I believe AI art should definitely be labeled to minimize people being mislead about the source of the art. But at the same time the OP on the Adobe forums post did say they used it as any other tool for touching up and fixing inconsistencies.
If I were to for example arrange a photoshoot with a model and they happened to have a zit that day on their forehead of course I'm gonna edit that out. Or if I happened to have an assistant with me that got in the shot but I don't want to crop in making the background and feel of the photo tighter I would gladly remove that too. Sure Adobe already has the patch, clone and even magic eraser tool (Which also uses AI, that might or might not mark photos) to do these fix-ups but if I can use AI, that I hope is trained on data they're actually allowed to train on, I think I would prefer that because if I'm gonna spend 10 to 30 minutes fixing blemishes, zits and what not I'd much prefer to use the AI tools to get my job done quicker.
If the tools were however used to rigorously change, modify and edit the scene and subject then for sure, it might be best to add that.
Wouldn't it be better to not discourage the use of editing tools when those tools are used in a way that just makes one's job quicker? If I were to use Lightrooms subject quick selection, should it be slapped on then? Or if I were to use an editing preset created with AI that automatically adjusts the basic settings of an image and further my editing from that, should the label be created then? Or if I have a flat white background with some tapestry pattern and don't want to spend hours getting the alignment of the pattern just right as I try to fix a minor aspect ratio issue or want to get just a bit more breathing room on the subject and I use the mentioned AI tool in the OP.
Things OP mentioned in his post and the scenarios I mentioned are all things you can do without AI anyways it just takes a lot longer sometimes, there's no cheating in using the right tool for the right job IMO. I don't think it's too far off from someone who makes sculptures in clay uses an ice scream scoop with ridges to create texture or a Dremel to touch up and fix corners. Or a painter using different tools and brushes and scrapers to finish their painting.
Perhaps a better idea would be if we want to make the labels "fair" there should also be a label that the photo has been manipulated by a program in general or maybe add a percentage indicator to see how much of it has been edited specifically with AI. Slapping an "AI" label on someone because they decided to get equal results by using another tool to do normal touch-ups to a photo could potentially be damaging to ones career and credibility when it doesn't say how much of it was AI or in what reach, because now there's the chance someone might be looking for their next wedding photographer and be discouraged because of the bad rep regarding AI.
Indeed, if the AI was trained based on theft it's neither right on their part or ethical on mine.
I did some searching but sadly don't have time to look into it more but there were some concerning articles that would suggest they have either used shady practices to get their training data or users having to manually check an opt out box in the app settings.
I can't make an opinion on it right now before looking into it more but my core argument about using AI itself in this manner, even if that data was your own on your own trained AI using allowed resources, I still believe somewhat holds.
Did they just e.g. remove a passing car from the background*, and will tags on some images lead to untagged fake images being trusted more? Oh this fun new world we’re in.
*as someone else pointed out, if it was a minor edit, was the underlying technology using legit training data or unlicensed stuff
To appease the artists worried about "fake" art somehow replacing the "real"art, while the big social somehow profits. They just didn't think leopards would eat THEIR faces...
You aren't wrong. It's entirely about status and needing to stigmatize, penalize and limit "fake" art because the artists in question are worried it will cut into the work available to them in the form of things like commissions.
I'm not sure of the complaint, is the tag not accurate? If you use AI to make something are you not making it with ai? Like if I use strawberry to make a cake would the tag made with strawberries be inaccurate?
Like I failed to see the argument, if you don't want to be labeled as something accurate don't use it otherwise deal with it.
I do think it's a problem when 100% of people seeing "made with AI" will assume the entire thing is AI-generated, even if all you did was use AI for a minor touch-up. If it's really that trigger happy right now, I think it'd make sense for it to be dialled down a bit.
The complaint the photographer is making is that it's an actual photograph where a small portion is made or changed with AI.
They list expanding the edges of the image to change the aspect ratio, and removing flaws or unwanted objects etc.
Removing flaws and objects at least is a task that predates modern computers - people changed the actual negatives - and tools to do it have improved so much a computer can basically do it all for you.
I think people should just say how they modified the image - AI or not - since airbrushed skin, artificial slimming, and such have been common complaints before AI manipulation, and AI just makes those same problematic things easier.
The biggest use of AI in my editing flow is masking. I can spend half an hour selecting all the edges of a person as well as I can, or I can click the button to select people. Either way I do the rest of my edits as normal.
I was mainly curious as to whether this was mostly a fun exercise, or if there were a practical advantage to having the calendar printed in 3D. Cool either way.
Looks like people are finally finding out they've been using AI all along.
