Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 11, 2023, 11:15

Quote from: Her Ugliness on June 11, 2023, 11:04

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 11, 2023, 10:46

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on June 10, 2023, 12:44

Added rule: serious participations will get the result in a private message, to keep the suspense going, and make it more interesting for those who take part. Thanks for keeping it for yourself. 
(Please consider there may be a delay because of european nights that occurs each day)

If your European NIGHTS occur each DAY, you have some serious issues where you are? 

A day is a twenty-four-hour period, from one midnight to the next. It would be troublesome if European nights did NOT occure each day.

Most nights around here occur at night, not during the day. 

Again, a "day" is a twenty-four-hour period, from one midnight to the next. 
When you say "during the day" you refer to daytime, when the sun is up. When you say "during a or each day" you refer to the 24 hours period of a full day.

OK Humor alert, since you didn't get it the first two times. HAND

Most nights around here occur at night, not during the day. 

But around there, some intelligences spend their full time in the night. Are they AIs?

Note: I did NOT generate these pictures.
I DON'T use AI for replacing me doing photographs, and I DON'T want or plan to.

[...] AI is not replacing you "doing" images. You use AI to make your images.
[...] you should give a try and learn the new processes too. After all you use these days more the PC with email/internet and not letters with post riders.

My reason is more ethical than technical. And I can have a relevant opinion on multiple things without even having to try them.
But true, the question is doing real photographs instead of AI images, I go change the word in my post.
Whatever, you're welcome to participate to the game I proposed, since you come and write here

Yes, but the stem of a glass, coming out of someones thumb tends to look like AI? Her hand looks like a fist and has a distorted shape. It's not what I'd say is a natural way someone would hold a wine glass. The bubbles if champagne or if that's supposed to be condensation if something else, look artificial.

OK I'll play, but considering the images are too small and I'm not going to waste lot of time looking closer. 7-14-21 are real, the rest are much like AI might produce.

Yes I confess, I am unethical and greedy, I use a digital camera and photoshop my images. 

all AI, boring .

This was designed to look this way, and I've seen way too many examples, I suspect the one in the OP question could be real. I am concerned by the trees which aren't the same as the real one. I see other older images with the trees, more spaced out. = I don't know.

Quote from: Evaristo tenscadisto on June 12, 2023, 08:37

[...] AI is not replacing you "doing" images. You use AI to make your images.
[...] you should give a try and learn the new processes too. After all you use these days more the PC with email/internet and not letters with post riders.

My reason is more ethical than technical. And I can have a relevant opinion on multiple things without even having to try them.
But true, the question is doing real photographs instead of AI images, I go change the word in my post.
Whatever, you're welcome to participate to the game I proposed, since you come and write here

Game is a new form of Art. Just by raising the issue in ethical terms it paddles us towards the greatest thing about Art: the boundaries of it.
In fact, art has always been concerned with just that since Greek times. Bringing new ideas to the table that bring the world of things as we know them up for debate. But the question that i raise with your game:

Is it that important to discuss whether or not the image was created with AI assistance?
Isn't the content of the created image more important than the technical aspect that you try to get the player to identify in your game?

In fact, you try to trick the player into reflecting on the subject in a technical perspective so that he finds an ethical point. The problem is that the ethical point you want to find and discuss in your game goes against the content value of images that you put to play. In other words you ask players to identify a technical issue (AI or reality) and not really about the ideas expressed on the images themselves.
Your type of game was also done when Digital photography appeared. At the time the purpose was identifying whether the photo had been manipulated by a digital process or whether it was purely mechanical.

The result was: no ethical issue. Both were authentic images made with different processes.

Therefore your game is based on the assumption that if a player doesn't correctly identify whether an image is AI-assisted or not, it can trick the player to make him believe that the images are not authentic. But they are. They were made by humans with AI assistance tools or without them. So your game is to some extent rigged, since you only want to show the part you want - a small portion of a technical issue.

Why didn't you put images with people with 3 legs or hands with 6 fingers? Or nuns eating spaghetti or pizza which looks Bizarre? 
For instance, i find those images much more interesting and unique, almost reflecting a new age of surrealism, deep dreams or grotesque art. Also in terms of thinking the narrative of the image - something that stopped a little bit since cubism time.

Nevertheless i find your game fun. I played and the result is: no ethical issue. All are authentic/real images made by humans using different processes. AI/reality check is a feature to trick your mind.

;-)
 

1 - real
2 - AI
3 - AI
4 - real
5 - AI
6 - real
7 - real
8 - AI
9 - AI
10 - AI
11 - real
12 - real
13 - real
14 - real
15 - real
16 - real
17 - real
18 - AI
19 - real
20 - AI
21 - real

Edit: wanted to add that it's very hard to tell at miniature size so I might have given some (too many) AI photos the benefit of the doubt probably... 

OK I cheated and looked up the photos on Adobe Stock. It's much easier to tell when you can see the full-size images.

Quote from: biibii on June 12, 2023, 10:46

all AI, boring .

This was designed to look this way, and I've seen way too many examples, I suspect the one in the OP question could be real. I am concerned by the trees which aren't the same as the real one. I see other older images with the trees, more spaced out. = I don't know.

SPOILER ALERT

I thought it was AI at first, largely because the alem (finial) on top of the dome was much larger in the reflection, but looking at my images I realized it was one of the features of the reflection pool - perfectly placed to look like part of the reflection.  more important, i doubt an AI would include the scaffolding on the minor dome on the right.

Taj Mahal from 1979:

Quote from: Noedelhap on June 12, 2023, 12:56

Edit: wanted to add that it's very hard to tell at miniature size so I might have given some (too many) AI photos the benefit of the doubt probably... 

Quote from: Uncle Pete on June 12, 2023, 10:40

Yes, but the stem of a glass, coming out of someones thumb tends to look like AI? Her hand looks like a fist and has a distorted shape. It's not what I'd say is a natural way someone would hold a wine glass. The bubbles if champagne or if that's supposed to be condensation if something else, look artificial.

OK I'll play, but considering the images are too small and I'm not going to waste lot of time looking closer. 7-14-21 are real, the rest are much like AI might produce.

Yes I confess, I am unethical and greedy, I use a digital camera and photoshop my images. 

Customers are not supposed to be people who create images, customers are the ones who choose a photography by seing a thumbnail, that they click then decide to buy. The competition between real photography and AI illustrations that look real takes place from the thumbails. If we do think as a customer, there is no care of what happens at the pixel scale of the photo, in the majority of cases. Of course, it's harder to find out if it's real or AI with thumbnails. But the question is to detect if the images have comparable merchant potentials. My (our) main concern is to assess the competitive aspect (and yes first, we are competitors all here). And I find it hard to believe that in the stock photography industry, traditional photography will be able to survive the AI ​​tsunami. The fight is truly unequal and unethical.
But I would be happy to know that others oppose this AI surge, and prefer not to follow this deadly panacea. Since the generation by the AI ​​will completely do without the human, it is the next step, there will be no more intermediary. Even no more ChatGPT professionnal prompters. The stock photography platforms will then be autonomous.

I confess, I need money too for a living 

Yes it's nice to say, money doesn't mean everything but like water, food and air, it's something that necessary. I'm sure I could have worked in different ways and positions over my life, that paid more. But I'm just not the corporate type and too much of an individual to fit in a office filled with yes people and drones. I'd suspect pretty much everyone here fells that way to some extent, as they are independent artists.

And then there are jobs that I wouldn't take for ethical reasons, no matter what the pay.

So back to the lady with the wine glass. Stem is coming out of her gnarled hand with funny looking bone structure. The scenic landscape example, you are right, they are plausible in most cases, on the surface. The fact that some sites require generative AI is good, if someone wants a true and accurate image of a specific real object, place or event.

As for customers who create images or don't, and I don't want to throw this off into something else, but, if AI is free and they can type, they can create some useful, simple images. Also all AI images are not 100% computer created. Some are from our original real images and then modified. This isn't simple, easy or cut and dried.

Thanks for the fun, the thread is enjoyable. (even for people who have night during the day...) 

or only 1/2 the flat earth is going dark

Well the Moon is obviously flat, because we can only see one side of it?  I mean by logic, it would rotate and we'd see the other side? Worse than that, the dark side of the Moon isn't perpetually dark! Someone tell Pink Floyd about their mistake?