AI-Generated Image Wins Sony World Photography Award, Sparking Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 кві 2023
- Where does the line between AI end and art begin? A photographer in Berlin has sparked controversy after his AI-generated submission won first prize in a prestigious creative arts competition.
» Sign up for our newsletter KnowThis to get the biggest stories of the day delivered straight to your inbox: go.nowth.is/knowthis_youtube
» Subscribe to NowThis: go.nowth.is/News_Subscribe
For more art and science news, subscribe to @NowThisNews.
#AI #tech #art #Politics #News #NowThis
Connect with NowThis
» Like us on Facebook: go.nowth.is/News_Facebook
» Tweet us on Twitter: go.nowth.is/News_Twitter
» Follow us on Instagram: go.nowth.is/News_Instagram
» Find us on Snapchat Discover: go.nowth.is/News_Snapchat
NowThis is your premier news outlet providing you with all the videos you need to stay up to date on all the latest in trending news. From entertainment to politics, to viral videos and breaking news stories, we’re delivering all you need to know straight to your social feeds. We live where you live.
/ nowthisnews
@nowthisnews
![SORA AI’s Problems [And Solutions]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cRmPlFidVkk/mqdefault.jpg)
Should AI art be allowed to enter competitions? Sound off ⤵
It is not Photography, but it is art. Good on him for the protest.
💯
@@MangoslicePapaya software is only a tool used to create art. same as how a brush with paint are just tools. someone still has to tell ai what to create. its a new form of art, like it or not.
@@MangoslicePapaya so all digital art is not art
@@elcuhh9169 Photoshop, Illustrator, and video editing, etc software are tools for human artists, who control their features to create their vision. In contrast, AI-generated software creates art without direct human input, relying solely on algorithms.
@@kylokat Digital art is created by human artists using digital tools, while AI-generated art is created using algorithms. I guess whether AI-generated art is considered art is a matter of personal interpretation.
The implications is not just in competitions. It is in propaganda as well. Imagine recreating these images about historical figures or events. AI will distort our reality even further
This is what it seems too many don't realize.
It'll go even further, believe me.
Great point that many don't realize yet.
AI art should be in it's own category
It can never be art, because art is made by the human machine. AI uses existing material to generate “art”
Just wait till ChatGPT wins a Pulitzer Prize
This is a PHOTOGRAPY award not a computer creation award!
Why not put the AI to do more useful things, like help solve the pollution problem (landfills ,etc.), and other major issues that could help advance society. Instead they would rather use it to replace people and do other nonsense.
“Because that would be the smart thing to do” some bloke in politics
Well the dirty secret is that we don't need AI to solve these problems. The solutions to most of humanity's and nature's woes already exist. We just aren't doing those things.
@@NonprofitWrench couldn't agree more. In a capitalist society, we won't use the solutions we already have to solve our problems, we will use technology (like AI) to substitute people and improve the profit of the rich. Poverty or climate crisis are no issues for them, as long as they get richer and richer.
@@NonprofitWrench you are absolutely right
I heard some AI music and it was horrible…
Today it does lol. Just wait.
Exactly! A.I art is NOT photography!
He's right. AI is not photography. It's cool to make another category.
They should ask for video proof of the day of shooting for each contestants for future photography competitions.
Who were the contest judges? It is time to new categories (but a.i. is not photography at all)
@@mwenengofero maybe!
"AI. is the future of photography." I'll have to respectively disagree. Although it (A.I.) can create any "photograph" (glorified digital image) given the prompts entered, it still can't sit out in the desert for 12 hours waiting for the perfect moment (subjective to the artist/documentarian) to capture a glimpse into nature taking course or the awe surrounding us that most don't have time to notice due to the daily grind. Sure, it can produce "photographs" (glorified digital pictures) but it should be labeled a separate medium due to the details presented above and also regarding the skill, patience, experiences and "eye of the beholder". These are virtues instilled in us from birth that can't be programmed in, taught in a lab through trial and error and that have to be lived through and experienced to both know and feel the genuine human emotions evoked through the picture as well as the story it tells. I feel like if the two mediums weren't separate, parents would hang printed pictures of famous paintings on the fridge instead of their own children's doodles made at school.
His AI photograph, brings to my mind, that of DIANE ARBUS, and MAN RAY, in a very haunting way.
the Box is open...
It's not a photo.
So now they want to give rewards to AI ?
imagine those people whose entries that lost
I love this. Brilliant!
The judges didn't know
This is admittedly incredibly ignorant, but doesn't a machine take a picture? Doesn't a human make the machine go? I understand A LOT more goes into photography, but in the end did we have the same arguments when photography first started being considered art?
I think it's the slippery slope between a faithful capture versus interpretation. E.g. the point where a photo has been edited so much that it is closer to an interpretation (e.g. vfx, advertisements)
The photo machine captures reality, AI puts together numbers into a nonsensical nightmarish inconsistency in imitation of real artists' effort.
