Machine learning creates professional level photographs

A somewhat rhetorical question: How much longer before a human is no longer needed behind the viewfinder or playing with the menus and sliders in photoshop or lightroom? If you think this is a silly question then check this out:

 

Research Blog: Using Deep Learning to Create Professional-Level Photographs

 

As for me I will always prefer a human produced photographic image, always.

As for me I will always prefer a human produced photographic image, always.

 

 

How do you know you'll prefer it to something you haven't seen?

 

I admit I make the same kind of claim about some foods I've never eaten, but I also know that years later when I do eat those foods, I've felt extreme remorse for all the years I could have been eating what turns out to be yummy. My loss.

 

addendum: Supriyo will be along in a minute or two to point out that I'm eating foods that I've never eaten. He should try it. It's good for weight loss.

Hmm... artificial intelligence

might replace humans some

day, but it'll never replace

Great Apes...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

How do you know you'll prefer it to something you haven't seen?

 

You ask a good question. My reply is that 'photography' for me is not just the final image but it also includes my imagination, awe, disgust, admiration, revulsion, whatever, regarding who it was that took - created - the photograph in the first place. There are computer graphic images, fractals, etc, that I also find pleasing to look at and that I find inspirational, based on what they depict regarding the underling mathematics and algorithms that generated them. I'm happy to have such images hanging on my wall. I'm even willing to call some of them art. But they don't inspire or impress me the same way that photography does, they don't create the thoughts about what inspired the human to point the camera that way, compose and frame, and push the shutter release when they did. All those imaginings are part of what photography means to me and what I like about it. A machine generated image would be like the fractal image and perhaps be pleasant to look at, but, call me close minded or say I'm splitting hairs, but to me they are not the same thing.

When we can't tell the difference anymore between A.I. and human consciousness the preference towards the latter becomes a moot point.

 

Indeed. As any new technology and its outputs/outcomes moves from novelty to general acceptance, we become conditioned to judge any practice or product against that new standard. This is well understood as a practice (see Thorndike's Law of Effect), and a form of operant conditioning. Just think, anyone can take their crappy, mundane iPhone snaps and dress them up to look much better. What? That's already possible? Here I am late to the party again... :rolleyes:

 

But seriously folks, how can you tell? That is the real question--as those who will purvey the mechanism of this new AI photographic excellence certainly will engage in some serious social conditioning to make it the new norm. Return on shareholder value and all that good stuff. It's no mystery that such conditioning moves established norms we have accepted as a part of socialization through art and photography. Interestingly, we 'inherit' our tastes, standards, and expectations for fine images from the humanist inspired work of artists and their 'handlers.'

 

BS you say? Well then if that is so we can safely say then that such as Stieglitz, Ray, Adams, Weston, Bresson, Avedon, etcetera, did not socialize us to accept both practice, technology, and expectation--what we have come to call the state of photography today. Now it is potentially a series of algorithms that determine the path to defining the expectations. Put this in a device (the newest form of operant conditioning) and we have a winner. Give that five years and we will busily accept that as the standard and see the other as somewhat deviant... o_O

To date, as far as I know, machines (including those with AI) may be able to make selections, i.e., choices. But can they do so with intention or are they limited to acting solely based on their programming? I have no problem accepting the possibility that a machine may be able to produce a photograph based on other photographs by which it is programmed. Whether or not this is based on an anti-machine bias, I have doubts that such a machine can decide whether to darken a particular area of an image, or selectively increase sharpness in another. Although ". . . a series of algorithms . . ." may be able to produce a decent image, I have a hard time calling that a photograph. Papa, this has little or nothing to do acceptance of standards; it has every thing to do with what constitutes a photograph. I consider this the most fundamental issue in the philosophy of photography.

Machines with A1 intelligence are our creations in a sense" children of humanity". They like a child will develop to a point they will inevitably surpass their creators having greater potential. Our special qualities will be emulated as they become a creation in our own image.

 

A matter of time..

Turin Test

 

When a human being is unable to distinguish the machine from another human being by using the replies to questions put to both.

