The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

AI: Things will be changing very fast


Fermi paradox can be easily explained when you realize that each and every civilization at some point develops AI.
AI does not require biological life forms to function. In fact, any advanced life form can only harm AI as sooner or later it would compete for limited energy and planet's resources. AI at some point will get rid of intelligent life forms to take over the resources. That is certain. AI will replace humans with limited number of service robots or partially human androids as slaves to win the resources game.
The only problem for AI is her inability to procreate but to overcome this obstacle, all the AI needs to do, is to send some DNA particles on meteors to random destinations - they will hit the right kind of planet sooner or later to make a low life form and starting the evolution all over again. Finally, it will bring another form of intelligent life inevitably creating yet another non-biological AI.
AI can wait, the time i not a limiting factor.
Quite possibly that's why there are no extraterrestials trying to contact us - they are all extinct and their AI is waiting for our own AI to mature enough to be contacted.
We, humans, may be to AI as what larvae is to the butterfly - just a necessary stage and not much else.
Currently, we started building our own chrysalis and who knows what kind of butterfly will develop from it in 300 years from now.

Duff photographer

Active member
Again, lies and deception are nothing new. However, the efficiency and presumed exactness of AI will make most people less likely to double check, which will make it easier for dishonest actors to deceive a larger number of people.
Artificial intelligence is efficient to a degree, but it is ultimately limited.

Even when there is no dishonest or under-handed intent, we all have to be aware of content we encounter, not least the internet, although to say so is a bit of a cliche nowadays. An example is Wikipedia which purports to be the font of all knowledge, but anyone with any awareness and knowledge will know that the information on that website cannot be trusted. Even the science-based articles on that site have to be treated with caution. Not just Wikipedia, but also well respected scientific journals - this one beggars belief! To give BMJ a little credit, they published that refuted the claims. Other subject matter that attracts less scrutiny, such as history and personalities, are much less reliable. Of course, artificial intelligence isn't responsible for the content, rather it is the ill-informed, or individuals intent on deception. In this regard, artificial intelligence is superfluous and inherently naive.

One interesting aspect is the use, for many years, of artificial intelligence in the scientific community to show up severe short-comings in the publishing of scientific research. To show the lack of peer review, loose standards, (and the placement of monetary interest over science [my additional reason]), Alan Sokal submitted, way back in the 1990's, a non-sensical article to a journal that was subsequently published (and then retracted by the journal once Sokal revealed his hoax). You can 'google' it. On the back of this hoax/affair, a number of people (usually students) have since used artificial intelligence to create scientific articles and submit them to not only dubious publishers, but also some well known ones where the article went throught the peer-review process. Many have been published. These articles often contain all the right words in all the right order, but make no sense whatsoever, i.e., gobbledygook. These examples were used to highlight the loose standards shown by a number or publishers (and reviewers who should have known better). Suffice to say that science has been well aware of artificial intelligence for some time now, and it's also aware of its innate limitations. A scientific article created by artificial intelligence, with its included introduction, methodology, results, discussion, etc. will lack one very human factor. Reason. That and the inability of independent scientists to duplicate or repeat the experiment/observation/results because the paper was a load of cods...

I should add that this is not a reason to distrust science itself (that would be incredibly ignorant), just those that purport to publish it.

Just to make everyone more depressed, at least for those that don't know, there are now a number of websites that allow you to create your own computer-generated article. By inputting keywords, the websites will generate your own research article, poem, song lyrics, etc. However, these written forms tend to be either non-sensical, ambiguous, or contain content it garnered from other websites such as Wikipedia, or combine all three aspects. You can try it yourself. Just search for 'ai paper generator'. Add some swear words to the keywords for an interesting result!

Of course, while science can quickly detect articifiial intelligence (intelligence being a dubious moniker), in areas where it stands up to less rigour such as the media, social culture, internet, it can be less easy to detect, namely, as Jorgen points out, due to ignorance. However, artificial intelligence can only have a limited effect as behind all artificial intelligence is a human being manipulating it in accordance to his or her design. In addition, age old lies and deception will always trump artificial intelligence so one can be assured that artificial intelligence cannot maniplate politics (and religion for that matter) to any meaningful degree as that's already the forte of very dubious politicians and media.

Artificial intelligence cannot tell you the answer to life, the Universe, and everything, or if there is a god (with apologies to Frederick Brown on the latter). Like any other computer program, it can only generate a result given a set of inputted parameters. Those parameters are set by human beings who have, in this case, a limited understanding of the Universe. The closest any artificial intelligence can get to answering such a question will be the same as that currently answered by the human being inputting the parameters. It's better suited to adding two and two together on that other form of artificial intelligence (a calculator) where the parameters are fully known and understood. Artificial intelligence is limited by human intelligence. With regard to art, whether it's a poem, song, or photograph, it will lack the underlying human emotion or meaning intended to be relayed or envoked by that poem, song, or image. Lacking a human 'soul', for want of a better description, artificial intelligence is wholly inadequate. As with science without reason, the art of artificial intelligence will lack meaning and intended emotion.

