Miles Asterley shared his thoughts on artificial intelligence, with a flamingo providing a lot of help. IMAGE CREDIT: COURTESY OF MILES ASTRAY
Miles Asterie is an interdisciplinary artist who combines a fusion of writing with photography and artistic activity. The move stemmed from a slow-paced immersive world he began in 2012.
As a writer and photographer, the impact of AI-generated content is at least two levels for me. However, I'm less worried about the impact this disruptive technology might have on my work. I've built my own creative language, which a machine basically doesn't know. My fear is that structural social changes could cause livelihoods, occupations, industry, and the foundations of democracy to disappear overnight.
Don't be nervous, I'm not predicting the end of the world, nor am I demonizing artificial intelligence. However, I do think we need to move the public rhetoric about AI into action as soon as possible. We are not on the waves, but in the depths of the ocean, so there is no way back.
Recently, I applied my work (pictured below) to the 1839 Awards, which competed for the Artificial Intelligence category. It is a well-known international photography contest. Anomalous: This seemingly headless flamingo is a real photograph, except that the bird is busy grooming its belly feathers, so its neck is covered by its belly. I felt that if this entry could capture the hearts of the prestigious jury of the competition, then I would be able to prove that human-made content has not lost its relevance; Nature and its human interpreters can still defeat machines; And creativity and emotion are not as simple as a string of numbers.
图片来源：COURTESY OF MILES ASTRAY
After a panel of judges, my photo was shortlisted along with a handful of "real" AI-generated images and competed for two awards: the Jury's Choice Award and the Public Vote Award. In the end, the work convinced both the judges and the audience, winning both awards last week. As far as I know, this photo is the first real photo to win an AI award.
Even so, so what?
What is true and what is not?
Of course, I'm uneasy about misleading the judges, but I think they're professionals, and they should also be aware that the impact on AI and its moral implications outweigh the immorality of deceiving the audience. The irony, of course, is that AI is actually deceiving the audience as well. That's why I decided to take this shady approach in the first place: in recent years, a number of AI-generated photographs have become the subject of international discussion when they have won international photo competitions that they shouldn't have entered. This fact also highlights the growing capabilities of this technology.
While focusing on these hot spots, I realized that I could do the opposite and do something that only humans can do. Some people may say that AI inspires me, but soon someone will respond that these machines are still controlled by humans, and that AI is their visual henchman. The truth is, the idea did convince a group of industry professionals, including members of the New York Times, Phaidon Press, Getty Images, Centre Pompidou in Paris, Christie's and Maddox Gallery. This fact also says something, and I think it should be in the following order:
• Nature still surpasses machines.
• Our brains haven't adapted to the new normal.
• People are no longer able to tell the difference between an AI image and a real photo.
The first one is undoubted. I'll now explain the remaining two.
I don't think the judges are to blame for this. In fact, they didn't debunk my little tricks, not because they weren't professional, but because of cognitive biases. They didn't expect anyone to sign up for the AI category with real photos, so they didn't prepare for anything. Who would have thought of this?
Herein lies the problem: in the same way, we, as a society, are not prepared to question every image, audio file, or video we encounter, because historically we didn't have to, or shouldn't have to. Probably because it's a sad thing to question all the wrong things and anyone in front of you. However, if we want to be ahead of AI, then our critical thinking must compete with the light-speed development of AI, which is the responsibility of each of us.
As for the AI photos that are not much different from reality, the intention behind this is not so different from the Berlin-based artist Boris Erdagsen who won the Sony Global Photo Contest in the creative category last year with an AI-generated image, but he did the opposite. People are currently not prepared to deal with the various effects of artificial intelligence.
Admittedly, if AI can be used wisely, it can even contribute to the promotion of creativity. It's really helping Elda Gesen with his work. However, AI will also make a lot of creativity useless, depending on how creatives use it and what kind of institutional framework we put in place to do so. Some creatives are already using AI to outsource menial tasks and free up resources to work on projects they truly love. Other creatives may have lost a lot of opportunities because their work looks like a formality to employers who understand AI-generated content.
However, there is a lot of gray space in this exaggerated, black-and-white scene. For example, if a startup is strapped for money and is reluctant to hire a graphic designer, it can also use AI to create a free company logo. As a result, the graphic designer lost a job because of it. The same start-up may also use AI to generate a generic gallery of their blog, and the same content would cost a lot of money if done by a gallery photographer. However, the stock photographer may already be using AI to produce their content at a lower price. It's complicated. Once we start talking about the specifics that deceive the audience, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the situation becomes more complicated. For example, what AI may never be able to replace is real photos of newsworthy events. However, AI can create fake photos to create news that never happened outside of the computer.
Is AI a big plus or a bad one?
Technology itself is not good or bad, it is innate. What really determines how good or bad it is the way humans use technology. If we hadn't dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, but had used it to change the trajectory of the planet close to Earth, we might have called it a sacred bomb. When it comes to advancing humanity or destroying it, AI is no different from other technologies.
However, since we have failed to capitalize on its disruptive predecessor, social media, we should be preemptive in the face of a new round of change. But don't get me wrong, I love change. My whole life has been in flux. Change requires adaptation, though. When social media revolutionized the internet, it first by connecting people across the globe and then fueling revolutions like the Arab Spring. Very good! But it soon became a prime proprietor of fake news that undermined elections and democracy.
AI promises to make it all look like a children's prank, the equivalent of putting a massively misleading weapon in the hands of anyone who needs it, without any background checks. If we want to gain the ability to tag AI-generated content, then it may be necessary for us to label it. This burden should be shouldered by both the government and the private sector, and it is no less important than the responsibility of the private sector and individuals to think critically and question what is commonplace. We have to lead young people to do this.
Repercussions and deep meanings
As a result of the digital landscape that is being reshaped by artificial energy, there is a growing debate about the future of content and the creators behind it, including artists, journalists, and graphic designers. From this point of view, my prank touched a sensitive point. News outlets around the globe have covered it, and good old social media has amplified it. I was overwhelmed by the overwhelming amount of positive feedback. There was a lot of support for this approach and the motivation behind it, but nothing surprised and humbled me more than the feedback from the tournament organisers.
After I informed the tournament organizers of the true situation of the "flamingo" photo, they disqualified the flamingo photo due to the need to treat other contestants using AI images fairly. Co-founder and director Lily Fellman sent me an email and commented that she appreciated the deep intent of the move and affirmed the importance and timeliness of the statement.
"We hope that this will raise awareness and give hope to the many photographers who are concerned about AI," she wrote. ”
Personally, I hope that my victory will be a victory for many creatives in the industry, and that those who are worried about AI will really realize this. AI technology is going to be with us a lot, so I want people to adapt to it and adopt it in a way that benefits all. (Fortune Chinese Network)
Translator: Feng Feng
Reviewer: Xia Lin
The views expressed in the review articles on Fortune.com are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and positions of Fortune magazine
At Fortune Plus, netizens have made many in-depth and thoughtful comments on this article. Let's take a look. You are also welcome to join us and talk about your ideas. Other hot topics today:
Check out the great view of "Masayoshi Son: Will Build a Super AI with 10,000 Times More Capabilities than Humans".
Check out the wonderful views of "Ministry of Finance: Stamp duty on securities transactions from January to May was 43.9 billion yuan, down 50.8% year-on-year".