‘There is no such thing as a real picture,’ says Samsung exec.::Samsung’s head of product is now saying that every photo is fake. Samsung’s new Galaxy S24 phones increase the ways that the company uses AI to produce pictures.
Phone cameras have been a boon for democracy, because it’s hard to deny something when visual evidence can be provided to defend against denial and dismissal.
With deep fakes coming down the pipeline, expect people to scream “DEEP FAKES” when visual evidence is prevented, an argument that becomes more legitimate with the passage of time.
Therefore, we’d need a way to create photos and videos with phone cameras that can not be deep faked, perhaps with a form of digital certification and signing, or cryptographic hashing, a fingerprint so to speak, that intrinsically linked to the digital photo.
That might mean a new raw and/or compressed digital format with the feature built-in, but also a standardised chipset to go with it.
I mean, there’s a real point there, but it’s expressed feebly, and by a simpleton - or at least through a language barrier. When you perceive anything, it’s through your biological filters; we do not see what is “really there” but only what is relevant to our reality. The same is true of cameras - they’re designed to capture a similar range to what our nervous system sees. But to say “there is no real picture” is to import philosophical concepts which are not appropriate to the discussion of photography, which presumes a pristine state to be captured and recorded. You stop playing the “photography” game when you drag in concepts that you can’t simply “point” at and “shoot”.
There’s no language barrier, his name is Patrick Chomet and he’s fluent in English and lives in London. He’s also definitely not dumb. He’s making a cynical argument that since all images have some level of post processing that they should all be viewed as “fake” on a Boolean level while conveniently ignoring the magnitude of post processing.
If you’re using a camera as a scientific instrument, normally you try to make the picture as real as possible. Conjuring up imaginary detail just isn’t acceptable.
However, you can use false color to highlight whatever it is you’re interested in, and this is a common practice in areas such as electronics microscopy, thermal imaging and astronomy. Even that might not be acceptable is you happen to be interested in the color of different things.
In normal everyday photography, the user usually isn’t interested in authentic textures or colors. Fake internet points are far more valuable to most users, and Samsung knows this.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
English
Phone cameras have been a boon for democracy, because it’s hard to deny something when visual evidence can be provided to defend against denial and dismissal.
With deep fakes coming down the pipeline, expect people to scream “DEEP FAKES” when visual evidence is prevented, an argument that becomes more legitimate with the passage of time.
Therefore, we’d need a way to create photos and videos with phone cameras that can not be deep faked, perhaps with a form of digital certification and signing, or cryptographic hashing, a fingerprint so to speak, that intrinsically linked to the digital photo.
That might mean a new raw and/or compressed digital format with the feature built-in, but also a standardised chipset to go with it.
I mean, there’s a real point there, but it’s expressed feebly, and by a simpleton - or at least through a language barrier. When you perceive anything, it’s through your biological filters; we do not see what is “really there” but only what is relevant to our reality. The same is true of cameras - they’re designed to capture a similar range to what our nervous system sees. But to say “there is no real picture” is to import philosophical concepts which are not appropriate to the discussion of photography, which presumes a pristine state to be captured and recorded. You stop playing the “photography” game when you drag in concepts that you can’t simply “point” at and “shoot”.
There’s no language barrier, his name is Patrick Chomet and he’s fluent in English and lives in London. He’s also definitely not dumb. He’s making a cynical argument that since all images have some level of post processing that they should all be viewed as “fake” on a Boolean level while conveniently ignoring the magnitude of post processing.
Ignoring the magnitude and the intent.
I mean they’ve been using “AI” filters for years. Absolutely atrocious software.
It’s a start at least. Now make them impossible to remove.
Someone will just use ai to remove them though
If you’re using a camera as a scientific instrument, normally you try to make the picture as real as possible. Conjuring up imaginary detail just isn’t acceptable.
However, you can use false color to highlight whatever it is you’re interested in, and this is a common practice in areas such as electronics microscopy, thermal imaging and astronomy. Even that might not be acceptable is you happen to be interested in the color of different things.
In normal everyday photography, the user usually isn’t interested in authentic textures or colors. Fake internet points are far more valuable to most users, and Samsung knows this.
Yeah, I just wrote someone else’s dissertation on this topic. I think it’s safe to say some are less real than others, though.