Disqualification seems appropriate. If it is against the rules to use AI photos in a normal photo category and the winner gets disqualified for that, which has happened, and it is against the rules to use a non-AI photo in this category, then the person should similarly be disqualified.
Not sure if the person behind this actually made the point they thought they were? Because it just shows that being consistent in rules and disqualification is good and the contest was consistent.
The stated point listed in the article was to prove that manual photography has merit and that 'nothing is more fascinating than Mother Nature herself', which he proved by winning the people's choice award. He didn't say the disqualification was inappropriate nor did he criticize the contest for inconsistent rules? It seems quite clear that he expected to be removed from the contest after making his statement, actually.
Personally I hope this doesn't become a trend of machine generation and manually shot/created work spoiling each other's contests.
So, does that mean that AI photos have merit when they win photo competitions, as has happened in the past? Seems like the point he was trying to make would go both ways.
Sure, AI photos have their merit. I believe manual and ai generated photos are their own categories and can be appreciated seperately as such.
Why limit AI photos to being a clone of real photos? Push expression of the subconscious, the psychedelic, the eldritch, etc. Make something creatively unique from the photoreal, something manual photos would struggle to recreate.
The monkey's paw curls....
Around hitlers dick
You're right. I'm trying to figure out what all the controversy is in this. I'm not seeing anything.
Did you even read the article?
Did you? It seems to me the above commenter summed up what has happened quite correctly.
It'd be nice if you actually pointed out what in the article contradicts their statement.
EVP of Samsung, Patrick Chomet, recently said that "there's no such thing as a real picture". So this artist should object to the disqualification 🙂
how can pictures be real if cameras aren't real?
Picture of a bird, no less. Nothing is real!
I'm also pretty sure the camera does use some ML algorithms in processing of the pictures, so it is an AI by today standarts.
AI photographer seems to me like an incredibly bizarre title
Man bites dog.
I mean I feel like this is the same as entering a soap box derby and coming to the race with a gas-powered go-kart.
His statement is so weird. No one said there is no merit in "real" artists. AI just makes it easier for non artists to add pictures into their projects. Like every industrial revolution it just takes work off of us.
I would love for robots to take over the boring jobs like making art, I think it's a great advancement that our overlords have engineered for us. Now we can get back to things we really enjoy like shoveling shit and suffocating in mines.
Thank god they didn't make robots more useful for everyday life tasks, freeing up a portion of the day. I have a hard enough time deciding what to do with my free 25 minutes every week as it is.
Got to go, my mining shift at the shit factor.... Never mind they made robots to mine shit now, guess I'll go starve to death in line waiting for free bread crumbs.
Software to "make" 2d artistic images is much easier to develop than robots to do household tasks. Not that we don't see advancements there either, for example robot vacuums are becoming more commonplace.
Robots and automation have been cutting 'mundane' jobs for literal centuries.
Artists are frankly out of touch and callous when they imply other people's jobs should be replaced.
Or you could just... learn to draw? Sure it takes a while to learn, sure it takes a lot of time to make things, but it genuinely is worth it for the journey alone.
Just let the AI be the judges. I think it's bullshit that's not how it works
... do you think AI is...?
Sounds to me like the right thing to do would be disqualify the winner and cancel the category entirely.
What's the point?
The artist proved that right now, AI art cannot compete.
If a horse wins an auto race, don’t give a prize to the #2 motorist.
That's not how sports work, even Motorsport has classes, often in the same race, e.g. of course LMP-3 or GT3 cannot compete with LMP-1, and the latter cannot compete with F1 (unless you're whatever madlads made the 919 Evo at Porsche), but it's still things people watch. Hell classic motorsport can be a ton of fun and there's rally classes that drive in 100hp cars that make my overweight nerd heart flutter just watching them
There have been years where a lower class is the overall winner in some endurance Motorsport races though. So your analogy is wrong. If a GT3 Porsche happens to be more efficient or if it’s a year with poor LMP teams, a lower class car can certainly win the overall victory.
There will still be class victories, but that’s separate from an overall.
Also classic car (historic racing) is totally awesome, the Goodwood Revival especially has done a really good job making racing exciting again. Their YouTube channel is really well done too.
There have been years where a lower class is the overall winner in some endurance Motorsport races though.
It's possible, but that's not the intention behind having multiple classes. No one gets into a slower car expecting to win by hoping that all the fast cars combust.
So your analogy is wrong
Not really, the exception proves the rule in this case.
So, the photography competition that was won by an AI image shouldn't have disqualified the image?
But the ai art won...
The AI art did not win the "People's Vote award."
Photographer Disqualified From AI Image Contest After Winning With Real Photo
And did you read the article?
Did you?
A photographer has been disqualified from a picture competition after his real photograph won in the AI image category.
Miles Astray entered a real, albeit surreal photo of a flamingo into the AI category of the 1839 Color Photography Awards which the judges not only placed third but it also won the People’s Vote Award.
It got third
This is more like the other way around and a car won a race against horses.