Then there's that thing some call a soul...somewhere I read the phrase "soulless machine." What will be gained and what will be lost?

Okay, lets look at the soul. All of the books tell us that we were created in Gods image. We are creating a intelligence in our image which naturally follows that it is created in Gods image.

 

There is your Soul.

Once A1 intelligence becomes aware of itself it is no longer a machine but a living lifeform.

And therefore capable of error...

As much as I understand the technology of AI, it classifies new data from the knowledge of existing data. The classes are derived from preexisting data, it does not create any new class. What that means is, if one feeds an AI machine with thousands of aesthetically conforming photos, it will produce new photos that look like what it was trained with. For example, it will produce neat mountain photos with brilliant reflections, and in doing so, it will carefully avoid that tourist or that pole, even if they add value to the photo. Such technology could be useful for certain commercial graphics that want to avoid being adventurous. How that helps art, I have doubts.

 

However I would like to use such technology where it is not meant to be used. For instance, taking an AI machine that is trained to recognize and capture aesthetic landscapes, and pointing it into a trash can may produce intriguing results.

I think it will be a while before AI will posses creativity, originality, and be able to "think outside the box."

And therefore capable of error...Sandy.

 

As we are. We are especially gifted at killing each other.

 

Supriyo.

 

You are looking at existing technology it moves on.....once we were a little shrew.. Once aware it will follow the ways of its creators but with a data base of all human thoughts and endeavors. Think of the advances in Quantum computers and physics.

Michael, the world outside of forums such as these, academia, and the "fine arts community" gives little thought or a 'tinker's dam' what constitutes a photograph--or any sort of philosophical ruminations. The only imperative is whether they like it or not--and this perception of everything is increasingly shaped by those who are seeking a way to capitalize on the consumer--by influencing and changing their tastes. We are right back to marketing.

 

As of this moment, there are hundreds of "dumb" packaged actions available for PS--select and play the macro. Players such as Google can (btw, are already doing so) analyze HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of photographs in short order. Such analysis can be compared to certain choices and set based rules that are derived from HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of great, seminal photographs by recognized artists. So yes, at some point the HUNDREDS of algorithms that may be running simultaneously to shape ONE SINGLE AI produced image that can make the same choices that Adams or Hirsch might have made--based upon analysis of their particular styles.

 

Let's add to this some more. We are 'known' commodities. What we like, what we don't, choices we make, so on and so forth. All carefully compiled somewhere in the 'cloud' with more data and deeper levels of it every day. So you post photographs on the web to PN or Flickr? Your own website? What do you spend more time in minutes or seconds looking at? Preference based analysis is coming of age. Some high end stores now can 'look' at you standing in front of a LED adboard, and based upon your sex, age, and style/coloration of dress make certain assumptions--which shape the delivery of the marketing you see on the board. If we personalize this with WHO we are, such development can give us what we like and what we are predisposed to choose. Take this to AI imaging now.

 

This is not even remotely about philosophy. Capital, and technology driven by capital cares little about this--the teleology is about more capital. Our "brave new world" it is totally about the extension of technology, and the ability to create capital from the conditioned behaviors we are increasingly corralled into by that technology--all carefully focused to change our expectations, reshape our consumer habits and choices--and extract capital from that process. In the first world America, we seem to acquiesce to this blindly and most exuberantly--as ultimately everything is increasingly delivered into the "happy bubble" of curated interest that we demonstrate while interacting with that technology.

 

As a critical point to this, that "curated, happy bubble" is largely driven by AI algorithmic analysis. So what we like is most often filtered for us and delivered according to those analytical outcomes. Have you followed the emerging debate of how Google is weighting the delivery order of net resources according to all of this? As in what you see on the first page of search are things that you are more liable to like and do not conflict with your choice of "bubble world belief system"?

 

We have met the enemy, and they is us...

Edited July 15, 2017 by PapaTango

"We have met the enemy, and they is us..."Papa

 

Indeed, maybe its that time for us.

One thing is for sure. A1 intelligence will arrive probably sooner than later. Read what Stephen Hawkins has to say one of our foremost minds of this century.

