Woman’s iPhone photo of son rejected from Sydney competition after judges ruled it could be AI | Suzi Dougherty’s photograph of 18-year-old Caspar deemed ‘suspicious’ by judges, even though it was ...
theguardian.com
Woman’s iPhone photo of son rejected from Sydney competition after judges ruled it could be AI | Suzi Dougherty’s photograph of 18-year-old Caspar deemed ‘suspicious’ by judges, even though it was ...::Suzi Dougherty’s photograph of 18-year-old Caspar deemed ‘suspicious’ by judges, even though it was taken on her mobile
You are viewing a single comment
While a small kinda innocuous example, this seems to showcase how trust can start to erode with these technologies in an implicit inconspicuous way.
Along the same line of this, when art students enter in their portfolios in schools/competition, some may use generative tech, some may not. Would the admissions office reject them because they have doubts about the tools used to generate? Would they be transparent in such decisions? Anyone have thoughts/insights on this?
The other way around (use AI to judge a submission/applicant) is also currently complicated and controversial, at least with new legislation in New York on transparency and accountability when companies use AI for hiring/screening applications (https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/07/10/1076013/new-york-ai-hiring-law/)
The photo is ai, at least, in part.
Look at the face of the second guy. The eyes are blurry in a way that wouldn’t happen with a camera.
Then there’s the dress on the girl in the back- either it’s covering her head (and she’s wearing a wig,) or it’s her skin. There’s no neckline, anywhere
Also her face is a manikin, and the hand going towards that hand dryer is… weird.
what do you mean? Aren’t those 2 in the back supposed to be mannequins? Do you mean those are generated?
Yeah, theyre two mannequins at a museum display.