Yes, the difference is that AI generated changes to the actual photo are far harder to see than those done by retouching and composites. Therein lies the problem for people wanting to see an actual photo.
Congrats on being an optimist. Many laws against the crimes being committed using AI are already in place, and law enforcement is not capable of even tracking down the criminals, let alone charging and prosecuting them. It is almost weekly that AI is being used to scam someone out of thousands of dollars in just the little towns of Parksville and Qualicum. As well, look at how law enforcement is unable to stop the extortions taking place in the lower mainland.
Sorry, I wanted to add to my last post, but I got sidetracked and ran out of time.
To clarify my current position: By a large, I think you are right. AI is cheaper, often better, and most of the time, for most things, people don’t care about the human touch or authenticity. Big picture, AI has already won, people just don’t know it yet.
The point I was trying to make in post #18 is that there will be some areas where the authenticity of a real photo, or something human made, is preferable.
We are already seeing this in advertising. There was backlash over last years Coca-Cola's "Holidays are coming” christmas ad. This (and many other AI ads) were roasted in the comments. Some companies even pulled their ads entirely. This suggests there is already a strong subset of consumers who reject AI generated images and video.
But you are right that people will always push the limits of what’s allowed or socially acceptable if there is profit to be made, whether it’s legal or not. I suspect laws will eventually be created around consumer protection and actual products being shown. California is already moving in this direction, and it will likely affect even human made composites (like sky replacement in real estate listing photos). But that will take time, and it's very unlikely they will get it right (the first time, or at all). AI tools also make editing incredibly fast, and I have no idea how lawmakers will realistically deal with that. Things aren't black and white and get grey fast. Other than some sort of blanket "AI was used" type disclaimer, I'm not sure what can actually be done.
Enforcement will become a cat and mouse game. AI images currently have tell tale digital fingerprints, but that will evolve too. Most people won’t bother checking anyway, which makes enforcement a big question mark. It would likely fall to some government agency who will only police the biggest offenders (maybe, eventually, likely very little). Probably will some token tiny fine which doesn't matter. It would be up to consumers to push back somehow.
This quickly turns into the broader conversation about AI. How humans use it. How it's used at all. How it replaces human jobs. What humans want to do about it. The conversation gets big fast, so I’ll stop here. I think the main points have been made.
chez wrote:
Who cares? Just go out and shoot and stop worrying about the sky falling down.
Agreed, more than half the fun is getting outside and shooting. Researching the locations, playing with my gear and discovering the world as I discover landscape photography is a big piece of the puzzle for me and what I do and love.
pixelpeeping wrote:
Agreed, more than half the fun is getting outside and shooting. Researching the locations, playing with my gear and discovering the world as I discover landscape photography is a big piece of the puzzle for me and what I do and love.
Um, you don't derive all your pleasure from the internet postings
