When corporations dabble in philosophy, you know they're trying to muddy the waters and skirt an ethical issue. It's not a genuine inquiry going on here; it's a "whatever argument serves the bottom line" situation.
I guess there's no such thing as intellectual property either, when you really think about it. Hence nothing wrong with me making and selling pirated samsung phones.
Can i copyright my face and get an ai to trawl the internet for any pictures of me and demand people take them down or pay me?
If you're prominent enough and can afford to pay for the lawyers, you can assert ownership of your own likeness, yes.
That either is necessary is a travesty, though.
Yeah, this is a great example of a true statement that just serves to muddy the water of the actual argument.
A better way to think about it is: an AI-dependent photo is less representative of whatever is in the photo versus a regular photo.
It's not even a true statement. "A real picture of a pipe" has never once in history been interpreted as "my golly - there's an actual goddamn pipe trapped inside this piece of paper". We know it's a freaking representation.
The "real" part refers to how it's a product of mechanically capturing the light that was reflected off an actual pipe at some moment in time. You could have a real picture with adjusted colours, at which point it's real but manipulated. Of course with digital photography it's more complicated as the camera will try to figure out what the colours should be, but it doesn't mean the notion of a real picture is suddenly ready for the scrapyard. Monet's painting is still a painting.
Everyone knows exactly what you mean when you say a real picture. Imposing a 3D model over the moon to make it more detailed, for example, constitutes "not a real picture". Pretending this is some impossible philosophical dilemma is just a corporate exercise in doublespeak.
To play devil's advocate, even traditional photography involves a lot of subjective/artistic decisions before you get a photo. The type of film used can massively affect the image reproduced, and then once the photos are being developed, there's a load of choices made there which determine what the photo looks like.
There's obviously a line where a photo definitely becomes "edited", but people often believe that an objective photo is something that exists, and I don't think that's ever been the case.
Of course - there's a huge difference between a "real photo" and "objective reality", and there always has been. In the same way an impressionistic painting might capture reality accurately while not really looking like it that much.
We are truly in a post-truth era
Lie on your resume.
Photo manipulation has been a thing since photos have been a thing
That's true, but they didn't used to sell you a camera claiming it would take a picture when in fact it just invented a picture it thought looked similar to the picture you were trying to take.
Lie on your resume.
Wait... we weren't supposed to be doing this for decades already? No one told me.
How can the picture be real if your eyes aren't real?
The universe is a hologram projected from 19 dimensional space to look like it exists in 4 dimensional spacetime.
Hands Monopoly money to the clerk at a Samsung store
"I'll take the S24, money is a made up concept anyway"
The statement that "There is no such thing as a real picture" isn't wrong. It kind of missed the point though. It's true that, even when a photo attempts to make the most faithful representation possible, it can only approximate what it sees. The sensors used all have flaws and idiosyncracies and software that processes the images makes different decisions in different situations to give a good image. Trying to draw a line between a "real" picture and a "fake" picture is like trying to define where the beach ends and where the ocean begins. The line can be drawn in many places for many reasons.
That said, the editing that the S24 is going to allow may be going a little far in the direction of "fake" from the sounds of things. I'm not sure if that is good or bad but it does scare me that photos can't really be relied upon to give an accurate representation of a scene anymore. Everyone having access to ti's kind of AI is going to make it tremendously difficult to distinguish between realistic and misleading images.
At least sensors will be relatively consistently flawed, while AI can just completely make details up.
It's not just the sensors though. The software used to convert what the sensors saw into an image makes decisions. Those decisions are sometimes simple and sometimes complex. Sometimes they are the result of machine learning and might already be considered to be AI. This is just another step in the direction of less faithfulness in photos.
Capturing any data or making any measurement is an approximation, because every type of sensor has a limited degree of accuracy - with some more sensitive than others.
I think there is a clear enough line however between making an approximated record of a value, and making a guess at a value, the latter being essentially how these “AI” camera systems work.
Do you think that's air you're breathing?
“There was a very nice video by Marques Brownlee last year on the moon picture,” Chomet told us. “Everyone was like, ‘Is it fake? Is it not fake?’ There was a debate around what constitutes a real picture. And actually, there is no such thing as a real picture. As soon as you have sensors to capture something, you reproduce [what you’re seeing], and it doesn’t mean anything. There is no real picture. You can try to define a real picture by saying, ‘I took that picture’, but if you used AI to optimize the zoom, the autofocus, the scene – is it real? Or is it all filters? There is no real picture, full stop.”