Seems to me that employing the use of AI to alter an image should be labeled as "made with AI". It's not made by AI, AI was merely one of the tools used.
If you don't like admitting you used AI, just strip the metadata, I guess. This feels like something you should be able to turn off in your editor's settings, but I guess Adobe hasn't implemented that.
This comment was made with AI, as my phone's keyboard uses AI to automatically complete words, in a process strikingly similar to how ChatGPT works.
yeah, i use Lightroom ai de-noise all the time now. it's just a better version of a tool that already existed. and once that every phone does by default anyway.
I totally agree with a streamlined identification of images generated by an AI prompt. But, to label an image with "made with AI" metadata when the image is original, taken by a human, and simply used AI tools to edit is absolutely misleading and the language can create confusion. It is not fair to the individual who has created the original work without the use if generative AI. I simply propose revising the language to create distinction.
The edits are what makes it made with AI. The original work obviously isn't.
If you're in-painting areas of an image with generative AI ("context aware" fill), you've used AI to create an image.
People are coming up with rather arbitrary distinctions between what is and isn't AI. Midjourney's output is clearly AI, and a drawing obviously isn't, but neither is very post-worthy. Things quickly get muddy when you start editing.
The people upset over this have been using AI for years and nobody cared. Now photographers are at risk of being replaced by an advanced version of the context aware fill they've been using themselves. This puts them in the difficult spot of wanting not to be replaced by AI (obviously) but also not wanting to have their AI use be detectable.
The debate isn't new; photo editors had this problem years ago when computers started replacing manual editing, artists had this problem when computer aided drawing (drawing tablets and such) started becoming affordable, and this is just the next step of the process.
Personally, I would love it if this feature would also be extended to "manual" editing. Add a nice little "this image has been altered" marker on any edited photographs, and call out any filters used to beautify selfies while we're at it.
I don't think the problem is that AI edited images are being marked, the problem AI that AI generated pictures and manually edited pictures aren't.
Where I live, is very difficult to get permits to knock down an old building and build a new one. So, builders will "renovate" by knocking down everything but a single wall and then building a new structure around it.
I can imagine people using that to get around the "made with ai" label. I just touched it up!
It’s like they’re ignoring the pixel I captured in the bottom left!
Really interesting analogy.
Also I imagine most anybody who gets a photo labeled will find a trick before making their next post. Copy the final image to a new PSD… print and scan for the less technically inclined… heh
The image looks like OP cherry picked some replies in the original thread. I wonder how many artists still want AI assisted art to be flagged as such.
EDIT The source is also linked under the images. They did leave out all the comments in favour of including AI metadata, but naturally they're there in the source linked under the images.
It's unreasonable to make them illegible for no good reason; you could've included them as-is, possibly in multiple, smaller images. It's also far more common to just share a link rather than an image post, as we'll have to see the link anyway.
I didn't see the source, though, I've updated my comment for that.
1: I should’ve been more clear… those full screen screenshots are so enormous, Lemmy has to compress them for cost and UX reasons.
2: Screenshot over link is a very intentional choice. Even if you’re positive you would’ve clicked based on the title, there are some great responses in this thread that I guarantee you we would not have been blessed with if this post had been a link instead of an image.
Everyone is busy. Lots of us work away on keyboards all day, and we hop on here just to scroll casually. Some huge forum thread? Forget it! A little screenshot that has teasers and can be digested bit by bit, with the leading post in the image helping folks decide whether they care enough to read the rest of the image and furthermore to find a source? (either by an OP or commenter’s source link, or exact match web search of an OCR’d phrase from the image) That’s the best shot we have at easing in as many people as possible into a topic. (Do feel bad for the vision impaired, hopefully the source link is a decent standin.) But for 98% of us this is prob the way. Aight maybe 95%, you got a good community response to your comment :)
“Curated.” Was happy to curate a few of the more interesting comments for our community.
If I weren’t so lazy I might’ve found another comment in favor of the labeling to bump up the screenshotted proportion of replies in support from the 25% seen in my OP. Still, think I did an aight job.
or... don't use generative fill. if all you did was remove something, regular methods do more than enough. with generative fill you can just select a part and say now add a polar bear. there's no way of knowing how much has changed.
ai denoise, ai masking, ai image recognition and sorting.
hell, every phone is using some kind of "ai enhanced" noise reduction by default these days. these are just better versions of existing tools than have been used for decades.
I don't know where you got they from, but this post literally talks about tools such as the gen fill (select a region, type what you want in it, AI image generation makes it and places it in)
lemmings.world
Hot