[cesaref]

The problem is broader than this. There is a tradition of using photography to record real world events (photojournalism) which has been quite broadly adopted within our cultures - we believe a photograph as reflecting events that have happened.

The problem with these AI generated 'realistic photojournalist' images is that they erode the belief in these images as being factual representations of real world events.

Just think of the impact that, say, war photography has had on the world, and our understanding of the horrors that our governments decisions have had on people's lives. Would Nick Ut's 'The terror of war' have had the impact it did if AI image generation was available at the time? I believe there was at the time an attempt to say it was staged, but there are many many ways of dismissing an image these days.

So, I think we have lost something, but it's much greater than the connection with a subject that the author is concerned with.

[krapp]

>The problem with these AI generated 'realistic photojournalist' images is that they erode the belief in these images as being factual representations of real world events.

That isn't the problem. The problem is people will believe inherently that they are factual representations, because there will be no non-AI mediated sources of truth available, Or worse, people simply won't care, since the concept of "objective reality" simply doesn't exist in a post-truth culture.

[vouaobrasil]

Agreed. We have lost a lot and no benefits from AI are worth what we have lost. I mean, we are talking about some of the things that make life worth living...

[exe34]

even with manual photography, the image could show whatever story the publisher wanted to tell - so I think it's actually a good thing that AI is going to help immunize people from falling for it.

if we want "certified" images, we have to tie a personal identity to the photo - e.g. a gpg web of trust approach and signature. I trust this picture because my friend who trusts his friend who trusts his friend took it.

[cesaref]

Agreed, there needs to be trust, and how this used to work was that the photographer would gain a reputation for their accurate portrayal and would be picked up by an agency (e.g. magnum). They would supply the picture editors for the newspapers, so the public would have a chain of trust back from the the paper to the photographer.

The equivalent for digital photography is that cameras can sign images - I believe there are some canon/nikon cameras which supported this to allow digital photos to be used in court, but I don't think this idea was widely adopted, so a typical snap on your phone doesn't provide any sort of trust, which is surprising really, but there we are, this is the world we live in.

[exe34]

in a court case, you might still be able to prove a given picture was taken by a given camera, since the ccd has detects. I'm not sure how true that is nowadays with AI making up half the details (like Xerox copiers taking creative licence with the numbers in a table).