If your epistemological resolution for determining the fakeness of the moon landing photos is to just assert that all photos are in a sense fake so case closed, then I feel like you aren't even wrong about the right thing.
The moon photos they’re talking about are specifically the AI enhanced zoom moon photos of previous Samsung models that caught controversy because taking a picture of a marginally round object against a black background with their zoom enhancement would produce a moon photo even if it was in someone’s dark basement and the object was a dimly lit bottle cap.
To think about it, if a new crater gets ever created on the moon one way or the other these AI models won't be ever updated and will show the "fake old version" forever.
if you used AI to optimize the zoom, the autofocus, the scene – is it real?
To me, using AI to optimize zoom, focus, aperture (or fake aperture effects), framing etc. That's composition. The picture isn't fake, but software helped compose the real image in a better way.
When you change the image (remove objects, distort parts of the image not the whole, airbrush etc) then the image isn't based on reality any more.
That's where I see the line drawn, at least. Yes, drawing a line also makes the image not real any more.
Beyond this, we get to philosophy. In which case, I'll refer to my other comment on another post about this story. Our brain transforms the image our eyes receive (presumably to be able to relay it around the brain efficiently, who knows?). So we can take it to Matrix philosophy. When we don't know if what we're seeing is real, what is real?
There are certainly purposes for which one wants as much of the raw sensor readings as possible. Other than science, evidence for legal proceedings is the only thing that comes to mind, though.
I'm more disturbed by the naive views so many people have of photographic evidence. Can you think of any historical photograph that proves anything?
Really famous in the US: The marines raising the flag over Iwo Jima. It was staged for the cameras, of course. What does it prove?
A more momentous occasion is illustrated by a photograph of Red Army soldiers raising the soviet flag over the Reichstag. The rubble of Berlin in the background gives it more evidentiary value, but it is manipulated. It was not only staged but actually doctored. Smoke was added in the background and an extra watch on a soldier's arm (evidence of robbery) removed.
Closer to now: As you are aware, anti-American operatives are trying to destroy the constitutional order of the republic. After the last election, they claimed to have video evidence of fraud during ballot counting. On one short snippet of video, one sees a woman talking to some people and then, after they leave, pull a box out from under a table. It's quite inconspicuous, but these bad actors invented a story around this video snippet, in which a "suitcase" full of fraudulent ballots is taken out of hiding after observers leave.
As psychologists know, people do not think in strictly rational terms. We do not take in facts and draw logical conclusion. Professional manipulators, such as advertisers, know that we tend to think in "narratives". If a story is compelling, we like to twist neutral snippets of fact into evidence. We see what we believe.
I support automatically face swapping everyone's faces in photos with the gingerbread man from Shrek.
After all, there's no such thing as a real photo anyway, so Samsung editing them in unusual ways is completely reasonable.
There's no such thing as a real CEO... they're just target practice what got up and walked.
At this rate with this mentality, we are going to have photo "evidence" of bigfoot and UFO's before 2030.
Sorry, but I don't want to see fake "real" images just because people think it looks good.
edits made using this generative AI tech will result in a watermark and metadata changes
The metadata is easy to erase. It’s only a matter of time until we start seeing some open source projects come out that can remove the watermarking the AI players are starting to try.
FWIW, The Samsung Boss said:
As soon as you have sensors to capture something, you reproduce [what you’re seeing], and it doesn’t mean anything. There is no real picture.
I understand this as talking about a definitive original, as you get with trad analog photography. With a photographic film, you have a thin coat (a film) of a light sensitive substance on top of a strip of plastic. Taking an analog picture means exposing this substance to light. The film is developed, meaning that the substance is chemically altered to no longer be light sensitive. This gives you a physical object that is, by definition, the original. It is the real picture. Anything that happens afterward is manipulation.
An electronic sensor gives you numbers; 1s and 0s that can be copied at will. These numbers are used to control little lights in a display.
As far as I understand him, he is not being philosophical but literal. There is no (physically) real picture, just data.
I would consider the negatives to be "the original" over the first photo that was printed using them.
I feel most of this is a slippery slope / negative sum spiral.
See e.g. Liv Boeree's video on beauty filters.
Altering the photo even further only makes it worse though ...
I'm altering the photo, pray I don't alter it any further.
This photo is getting worse all the time.
They do have a point when they say AI is here to stay, and what they propose (A 'watermark' in the metadata for AI edited content) is at least a way forward. There should be also some electronic seal/signature for this to be effective though (md5?) , metadata so far is easy to tweak
What absolute hogwash.
So, I'm just going to not buy their garbage.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
