The entire purpose of a photo is to capture a moment. What 'moment' is AI capturing? Do the books in the background represent the 'moment'? The adverts? The furniture? The clothing? The hairstyle? These are all 'parts of the moment'. When we look at old pictures, these details are the parts people LOVE going over. None of that is there in AI, and in 20 years, no one will care go look it over, because it's meaningless, unintentional slop. Not a haircut someone picked out. Funny hiphugger/mom waist/tight/loose/bellbottoms. Not currated books in the background that represent thought of the time in which the picture was taken.
There is nothing in the AI photo worth re-looking at later, because there is nothing there. There is nothing to take from any of the 'details' in the image.
Does it matter if the moment is real? What makes you think that all of the photos that have been taken thus far are real? What makes you think that the photographer chose a certain angle to craft a story? Is that moment real? When people say "cheese" in photos to make them smile, are those real?
I am not a proponent of AI images, believe me, but I find it interesting to think that people would not like AI images. People don't really care if something is real or not. They just want to be told a good story.
i.e. we are fucked, but we have already been fucked for years without knowing. Call me a luddite but selfies is the fakest shit ever. I would rather take pictures of plants, rocks and animals than people.
Your comment captures the most objectionable mentality behind AI zealotry so well. So much display of hubris, no appreciation of science, engineering, art, or anything at all.