Even his voice sounds AI generated
Art is Art. Doesn’t matter who makes it. The universe is one of the most beautiful things we can ever witness as humans. Something created or standing that hasn’t been created by humans. AI art is just as valid. Just a different type of art that can be just as admired. That’s all. Humans creating beautiful pieces of art is still an incredible thing. There’s value in that and isn’t devalued by AI creating similar art.
People need to get used to this because it isn’t gonna go away. Especially since our tech is becoming more and more advanced.
Art is whatever the white man says it is, and everything matters or it wouldn't be an issue.
Is a beautiful sunset art? This is a legitimate question. Does art need to be created by someone for it be art or can literally anything we find beautiful be art?
I think AI art has its place but it needs to be distinguished from original human made works. AI cannot create art from nothing like a human brain can, this fact should be enough reason for the segregation.
@@youwild00 but what about humans who use AI to express themselves? Is that not valid?
@@trwygon I guess, but again, that doesn’t mean that someone using AI should get to enter a traditional art competition. There should be separate categories in art competitions for stuff like this. Obviously someone spending hours and hours painting is way different than someone typing key words into an AI art generator.
Even if they’re using it as a mode of artistic expression the AI art generator is still using actual artists who made real works of art with their own minds as source material. It’s simply not the same. To me it’s kind of like using a collage of other peoples’ artwork and wanting to enter competitions with people who are using only their original art.
Photography competitions gone. Next Oscars and Grammys. Let it all burn. Ricky Gervais is laughing somewhere.
This AI generated image is very CREEPY. Look at the hand like a devil.
I can only imagine that someone like, say,
Heironymus Bosch would *jump* at the chance to use AI.
it would be integral to his art.
it is unlimited in a sense.
if you can imagine it, as he did, the boundaries disappear.
Naaa people like to use their minds. That's what our minds are for
@@lourdesgyan minds made AI.
when AI begins to develop further into fields we like to think are the purview only of us puny humans, it too will have a mind.
@@kidmohair8151 this AI steals from actual genius like Bosch. That's its whole gimmick that impresses people like you. Humans make brushes too, doesn't mean the brush itself does the work.
@@cezar211091 AI is a brush.
like a brush in the hands of the forger,
it can be used to create simulacra of others' original art...
Smart
It’s obviously AI. AI can’t do HANDS. They always look wrong. And those hands look wrong.
If you look at enough AI generated images, you can spot them right off the bat. They render the real world, especially people, as dramatic, somber and darkly heroic.
AI isn't art, it's fake and easily discernable. For instance, when CGI first came out in movies, you could easily be fooled, after a while with so many movies marinated in it, you can spot the fake CGI every time. When you do see a real, shot in camera, movie, such as Michael Bay's "Ambulance" you right away know that the camera action shots are real, not CGI.
Soon, once AI's computer generated art is commonplace, it will look fake and contrived by most viewers.
A.I. generated photography or videos... Ad agencies ultimate dream. Then they can fire just about everyone but the exec`s.
There need to be an Ai class for artists now. Obviously Ai art is different then normal style, therefore different class to judge it in.
No different then light and heavy, advanced/-/pro classes etc...Break it up and all will be fine. Just like the transgender thing. light and heavy weight classes, no more one size fits all. were beyond that now.
The AI bots are NOT going to like this story.
That is a potriat of AI its self not a lady of an other generation. 😅
Does this guy actually have a suggestion of how to be able to distinguish between AI images and a genuine photograph? If not he’s kinda saying a whole lot of nothing.
? Dude he’s making a statement on what needs to change, now how to change it.
@@AnnmusPndaeveryone is well aware that AI generated images can win art competitions. This is not the first time this has happened. He’s not pointing out anything useful at all. How is this move supposed to make any difference? Because he’s highlighting a problem that the art world has been talking about non stop for months now?
@@shaan702 Exactly. Yea people have been talking about it for months, but now that AI’s been utilized as a means to win an award from such a prestigious competition by Sony, it puts the limelight on what must be done to distinguish AI from real photography, and consequently AI from real human work in general.
@@AnnmusPnda the limelight has already been on this issue though. All he did was lie and take the award from someone who had genuine photography skills in order to make a point that everyone is already well aware of. Maybe they’ll mail the award to the runner up now but that victory will be overshadowed by this self righteous guy and his gimmick. He’s not adding anything of significance here. This has been all the art world has been talking about since last year. I don’t think this stunt will change anything at all. People have been talking about this issue and they will continue to talk and talk. Without any real solutions to suggest this achieves nothing.
@@AnnmusPnda just to be clear this is not the first prestigious art award to be won by AI art. It has happened a few times now.
Also, just as a matter of personal taste, I don’t find this “photograph” very compelling at all. It’s very mid. It does not make me feel any deep emotions. Everyone is already talking about how AI is disrupting the art world, stealing art, winning prizes, and making artists lose work but no one is talking about how it can make some very mediocre art that appeals to pretentious judges that work for corporations. That’s the real story here imo.
Depends... is the award for the result or the process? To me, a photo is a photo. Why does it matter how it was created?
@@MangoslicePapaya 1 - You're confused. The video said the image was AI generated, not stolen.
