Better title: “Photographers complain when their use of AI is identified as such”
Photographers Push Back on Facebook's 'Made with AI' Labels Triggered by Adobe Metadata. Do you agree “‘AI was used in this image’ is completely different than ‘Made with AI’”?
Submitted 10 months ago by parody@lemmings.world to [deleted]
https://lemmings.world/pictrs/image/445b84ea-1711-4043-8803-e81698838c27.jpeg
Comments
Hawke@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Valmond@lemmy.world 10 months ago
“It was just a so little itsy bitsy teeny weeny AI edit!!”
Please don’t flag AI please!
CabbageRelish@midwest.social 10 months ago
People are complaining that an advanced fill tool that’s mostly used to remove a smudge or something is automatically marking a full image as an AI. As-is if someone actually wants to bypass this “check” all they have to do is strip the image’s metadata before uploading it.
Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 10 months ago
But they did use AI…
BigPotato@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Right? I thought I went crazy when I got to “I just used Generative Fill!” Like, he didn’t just auto adjust the exposure and black levels! C’mon!
WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
No - I don’t agree that they’re completely different.
“Made by AI” would be completely different.
“Made with AI” actually means pretty much the exact same thing as “AI was used in this image” - it’s just that the former lays it out baldly and the latter softens the impact by using indirect language.
I can certainly see how “photographers” who use AI in their images would tend to prefer the latter, but bluntly, fuck 'em. If they can’t handle the shame of the fact that they did so they should stop doing it - get up off their asses and invest some tome and effort into doing it all themselves. And if they can’t manage that, they should stop pretending to be artists.
Paradachshund@lemmy.today 10 months ago
I think it is a bit of an unclear wording personally. “Made with”, despite technically meaning what you’re saying, is often colloquially used to mean “fully created by”. I don’t mind the AI tag, but I do see the photographers point about it implying wholesale generation instead of touchups.
skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 10 months ago
[deleted]Sensitivezombie@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
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.
Cryophilia@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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!
deafboy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
simply used AI tools
Therefor, made with AI.
thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 10 months ago
yeah,
Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 10 months ago
And I use AI to determine the right brightness level for my phone screen (that was a feature added several android versions ago)
kromem@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Artists in 2023: “There should be labels on AI modified art!!”
Artists in 2024: “Wait, not like that…”
lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 10 months ago
I feel like these are two completely different sets of artists.
thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 10 months ago
no, they just replaced the normal tools with ai-enhanced versions and are labeling everything like that now.
ai noise reduction should not get this tag.
hperrin@lemmy.world 10 months ago
The label is accurate. Quit using AI if you don’t want your images labeled as such.
pyre@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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.
thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 10 months ago
there’s a lot more than generative fill.
ai denoise, ai making, 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.
pyre@lemmy.world 10 months ago
the post says gen fill
glimse@lemmy.world 10 months ago
This would be more suited for asklemmy, this community isn’t for opinion discussions
IIII@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Can’t wait for people to deliberately add the metadata to their image as a meme, such that a legit photograph without any AI used gets the unremovable made with ai tag
piecat@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Generative fill on a dummy layer, then apply 0% opacity
Thavron@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
That’s the difference between “by” and “with”.
RippleEffect@lemm.ee 10 months ago
People have a hard time with nuance.
kilgore_trout@feddit.it 10 months ago
Bad photographers complaining to be called out as bad photographers.
Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I don’t think that’s fair. AI wont turn a bad photograph into a good one. It’s a tool that quickly and automatically does something we’ve been doing by hand untill now. That’s kind of like saying a photoshopped picture isn’t “good” or “real”. They’re all photoshopped. Not a single serious photographer releases unedited photos except perhaps the ones shooting on film.
Zelaf@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
Even finns photographers touch up their photos, either during development by adjusting how long they sit in one or the chemical processes or by using different methods of shaking/mixing processes and techniques.
If they enlarge their negatives on photo paper they often have tools to add lightness and darkness to different areas of the paper to help with exposure, contrast and subject highlighting. AKA. Dodging and burning which is also available in most photo editing software today.
There are loads of things to do to improve developed photos and been something that has always been something that photographers/developers do. People who still go with the “Don’t edit photos” BS are usually not very well informed about photo history and techniques of their photography inspirations.
harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
Why many word when few good?
Seriously though, “AI” itself is misleading but if they want to be ignorant and whiny about it, then they should be labeled just as they are.
What they really seem to want is an automatic metadata tag that is more along the lines of “a human took this picture and then used ‘AI’ tools to modify it.”
That may not work because by using Adobe products, the original metadata is being overwritten so Thotagram doesn’t know that a photographer took the original.
A photographer could actually just type a little explanation (“I took this picture and then used Gen Fill only”) in a plain text document, save it to their desktop, and copy & paste it in.
But then everyone would know that the image had been modified - which is what they’re trying to avoid. They want everyone to believe that the picture they’re posting is 100% their work.
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 10 months ago
We’ve been able to do this for years, way before the fill tool utilized AI. I don’t see why it should be slapped with a label that makes it sound like the whole image was generated by AI.
magnetosphere@fedia.io 10 months ago
That person who makes the peanut analogy needs a slap in the head.
WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
It’s exaggerated but it gets the point across: I too would like to know if AI tools were used to make even part of the image.
There’s a reason any editing is banned from many photography contests.
magnetosphere@fedia.io 10 months ago
The analogy is exaggerated to the point where it implies a false sense of urgency. A peanut allergy can be deadly. The method used to edit an image cannot.
Someone is trivializing death just so they can make a point on the internet. That’s the part that irritates me. It’s like dragging politics into it Just let people have a serious discussion without taking things to a ridiculous extreme.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
This isn’t really Facebook. This is Adobe not drawing a distinction between smart pattern recognition for backgrounds/textures and real image generation of primary content.
Pika@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
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.
efstajas@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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.
femtech@midwest.social 10 months ago
Would all my photos taking on a pixel or iPhone have this label then?
Bertuccio@lemmy.world 10 months ago
The complaint the photographer is making is that it’s an actual image 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, unwanted objects etc.
Removing flaws and objects at least is a task that predates computers - people changed the actual negatives, and tools to do it have improved that 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.
Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
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.
PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I agree pretty heartily with this metadata signing approach to sussing out AI content,
Create a cert org that verifies that a given piece of creative software properly signs work made with their tools, get eyeballs on the cert so consumers know to look for it, watch and laugh while everyone who can’t get thr cert starts trying to claim they’re being censored because nobody trusts any of their shit anymore.
Bonus points if you can get the largest social media companies to only accept content that has the signing and have it flag when signs indicate photoshopping or AI work, or removal of another artist’s watermark.
Schmeckinger@lemmy.world 10 months ago
That simply won’t work, since you could just use a tool to recreate a Ai image 1:1.
PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 10 months ago
There are ways to secure signatures to be a problem to recreate, not to mention how the signature can be unique to every piece of media made, meaning a fake can’t be created reliably.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world 10 months ago
The opposite way could work, though. A label that guarantees the image isn’t [created with AI / digitally edited in specific areas / overall digitally adjusted / edited at all]. I wonder if that’s cryptographically viable? Of course it would have to start at the camera itself to work properly.
half_built_pyramids@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Guys, is clone tool ai?
nutsack@lemmy.world 10 months ago
no
Zelaf@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
As a photographer I’m a bit torn on this one.
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.
parody@lemmings.world 10 months ago
trained on data they’re actually allowed to train on
That’s the ticket. For touchups, certainly, that’s the key: did theft help, or not?
Zelaf@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
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.
lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 10 months ago
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.
parody@lemmings.world 10 months ago
lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 10 months ago
It’s unreasonable to make them illegible for no good reason; you could’ve included them as-is, possibly in multiple, smaller images.
I didn’t see the source, though, my apologies for that.
AFC1886VCC@reddthat.com 10 months ago
I disagree with their complaints. If AI was used in any way, it should be labelled as such, no matter how small the adjustments were.
surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 10 months ago
What is the point of the label at all?
deafboy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
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…
nutsack@lemmy.world 10 months ago
probably to get combat misinformation i dunno
awesome_lowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
So… Smart lasso tool?
TastyWheat@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Hey guys, I cheated in my exam using AI but I was the one who actually wrote down the answer. Why did I fail?
Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I saw this coming from a mile away. We will now have to set standards for what’s considered “made by AI” and “Made with AI”
Shayeta@feddit.de 10 months ago
Hahahaha, we’ve come full circle!
nutsack@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I saw a video posted by someone who claimed to have taught their cat how to skateboard. and the next two and it said made with AI.
meta w
parody@lemmings.world 10 months ago
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
nutsack@lemmy.world 10 months ago
no it was an AI generated video of a cat using a skateboard
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 10 months ago
brent rambo thumbs up kid gif animation meme
rare meta w
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 10 months ago
I think every touch up besides color correction and cropping should be labeled as “photoshopped”. And any usage of AI should be labeled as “Made with AI” because it cannot show which parts are real and which are not.
Besides, this is totally a skill issue. Removing this metadata is trivial.
disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Some of the more advanced color correction tools can drastically change an image as well. There’s a lot of gray in that line as well.
BigPotato@lemmy.world 10 months ago
DOD Imagery guidelines state that only color correction can be applied to “make the image appear the same as it was when it was captured” otherwise it must be labeled “DOD illustration” instead of “DOD Imagery”
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Cropping can completely change the context of a photo.
IIII@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Sure But you could also achieve a similar effect in-camera by zooming in or moving closer to the subject
hperrin@lemmy.world 10 months ago
A lot of photographers will take a photo with the intention of cropping it. Cropping isn’t photoshopping.
JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Agreed. Photo editing has great applications but we can’t pretend it’s never used maliciously.
gedaliyah@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Why label it if it is trivial to avoid the label?
Doesn’t that mean that bad actors will have additional cover for misise of AI?
bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 10 months ago
Yes
piecat@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Film too, any trickery in the darkroom should be labeled because it cannot show which parts are real and which are not.
A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 10 months ago
What do you mean by real