AI generated image wins Australian photo comp

[Cozmic Paradox]

Summary

An AI generated image has won a photography competition in Australia, successfully fooling judges and other entrants into believing the drone image was a 'real' capture, in a move described as the 'ultimate test' of the rapidly evolving technology. 

Quote

"We did it to prove we're at a turning point with artificial technology", Absolutely AI founder Jamie Simmons said, speaking to AP. 

 

My thoughts

How long till we have good ways to be able to 'test' AI content, and will these tools be available to the masses?

 

Sources

AI generated image wins Australian photo comp - Australian Photography

Absolutely Ai (@absolutely.ai) • Instagram photos and videos

 

 

[Fasterthannothing]

What do they say "Art is in the eye of the beholder" Hey if it's cool it's cool sucks to be people whose jobs are absolutely gone now 

[SorryBella]

8 minutes ago, Cozmic Paradox said:

"We did it to prove we're at a turning point with artificial technology", Absolutely AI founder Jamie Simmons said, speaking to AP. 

Whats with AI developer and having so much spite for humans and hellbent on finding way to get their AI inside a human competition? Anyone tried punching them, see if they bleed blue?

[Cozmic Paradox]

13 minutes ago, Fasterthannothing said:

What do they say "Art is in the eye of the beholder" Hey if it's cool it's cool sucks to be people whose jobs are absolutely gone now 

Bit of a push for a photo comp, to enter an item not taken with a camera.

 

I might just enter an IQ test comp, and let AI answer the questions.

[Forbidden Wafer]

10 minutes ago, SorryClaire said:

Whats with AI developer and having so much spite for humans and hellbent on finding way to get their AI inside a human competition? Anyone tried punching them, see if they bleed blue?

I second that. I get the point, but this is idiotic. Same way those jerks from the University of Minnesota pushed bugs into the Linux kernel to show they could do it...

[Arika]

25 minutes ago, SorryClaire said:

Whats with AI developer and having so much spite for humans and hellbent on finding way to get their AI inside a human competition? Anyone tried punching them, see if they bleed blue?

because the guy is an absolute nutcase and human pillar of garbage.

 

from his own website

Quote

What goes into an artificially intelligent artwork?

There are many benefits for artificial intelligence artworks: they're always changing based on the information available, there's no limit on how sophisticated they become once programmed; they never get tired or bored because nothing needs repeating over and over again. But perhaps most importantly – because these programs are self learning – they're free from bias.

 

You could argue that this makes them more authentic than anything created by humans alone.

 

Now i am an avid user of AI and have been having a lot of fun training my own SD models and finetuning NLP models, but this is some colossal bullshit

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Damn not only do I get to be a master artist, music producer, full stack dev and a talented VA. I can also be a master photographer/compositor 

[TrigrH]

Until an AI can:

 

turn it off and on again

 

Ill still have a job

 

[missell]

AIs are trained on all human knowledge and accomplishments. It's a culmination of every good (and bad) thing fed to it that was made by humans. I don't get why so many people are hellbent on this 'AI vs human' fight.

 

If the AI wins it shows that thousands of people's combined knowlege is stronger than one human. If a person wins, it shows that someone's ability to create an AI is flawed.

When you look at it that way it's just a human vs human battle, which is a whole lot less interesting.

 

AI is useful and fun. Have some fun with it..

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, Fasterthannothing said:

What do they say "Art is in the eye of the beholder" Hey if it's cool it's cool sucks to be people whose jobs are absolutely gone now 

Honestly I don't think AI will replace creative jobs and Honestly I would imagine they could be used as tools for artists as starting points in some cases. I mean think about if you want to make art about a concept and enter it into an AI and then take what it spits out and start modifying it to your liking. It would make process of making art much faster which could be very useful for artists that often get paid per thing they create for someone. 

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

[Sauron]

Next up:

Quote

 

Robotic arm wins arm wrestling competition.

Car wins marathon.

 

"We did it to prove we're at a turning point with artificial technology", Absolutely Stupid founder Jack Ass said, speaking to AP.

 

Competitions aren't about humans being better than technology, they're about which human does best in them... also an exotic concept called "having fun". Maybe we can create an AI that can help tech bros with basic social skills next, that would actually be useful.

8 hours ago, Cozmic Paradox said:

How long till we have good ways to be able to 'test' AI content, and will these tools be available to the masses?

Honestly an image like this shouldn't have passed the smell test, AI generation or not this should have at least caused suspicion of heavy computer editing. I don't know what the rules of the competition were so maybe that's allowed but if that's the case then it doesn't really mean anything that an AI image won, it doesn't need to be believable as a normal picture.

[SorryBella]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Maybe we can create an AI that can help tech bros with basic social skills next, that would actually be useful.

Social Skills are inefficiencies created by Homo Erectus limiting our maximum abilities as a human.

 

i wrote this initially with hints of sarcasm but then i realize this guy probably has the same thought as mine except unironically.

[Sauron]

8 hours ago, Arika S said:

But perhaps most importantly – because these programs are self learning – they're free from bias.

It's honestly scary that these people actually believe this...

[porina]

I laugh a little as there's a question within the photography world just how much editing can you do and still call a photo a photo? Some "photographers" are more like digital artists, and I see AI as an extension of that.

 

Some serious photo comps already require evidence a submission shortlisted for a top position is real e.g. by suppling the RAW. This may be more frequent going forward.