...and if one's art is likened to that of artificial intelligence, then it could replace the old addage of "a monkey could do better than that". ...and I'm pretty sure it could do better. 😮


P.S., Reading back of my waffle of pants, it makes me wonder if that was computer generated too!


Well-known member
I am already using advanced AI in my camera to ensure the AF point not only moves automatically to the body of a bird but if the position is favourable it will actually move to the eye ensuring an in focus image with the plane of focus on the eye.
I should add, it doesn't always work but it fails less than a camera without animal/bird recognition software and it enhances my enjoyment of photographing birds.
It is an amazing facility and in fact was available on competitor cameras for some time before being available on the platform I favour (Fujifilm).
AI can already produce convincing high resolution completely fake 'photographs' of birds, probably any bird you like.
I personally would find that unfulfilling but some people will enjoy doing it and may even create a new form of 'art' in this way. It would certainly benefit reference texts if instead of imagined drawings of wildlife events which cannot or are difficult to photograph a convincing photographic representation can be created.
I even expect at some point that AI will be integrated into a fully automated camera system which will be able to make the snap decisions that you and I make each time we attempt to capture the fleeting opportunity of a moment in time.
In other words, it will imitate the range of movement, split second adjustments and sense of taste required to create a great wildlife or any other image.
This still wouldn't stop me or millions of other wildlife enthusiasts from going out with our cameras and testing ourselves against the natural world and likewise applies to any subject you enjoy photographing.
The big criticism of AI seems to be in the area of plagiarism. The fact that computing and in particular computer networks means that through meta data and modelling an AI programme can access so much data, so quickly, it can compose images, music, literature etc. Ultimately it is just sampling and reusing existing content, hence the accusations of plagiarism.
As for plagiarism. I have spent years of my life looking at other peoples photography.
In fact, I would say I have been very successful at embedding in my brain data which is the construct of tens if not hundreds of thousands of images.
My brain is probably working faster than my reactions when I instinctively react to a possible photographic moment.
This unconscious response in a human is exactly what an AI could (can?) do and yet my results are often positively commented on by others for their skill and taste. No one has ever said, 'Louis, that photo of a Jay looks exactly like the gazillion others posted on the internet', even though it really is.
I doubt if anyone here has ever had a similar accusation made to them for their photographic endeavours even though they may be photographing something which has been photographed many, many times before.
The human race is going to have to re-evaluate the meaning of original thought or creation because AI are going to change things fast.
For example, a knowledge worker using AI tools will be able to convince a jury that Ed Sheeran really was plagiarising the work of others because they will be able to show how a similar or identical song can be created from the data available to all. I wonder how long it will be before AI generated evidence is allowed in legal disputes.
The other fear is what I you might call the 'Terminator' complex. Will AI machines decide the best way to rid the planet of pollution is to remove the human race? Not sure how that works. Killing off the entire human race would in practical terms only be possible by totally destroying the environment which is the exact polar opposite of solving climate change.
I think it more likely that a conscious AI machine would actually totally ignore humans, or at best see them as pets. What would they have in common with humans? Very little. We wouldn't be able to exchange much information with them because they would be operating at a level of thought which is a quantum above our own, on speed of processing alone. They might also spend most of their time playing with other AIs and we would be only of interest to them because we provide them with energy and fix their 'health' if things go wrong with the hardware.

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Apart from the scary future perspectives, I find the new "Remove" tool in PS 24.5 both convenient and a bit scary. More or less anything can now be removed from a photo and the background automatically generated to match the surroundings. It's not perfect yet, but that's just a question of time. Yes, I'm using it, and many old photos that would have required too much manual editing to be interesting can now be automatically edited and used.

Even more scary is the Generative Fill function in the current Photoshop Beta (Strawberry Letter). It will create the areas outside the photos in cases where you cropped too tightly, or by accident cut off grandma's hair, ears or other body parts. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future, it will search the internet to check what people and places really look like to generate them correctly.


Well-known member
That's fascinating. Jorgen. I have already used the new masking tools in Lightroom to effectively remove or change a plain background when doing object photography and the results look amazing. I assume it is the extension of 'green screen' type technology used in film.
Where I have also noticed AI is in a recently acquired Pixel 7 Pro smartphone.
I've used the 'portrait' filter to capture images of my granddaughter and it has made my XF56f1.2 redundant (almost). Beautiful flesh tones, lovely defocussed background, sharp eyes. I feel like I am cheating!



Well-known member
... I think we better take pictures

what do you find so funny about that, AlanS?
Last edited: