Calling spoiler-peeps - tell me what I don't see in this AI non-photo:

[UTUSN]

I'm not totally clear what the anti-Spoiler protocols are beyond that sensibilities are *VERY* prickly, so if it can't be posted in the thread, DM it, pls/tia.

I have read the article twice and skimmed through the Comments and got no clue to what the anomaly is - all content just about the threat in AI.

********QUOTE******

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

Winner of Sony World Photography Award refuses to accept his prize after revealing his stunning black and white portrait of two women wasn't all it seemed - but can you tell why?
* Boris Eldagsen used AI photo to create discussion about future of photography
* The German artist admitted he had been a 'cheeky monkey' with his entry
* He explained that he would not accept award because 'AI is not photography'

*****UNQUOTE*****

[vanlassie]

1. The hand on the left does not match the one on the right?

[UTUSN]

3. semi-spoiler (me) - coppers, don't look here if you think it's a spoiler (I don't know)

Seems to me that at least one of the two hands on the right belong to a third(?) person, with the bottom right might belong to the main figure or to the third person? What does "electrician" have to do with stuff, plus the wires(?) and clamps(?) and the sparky things going on?

[Donkees]

10. ''wires and clamps ..." see vintage 'beauty parlor'

[ret5hd]

2. Mostly the fingers I think.

[DBoon]

4. Where are the hands on the right coming from?

[Hugh_Lebowski]

5. The anomaly in the context I believe is ... it's created through AI

Not sure there's any particular definable anomaly, it's just not real photography.

Most obvious though if I had to pick something particular is that the woman in front seems to lack a left arm.

[Atticus]

6. The hand on the front woman's left shoulder has a thumb as the bottom digit. If it belonged

to the woman behind her, the pinkie should be on the bottom, as shown on the hand on her right shoulder.

[yonder]

12. Agree. That barked right at me.

She has a creepy thumb where you'd expect a little finger.

[Srkdqltr]

14. There could be another person off camera?

[yonder]

16. That was my first thought though the slightly arthritic hands

appear to be from the same person. For me though, a third person removes the context from the photo and why it would even be considered for an award. Otherwise it would just be a gag photo and in reality, maybe that's the point for both submittal and award refusal.

Don't know though.

[nolabear]

26. Yes, I noticed that right away.

It’s a spatial skill to notice the orientation. Some miss it.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

8. The woman in front has no left arm at her shoulder

The hands on the woman in the back are seriously messed up - the one on the right looks like it has too many knuckles and the one on the left is flipped and is overly long. Both wrists look broken.
AI tends to have a gauzy look to me as well.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

9. Also, the sleeves on the front lady are weird nt

[Donkees]

13. To me it seems more of a 'beauty salon' wrap

and the sparks and wires in the photo were suggestive of the vintage 'perming machines'

[Chainfire]

11. It appears to me that, assuming the hands on the shoulders is the from the woman in the background

she would have two right hands.

[Redleg]

15. It's creepy

Makes it look like the woman in front is getting pawed by two different people.

[UTUSN]

17. Hah, sure is. But apart from the visible content, weird or not, what is AI vs photograph?

[Hugh_Lebowski]

18. Basically you can just tell AI to construct a photograph with some verbal or written instructions

And it'll just make it for you, from nothing essentially, apart from what you tell it.

You don't need any actual photo to start with.

[highplainsdem]

19. The "nothing essentially" being millions (at least) of photos scraped off the

internet, many of them watermarked and NOT to be used without permission and payment.

Getty Images, among other companies, is suing these image generators.

The watermarks have sometimes shown up in the images churned out by AI of this type.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

20. Fair enough but there's also definitely AI that can do this without outright plagiarism

Are you sure you know what 'this type' is? The one involved in this particular case?

Everything about human (and animals and plants) appearances are just a collection of numbers whether we like to admit it or not. You can tell some AI's "I want a 50 year old woman with Italian features who looks solemn and serious" ... and an AI can generate that WITHOUT plagiarizing any one particular persons work, at least not in any legally objectionable way.

Sure maybe it scraped images of 'Women from Italy' from a million places, perhaps some copyrighted ... but it's not actually directly using those images, it's using the NUMBERS ... dimensions, skin tones ... tiny pieces of data from millions of images to construct a database. Because it calculating them and storing the dimensional numbers, it can later construct random images ... yes, from nothingness. Archetypes if you will.

None of us are going to be able to stop this kind of thing. Not with music either.

You're tilting against the proverbial windmill here I think HPD my friend.

[highplainsdem]

21. When you're opposing something that's fundamentally wrong, it isn't

"tilting at windmills." Which refers to imaginary enemies.

We've already had a court ruling that images from AI image generators can't be copyrighted. I hope for more.

The AI user in question - I don't consider people using AI to create images real artists - uses a number of different image generators, according to news stories.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

22. I thought it meant 'starting a fight you have no hope of winning'

But I suppose those aren't mutually exclusive ideas

I like that court ruling.

And I have no issue with saying one doesn't qualify as an artist when they do this.

I'm just saying not all AI really qualifies as plagiarism or stealing. Think of it like this. Let's say the Mona Lisa was copyrighted. I take a 1 nanometer *1 nanometer picture of the bottom left corner and then make a mosaic of that one slice, slice repeated over and over. No face or anything. Did I violate Da Vinci's copyright on the Mona Lisa?

No court would ever say I did. And inherently, at least with some AI tools, this is the same kind of thing.

Except AI can do even less of a copy job than what I did in the above example.

There needs to be limits and I support reasonable ones for sure.. And yes, it's likely to in some cases cut into some money that would've gone to real artists, and that does suck.

[highplainsdem]

24. I'm already seeing speculation that fake photography via AI will wipe out

stock photography websites, and the livelihoods of a lot of photographers.

Just as it's hurting writers.

Just as it will be coming for people in IT, coders and developers.

I will always take the side of humans against AI and the humans using AI who haven't bothered to learn those skills but are happy to have AI make them seem more talented and knowledgeable than they are, no matter how much harm is done to others.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

25. It's really just competition ... and you have to be better than the computer.

And don't discount how much of people's attraction to art comes from the association with the person making it.

You could make a robot that looks and sounds exactly like Eddie Vedder but I'm not ever paying to see Robot Jam.

It's not like I think it's a great thing for artists, esp. not 'unknown' ones, I just think options to limit it are ... limited.

Someday there will be a 'band' that's nothing but AI generated music ... it'll have one hit song and maybe album because of the novelty, and 6 months later they won't be able to sell shit.

Popularity for artists is hugely based on their human traits is what I'm trying to say.

When you're a work-a-day artist with no actual fame/personality people know, you're more easily replaced.

Kind of like every single animator who ever drew a moving cartoon with a series of pictures each one slightly different from the one before.

[highplainsdem]

23. Btw, re music and AI:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/18/tech/universal-music-group-artificial-intelligence/index.html

[Chakaconcarne]

27. A rogue arm is reaching for her breast...

and she's not at all phased by it....

[UTUSN]

28. Weirdness/creepiness aside, am thinking it looks like (2) seamstresses working on her

But again, my issue is understanding AI vs photography.

[ironflange]

29. One of the two hands on the right has to belong to the old lady

But neither one matches the hand on the left, they're both too young-looking.

[GenThePerservering]

30. It has AI written all over it

I'm flabbergasted that the judges didn't see it immediately - the hands are wrong, the shadows on the left as you fast it are wrong, what's that THING on the eright - her arm? Can't be, the hand coming out of nowhere. It looks like a bad amateur painting.

[UTUSN]

31. "AI written all over it" - what are characteristics of AI? Are *some* perfect?