apparently took self guilt to admit?
I’m not sure he felt guilty about anything. I sort of like seeing that it was the photographer who declined the award despite the organizers’ insistence that it met their rules and was worthy of inclusion. In the past, most folks who have skirted the rules in major competitions have pleaded innocence until the very end, and then simply vanished after being proven guilty.
Though there are probably better ways to go about this sort of experiment on his part (whoever was a runner-up in the creative category can’t be happy), it’s a different story than your run-of-the-mill “photoshop/baited/captive/stuff animal” cheats one usually sees in competition stories. Thanks for sharing, Paul.
Interesting. And sad that photography could be heading in that direction.
@Max_Waugh @Harley_Goldman I totally agree. My brother & I have had discussions with a bit of connection to this type of “Win” if you will. For me being a photographer I always use the example of someone taking Ansel Adams images and posting on their site as their own work. He being an avid golfer uses a certain very well known personality who is also known very well for his cheating at golf.
The point being made…What self satisfaction or self worth could you possibly get from doing either? For me it’s always been about a competition with myself to improve my own work.
One thing I have learned is that people are perverse. Pulling the wool over folks’ eyes is something a lot of people take great delight in doing and I have a feeling that played a part here. I bet you many such individuals are primed for this kind of thing. Maybe even those whose traditional work was rejected will take “revenge” by gaming the system in this way.
Very well thought out and also outlined, Kris. In away I could never understand how others can think that way, but in the modern era we see plenty of it taking place. Sadly, I really think this AI thing, which is beyond my brain power, is a real Pandora’s Box in many ways. On the other hand many see on the medical front possible miracles unfolding. Like nuclear and or radiation there is truly good and bad. Radiation treatments saved me over 7 years ago now.
Thanks. I pulled back the wicked cynic for everyone.
I saw this comment on another photo site and apparently this person is already experimenting with AI photo work. The explanation seems to be around his use of computer processing requirements overall. Frightening the thought here.
"Speaking of the planet, when I produce an AI image it takes the software a full minute or more to make the work happen, but not using my processor. There is a lot of number crunching going on, and I imagine a computer farm in Arizona or wherever is red hot and polluting to keep the images flowing globally, all “for free”, at least now.
Compare that to professional render farms that I occasionally use to produce CGI animations. They charge me by the job and by the gigahertz hour required to produce the animation. Lots of computers, power, cooling, etc and I pay for it all. Imagine what’s happening when tens of millions of people simultaneously ask for some branded AI to produce “images of a gerbil riding a unicycle in the style of Van Gogh” or whatever. AI might end up making energy hogging crypto systems look green".
Something nobody’s seemed to notice about this fake photo is that hand on the right is a right hand (notice the thumb), not a left hand like it should be. A “tell” for sure.
The version I spoke of here with two left hands had the bottom of it cropped out which shows that there were actually 3 people involved in the shot. That left hand I mentioned was from a cropped out person to the right. Oops.
Good eye(s) there, Dave. The hands did not look right to me when I first saw the posting at the Photrio site. But just did not make any connection as to why as you have. Thanks for the review and comments here…