Gregory's Server@KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten It was done by A.I. There is no one to fire. I guess you could fire a random person who ordered the A.I. to modify the photo to fit the space, or the team that programed the A.I. I am not sure that would help anything though.
|
16 comments
 @Jon_Kramer @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten C&P'ing the exact same reply I gave to someone else with the same bad argument: A human did do it. A human decided to use the shit "AI" tool, and uncritically accepted the result that came out of it for use in the material they were posting. What YOU are doing is exactly the reason bad people love "AI". You are failing to account for the human agency of how the tool was used, and laundering the blame onto the tool that can't be held accountable.  @Jon_Kramer @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten Sure, but someone used the AI tool and would have (or should have) reviewed its output. That person should be held accountable. It’s one thing to use an AI tool, but you can’t just shrug when it does something in your name. @RenewedRebecca @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten Have YOU looked at the output? When you do, and compare it to the input, tell me if you can figure out what is wrong. Remember, you can't refer to the original uncropped photo. Just the cropped photo, and the AI enhanced photo. @Jon_Kramer @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten Did the person involved have both the cropped photo and the enhanced one? Did the cropped photo have the invented details? Why is this hard for you? @RenewedRebecca @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten She had the cropped photo. The artist through the use of A.I. created the 'enhanced' version. These details are not in dispute, or in any way 'hard'. @Jon_Kramer @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten Here’s the thing… She was responsible for the photo. If using AI makes it impossible to be verify the details on it, AI shouldn’t be used. @RenewedRebecca @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten I'm guessing you have not seen the photo either.  @Jon_Kramer the photo should not have been uploaded to any ai tool (I seriously doubt it was done in premise) without consent. This is where the wrongdoing started. @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten @MSugarhill @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten Why not? The photo was publicly posted. @Jon_Kramer @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten the person who used the tool is responsible for its output. This is how it has always worked. When I was making videos for corporates I wouldn't be able to get away with using random stock footage, much of which is highly sexualised. I couldn't just say "this is what the shutterstock search returned". This is obviously absurd. @quinsibell @KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten LOOK at the output as a stand alone piece, and tell me what is objectionable about it. The phrase "highly sexualized" indicates to me that you have not seen the photo. I think many people commenting on this thread have not seen the photo, and therefore fail to understand what this discussion IS. This leap to vilify a woman who was just attempting to do her job the best way she could is... petty. And I am done with it. @Jon_Kramer the woman who's face it was objected to it. At the very least edited photos require approval. Like I said, I couldn't get away with this conduct prior to AI image generators. Someone selected and posted the image. They are responsible. @quinsibell Great. Now go look at the picture and tell me what is objectionable. Don't get back to me, I'm done with this idiotic conversation about nothing. @Jon_Kramer it doesn't matter what I consider objectionable. A photo was edited and distributed in a way that the person in the photo objected to without consultation. |
@Jon_Kramer if you start holding people accountable for using AI and causing harms with it, I guarantee you that will "help"
@KathleenC @petrosyan @publictorsten