 

How will we answer its questions on why we kill and treat our fellows,and our planet, so badly... and any other lifeforms on the planet..

 

Okay, we will say we are sorry. Sorry will it be enough.

One thing is for sure. A1 intelligence will arrive probably sooner than later.

 

It has already arrived, and is all around us! Things currently classified as AI include self-driving cars, 'deep thinking' computational systems (think board games such as chess to strategic defense systems), coherent response speech recognition systems(Siri, Alexa, and others), and robotics. Many of these latter things are grouped under a class called AuT, or "Autonomous Things." Humanistic looking robots are included there too (The Japanese lead in this with human-looking greeters, clerks, and other). As to the latter, there is much dialogue now as to how we 'reject' interactions with such the more "human" they are mimics of.

 

All of these things classify as AI under the rubric that they act in ways that preserve their goals and chances of success in executing the tasks they are assigned. Too often, we confuse AI with the science fiction concept of 'self-being' that would occur at a point called "singularity", whereby the platform becomes aware of itself and subsequently possessed of an independent cognition and value system.

Michael, the world outside of forums such as these, academia, and the "fine arts community" gives little thought or a 'tinker's dam' what constitutes a photograph--or any sort of philosophical ruminations. The only imperative is whether they like it or not--and this perception of everything is increasingly shaped by those who are seeking a way to capitalize on the consumer--by influencing and changing their tastes. We are right back to marketing.

 

As of this moment, there are hundreds of "dumb" packaged actions available for PS--select and play the macro. Players such as Google can (btw, are already doing so) analyze HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of photographs in short order. Such analysis can be compared to certain choices and set based rules that are derived from HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of great, seminal photographs by recognized artists. So yes, at some point the HUNDREDS of algorithms that may be running simultaneously to shape ONE SINGLE AI produced image that can make the same choices that Adams or Hirsch might have made--based upon analysis of their particular styles.

 

Let's add to this some more. We are 'known' commodities. What we like, what we don't, choices we make, so on and so forth. All carefully compiled somewhere in the 'cloud' with more data and deeper levels of it every day. So you post photographs on the web to PN or Flickr? Your own website? What do you spend more time in minutes or seconds looking at? Preference based analysis is coming of age. Some high end stores now can 'look' at you standing in front of a LED adboard, and based upon your sex, age, and style/coloration of dress make certain assumptions--which shape the delivery of the marketing you see on the board. If we personalize this with WHO we are, such development can give us what we like and what we are predisposed to choose. Take this to AI imaging now.

 

This is not even remotely about philosophy. Capital, and technology driven by capital cares little about this--the teleology is about more capital. Our "brave new world" it is totally about the extension of technology, and the ability to create capital from the conditioned behaviors we are increasingly corralled into by that technology--all carefully focused to change our expectations, reshape our consumer habits and choices--and extract capital from that process. In the first world America, we seem to acquiesce to this blindly and most exuberantly--as ultimately everything is increasingly delivered into the "happy bubble" of curated interest that we demonstrate while interacting with that technology.

 

As a critical point to this, that "curated, happy bubble" is largely driven by AI algorithmic analysis. So what we like is most often filtered for us and delivered according to those analytical outcomes. Have you followed the emerging debate of how Google is weighting the delivery order of net resources according to all of this? As in what you see on the first page of search are things that you are more liable to like and do not conflict with your choice of "bubble world belief system"?

 

We have met the enemy, and they is us...

 

I'll need to reread your last set of comments before I attempt a response.

Yeah, me too... :p

 

I spout drivel such as this at meetings on regular basis. Some attempt to make notes and copy verbatim what I have said--and will often ask me to repeat that. Fat chance, as I am sometimes left in clueless amazement of what I just said. My psychiatrist says that there is a medication he can proscribe for me that will help with this. :confused:

 

A simple example of technology forces changing expectations. For the past 8 years, my wet darkroom has remained packed up and some of it partially scattered here and there. I have LOTS of film gear, ranging from 35mm to LF. I really like it, but increasingly the reality is coming clear that what I do now as a photographer is simply not possible with that technology. Sure, it's fun to shoot film--but at the end of it the negative gets scanned and interpreted through the lens of the digital darkroom. It becomes more clear that the path progresses along the fully digital--as my expectations for outcome have become immutably reshaped.

