On LinkedIn I just saw a post someone had placed with a photograph of a model called “Janet”. Now I cannot disprove this, but the poster claims this photo was a complete AI image construct he himself put together from scratch. And while the image is very lifelike, and at first glance the average person would be fooled, I suspect an expert would see the flaws, as extremely minor as (I think) they are.
Let me know what you think in the comments.
However, it was a statement from the “owner” that got me thinking. In this post, he makes the assertion “The stock photo business that overturned the photography business is about to be overturned”.
Now I call bullshit on that.
He has every right of course to spruik his business in order to drum up his business (potentially) and promote the concept. But that is a very big call to make! Why the daffy duck would I bother creating say, a seascape, in AI, when I can drive 2 minutes down the road and shoot a real one?
And why would my good mate, professional snapper extraordinaire Ross Gibbs not bother going to Supercar meetings if he could generate all his photos in AI?
Etc. You get the picture.
This sort of statement is akin to “TV will kill radio”, “TV will kill the movie theatre”, “Netflix will kill TV” and so on.
People still paint pictures and photography didn’t make that art obsolete.
And judging by the swarm of responses to the original post (which the author has now locked), not a lot of other people believe him either …