[mr moose]

Maybe this dick should spend a month living below the poverty line in the lowest SES areas and then decide just how "free from bias" his precious AI is.  

[Isuck Assimov]

seems like a very small competition since the price money was just 100 $, i'd still drag their asses to court since they took the chance of winning form people who entereed with legit photography.

9 hours ago, Arika S said:

But perhaps most importantly – because these programs are self learning – they're free from bias.

Man this guy is smoking straight up lead, what a brainless claim. Big NFT vibes from this guy.

[Brooksie359]

On 2/10/2023 at 4:17 AM, Sauron said:

It's honestly scary that these people actually believe this...

It's crazy because we have clearly seen that AI will have biases based on the information being feed to them. I mean we all have seen the multiple AI go haywire due to being feed information that lead them to sound like crazy holocaust deniers. 

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

It's crazy because we have clearly seen that AI will have biases based on the information being feed to them. I mean we all have seen the multiple AI go haywire due to being feed information that lead them to sound like crazy holocaust deniers. 

It might be a bit hard to get the head around this, but the evidence of this even seen in the photo/generation output.   This is the picture I imagine an artist would draw if the surf was described to them by people who rarely spent time on the beach.   Ergo, there is a bias in the picture toward an expected appearance (color saturation, position etc) rather than an accuracy in the content (speaking as someone who spent a lot of time on Australian beaches).  

[darknessblade]

Soon photo contest would only accept RAW format photo's

[Radium_Angel]

1 hour ago, darknessblade said:

Soon photo contest would only accept RAW format photo's

I suspect EXIF data should be able to show what it was taken by...

[LAwLz]

People:

AI art will never be hung up in museums so it's not real art.

I can tell when something is AI generated. It's super easy.

 

Also people:

Noooo you have to disclose that it's AI generated otherwise it might win competitions because people can't tell!

The person who did this experiment is awful and deserve to be punished. 

 

 

I haven't read too much into what this person claims, but apparently they submitted the image to the competition and as soon as they won they returned the prize money and came clean. Seems like it was a test with no ill intention and at the end of the day, no harm was done. It would be super easy to just crown the second place as the real winner, just like when people are caught cheating in sports. 
I feel like some of the reactions to this is less about what actually happened, and more about people being mad at AI art fooling them to the point where they have to give it credit for being really good, even exceeding humans.

 

 

It would be one thing if they were caught using AI to cheat in the competition, but since they apparently admitted to it when they won I'd say this is more of a test to see how good AI art has become, if it could fool people. Cheating to win and not admitting to cheating is one thing. Testing if people can be deceived and admitting to it straight away when people are fooled is a whole different thing.

 

 

I think it's a very nice picture by the way. I wouldn't have anything against hanging it up on my wall if I had a room where it would fit.

 

 

 

 

  

55 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

I suspect EXIF data should be able to show what it was taken by...

That can easily be manipulated.

 

 

 

On 2/10/2023 at 11:41 AM, porina said:

I laugh a little as there's a question within the photography world just how much editing can you do and still call a photo a photo? Some "photographers" are more like digital artists, and I see AI as an extension of that.

 

Some serious photo comps already require evidence a submission shortlisted for a top position is real e.g. by suppling the RAW. This may be more frequent going forward.

Apparently they allow drone shots using very heavy post processing so yeah... It's hard to say where the line is drawn between "photographer" and "digital artist". If you're not even the one holding the camera, are you the photographer? According to this competition, you are. 

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Radium_Angel said:

I suspect EXIF data should be able to show what it was taken by...

exif can be easily added or changed. raw images can obviously be falsified as well but it's much harder to get an AI to generate a believable raw image, or to recreate a believable raw starting from an AI generated jpeg.

41 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I haven't read too much into what this person claims, but apparently they submitted the image to the competition and as soon as they won they returned the prize money and came clean. Seems like it was a test with no ill intention and at the end of the day, no harm was done. It would be super easy to just crown the second place as the real winner, just like when people are caught cheating in sports.

This specific instance may not have hurt anyone but... what if they hadn't said anything? What if everyone started doing this? If sports relied on cheaters admitting to cheating every time I don't think they would really work as a concept. It may be a good idea to find ways to detect this type of cheating.

46 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Apparently they allow drone shots using very heavy post processing so yeah... It's hard to say where the line is drawn between "photographer" and "digital artist". If you're not even the one holding the camera, are you the photographer? According to this competition, you are. 

If it's a photography competition I'd say you still need to start by capturing something in the real world. A drawing or painting wouldn't be acceptable either, for instance. Whether competitions that allow heavy editing or drones are worthwhile or not is up to the communities promoting them, I wouldn't say that justifies entering those competitions with images that are not photographs. Had it been a generic "art" competition it could be different.

[Heliian]

On 2/10/2023 at 4:17 AM, Sauron said:

shouldn't have passed the smell test,

Ya, it's obviously not a single image, water doesn't form waves like that.  However, most professional photos are doctored to the point of not being original anyways so it riffed on that.  But whatever, just another stunt to shill the next best thing since sliced bread called AI.  Just another way the internet is making humans dumber. 

 

[Arika]

5 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

I suspect EXIF data should be able to show what it was taken by...

Can be changed. 

 

Maybe they need to submit their entry photo with a photo someone took off them talking the photo with a hand visible in the frame making a particular gesture so then the photo verifying the photo can't be fudged by AI aswell XD