2 - If you've ever used software before, then you know not just "anyone can write a prompt". What a ridiculous comment. That's like saying anyone can use a camera. Sure, but it doesn't mean their pictures or programming is any good.
3 - So if a child prodigy or a gifted person can create better than someone with years of experience, do you discount their creativity? Of course not, thus "time" is not a metric for measuring creativity.
4 - Selling is irrelevant to this conversation, and you're wrong here again considering ad agencies would always prefer cheaper and quicker images. Commercial photography is highly retouched anyways, so they're part way there.
5 - Again I ask you, is it about the result or the process? Is it about the art or the artist? I agree that the journey is important, but where competitions are concerns... it's mostly about the destination. So what does it matter how we get there, as long as we arrive?
@@goldeneastgun The use these software are considered a grey area because such software is often trained on existing artworks or styles, which raises questions about originality and the creation of derivative works.
There are concerns about ownership and authorship when it comes to AI-generated works. In some cases, the copyright and intellectual property may belong to the person or organization that created the AI algorithm, rather than the individual or individuals who used the software to create the artwork.
@@goldeneastgun yes I do daily, as I work in the creative industry. The fact that the image was AI-generated rather than stolen does not necessarily make it ethical or legal. There are still questions about ownership and intellectual property when it comes to AI-generated works.
While it is true that not everyone can write a prompt or use software effectively, the point being made is that the ability to create something with AI does not necessarily require years of experience or expertise. It is a tool that can be used by anyone with access to it, regardless of their skill level.
Creativity is not solely measured by time, but experience and skill certainly play a role in it. While a child prodigy or gifted person may create something exceptional, it is not necessarily the norm. Time and practice often lead to improved creativity and skill in any field. It is also important to note that creativity is a multifaceted concept that encompasses not just technical skill, but also originality, innovation, and emotional impact.
The commercial aspect of AI-generated images is relevant because it raises questions about the value and quality of such images. Cheaper and quicker images may be desirable, but they may also lack the nuance and creativity of images created by human photographers.
The process and journey are certainly important aspects of creativity, but in competitions or commercial settings, the end result is often what matters most. However, the question of how we get to that result is also important in terms of ethics, originality, and the value we place on creativity.
@@MangoslicePapaya • I understand your fears, but people and individual creators also tap into existing artworks and styles. This issue already exists, with or without AI. Thus, you can treat all works same, and determine if it’s original or too much of a derivative on the merits of the work. This is a moot point.
• If I use Photoshop to create a work of art, rather than using a traditional brush… it’s still my art work. If I program a machine to create a work of art, it’s still my art work since I programmed it. You can debate the quality of the work but the ownership and responsibility of the art work is mine, since it was me who determined its existence. If you tell me that the AI is “free thinking”… then the work belongs to the AI. Then the issue isn’t about art, but rather… do we accept the AI as being sentient?
• A child prodigy may not be the norm, but neither is AI… at least not yet. “Time in practice often lead to improved creativity” normally yes, but we’re not talking about norms and all that can be programmed into AI, much like how we try and teach our children so that they can benefit from our experience. As you’ve said, time is not the issue here so I’m happy to drop this point, because again, it’s moot.
• “Originality, innovation and emotional impact” are subjective and will have to be determined on a case by case basis. Also, years of practice and experience does not equate to success, expertise or quality of work. There are a lot of people who are bad at their jobs for various reasons.
• You brought up sales, I countered with commercial work. Point being, selling is not a measure of anything other than salesmanship.
• The video talks about a competition, in which case, the result is all that matters. Process is important but is not a determine factor in a competition. All important factors would be or should be fleshed out as parameters of the competition. If AI works or retouched works or age, gender, nationality, length of experience, a persons height, weight or what they eat for breakfast matters to the competition… then it should be spelled out in the guidelines or term of the competition.
• Where the video above is concerned, all this means is that these competitions needs to adjust their rules and spell out what tools we can or cannot use, in the same way that an amateur child typically are not allowed to compete with a professional adult. See how simple it is? No need to over complicate.
A photo is not created. It is captured and sometimes modified as well.
“ArTifIciAl inTeLliGenCE wILl nEVeR mAke aRT!”
It didn’t tho…
@@JTScott1988 Tell that to the competition it just won.
@@TallSilhouette it clearly looks like a computer image
@@JTScott1988 Tell that to the judges.
@@TallSilhouette lol found the robot
He should be charged with fraud claiming it was his photo
Does anyone feel like Naomi Watts was used as a source for the younger woman in the photo?
I would like to pose another question in relation to this. Should other artists (eg. painters) that have created iconic paintings be disqualified from said status or be put in different category because they drew from previous works of art?
Picasso, Monet, van Gogh et al all drew inspiration from prior artworks. How is this process different from a mathematical model?
Mathematical models have no sense of context. It can only be given to them by humans. AI often creates perfectly rendered people with 11 fingers, or one head on top of another
Can you really say AI isn't art when it wins art competitions left and right?
It is not about art or not art, this is about similar/different categories (of art). You can not do with a camera what you can do with AI.
Artist everywhere seething. Honestly kinda worth just to see that.