A car won a race against a bunch of drawings of cars on poster board.
The turns! They tabled.
Disqualification seems appropriate. If it is against the rules to use AI photos in a normal photo category and the winner gets disqualified for that, which has happened, and it is against the rules to use a non-AI photo in this category, then the person should similarly be disqualified.
Not sure if the person behind this actually made the point they thought they were? Because it just shows that being consistent in rules and disqualification is good and the contest was consistent.
The stated point listed in the article was to prove that manual photography has merit and that 'nothing is more fascinating than Mother Nature herself', which he proved by winning the people's choice award. He didn't say the disqualification was inappropriate nor did he criticize the contest for inconsistent rules? It seems quite clear that he expected to be removed from the contest after making his statement, actually.
Personally I hope this doesn't become a trend of machine generation and manually shot/created work spoiling each other's contests.
So, does that mean that AI photos have merit when they win photo competitions, as has happened in the past? Seems like the point he was trying to make would go both ways.
Sure, AI photos have their merit. I believe manual and ai generated photos are their own categories and can be appreciated seperately as such.
Why limit AI photos to being a clone of real photos? Push expression of the subconscious, the psychedelic, the eldritch, etc. Make something creatively unique from the photoreal, something manual photos would struggle to recreate.
The monkey's paw curls....
Around hitlers dick
You're right. I'm trying to figure out what all the controversy is in this. I'm not seeing anything.
Did you even read the article?
Did you? It seems to me the above commenter summed up what has happened quite correctly.
It'd be nice if you actually pointed out what in the article contradicts their statement.
https://lemmy.world/comment/10603074
This is Reddit 2.0. So, no.
EVP of Samsung, Patrick Chomet, recently said that "there's no such thing as a real picture". So this artist should object to the disqualification 🙂
how can pictures be real if cameras aren't real?
Picture of a bird, no less. Nothing is real!
I'm also pretty sure the camera does use some ML algorithms in processing of the pictures, so it is an AI by today standarts.
AI photographer seems to me like an incredibly bizarre title
Man bites dog.
I mean I feel like this is the same as entering a soap box derby and coming to the race with a gas-powered go-kart.
His statement is so weird. No one said there is no merit in "real" artists. AI just makes it easier for non artists to add pictures into their projects. Like every industrial revolution it just takes work off of us.
I would love for robots to take over the boring jobs like making art, I think it's a great advancement that our overlords have engineered for us. Now we can get back to things we really enjoy like shoveling shit and suffocating in mines.
Thank god they didn't make robots more useful for everyday life tasks, freeing up a portion of the day. I have a hard enough time deciding what to do with my free 25 minutes every week as it is.
Got to go, my mining shift at the shit factor.... Never mind they made robots to mine shit now, guess I'll go starve to death in line waiting for free bread crumbs.
Software to "make" 2d artistic images is much easier to develop than robots to do household tasks. Not that we don't see advancements there either, for example robot vacuums are becoming more commonplace.
Robots and automation have been cutting 'mundane' jobs for literal centuries.
Artists are frankly out of touch and callous when they imply other people's jobs should be replaced.
Or you could just... learn to draw? Sure it takes a while to learn, sure it takes a lot of time to make things, but it genuinely is worth it for the journey alone.
Just let the AI be the judges. I think it's bullshit that's not how it works
... do you think AI is...?
Sounds to me like the right thing to do would be disqualify the winner and cancel the category entirely.
What's the point?
The artist proved that right now, AI art cannot compete.
If a horse wins an auto race, don’t give a prize to the #2 motorist.
That's not how sports work, even Motorsport has classes, often in the same race, e.g. of course LMP-3 or GT3 cannot compete with LMP-1, and the latter cannot compete with F1 (unless you're whatever madlads made the 919 Evo at Porsche), but it's still things people watch. Hell classic motorsport can be a ton of fun and there's rally classes that drive in 100hp cars that make my overweight nerd heart flutter just watching them
There have been years where a lower class is the overall winner in some endurance Motorsport races though. So your analogy is wrong. If a GT3 Porsche happens to be more efficient or if it’s a year with poor LMP teams, a lower class car can certainly win the overall victory.
There will still be class victories, but that’s separate from an overall.
Also classic car (historic racing) is totally awesome, the Goodwood Revival especially has done a really good job making racing exciting again. Their YouTube channel is really well done too.
It's possible, but that's not the intention behind having multiple classes. No one gets into a slower car expecting to win by hoping that all the fast cars combust.
Not really, the exception proves the rule in this case.
I'll check it out! Thanks
Sometimes the bet works 🤷
https://olympics.com/en/news/steven-bradbury-australia-s-last-man-standing
So, the photography competition that was won by an AI image shouldn't have disqualified the image?
But the ai art won...
The AI art did not win the "People's Vote award."
And did you read the article?
Did you?
It got third
This is more like the other way around and a car won a race against horses.
A car won a race against a bunch of drawings of cars on poster board.