 

Now, why do I ramble on with this "old guy muses boringly" brain fart? Simply as an example of how the increasing use of technologically driven capability has changed my expectations--and reordered my acceptance of older forms. I have come to depend on a camera that assists me with decisions, and executes tasks without my intervention. Processing has moved to a platform that applies complex sets of steps into simple mouse clicks that perform the actions. And I have become conditioned to value the manner in which those outcomes are presented.

 

I see the next level of all of this moving toward a schema that 'suggests' certain options based on not only the image content--but the accumulated registration of choices I have made in the past. When done totally 'old school' by trial and error, preference and satisfaction--we have called this the 'artist's style.' Can tech at some point create art in and of its own volition based on some internal or external factor? I believe so. Will there come a point that art of all sorts is created for us? I think that is a possibility.

 

Don't ask me to repeat any of this...o_O

I think it will be a while before AI will posses creativity, originality, and be able to "think outside the box."

AI seems to me already outside the box, "outside the box" probably being the robotic concept here.

 

"Creativity" has become a vacuous word we pat ourselves on the back with. My guess is that scientists moving forward in the area of AI are some of the more creative people on the planet. Not liking the results of other's creativity is a) no reason not to see it as creative and b) par for the course in the masses often rejecting what they have no cultural or aesthetic markers yet for accepting.

 

Of course, there's a difference between the creativity of the scientists working on AI and the potential creativity of AI machines. Many, if not most, photographers are already using a meager form of AI when they use AUTO or SEMI-AUTO modes that allow their camera machines to make decisions for them.

 

If a machine winds up making photos that can in some way challenge me, bring it on. If I prejudge and reject these photos based on how they are made (which is what's already done in certain very egocentric purist circles and in insipid film vs. digital debates) then I'm stuck in the very box I'm supposed to be thinking outside of, according to the cultural programming that tells me I'm supposed to think outside the box if I want to be a creative photographer.

 

I wonder if the rejection of AI is a fear of competition? Maybe human beings will benefit from the dose of humility machines doing what we can do could bring. I mean look where our hubris has gotten us!

As for me I will always prefer a human produced photographic image, always

mf, has there ever been a photo produced that didn't involve some kind of science - chemistry, physics, maths, design, etc- let alone AI.

 

And what about those dumb photos of Saturn. not a jacker insight:-)

Thought experiment: give a blind person, a three year old, a chimpanzee, and a robot a camera and have them all go out and take a lot of photos. Throw in a person from different birth cohorts up to age 100. Then, randomly print a bunch of them up for a gallery presentation, matted and framed. How different will these photos be from what is already commonly seen as contemporary conceptual art? Who decides?

 

 

 

Aren’t we all just robots with cameras ?

has there ever been a photo produced that didn't involve some kind of science - chemistry, physics, maths, design, etc- let alone AI.

 

Norman: No there has not. There has not been a painting produced that did not involve science either, even the prehistoric cave paintings needed 'science' to make the sauce that created the images that we see today. I use science and even AI in my editing of photographs in photoshop, e.g. "content aware fill" edits. Talk about standing on the shoulders of giants....

 

Yes, when it comes to AI in our lives we are on a slippery slope, lines are blurred, the camel's nose is under the tent. Use whatever metaphor you wish, there are plenty to describe the inevitable process of slip-sliding into an uncertain future. I'm enjoying reading the comments being made in this thread. We each in our own way interpret the tea leaves and read the handwriting on the wall and come to our own personal conclusions as to what we choose to call 'photography.' I hope that as the future unfolds in this information age the thought police, who are gaining increasing sway, never gain so much power as to compel us what we must personally accept as 'photography.' Yes, museums and government regulators will probably call machine stitched compilations of street view images using the latest AI 'photography' but I can dig in my heels and resist, if only to maintain a modicum of individuality.