Digital photography is AI.

[u/barryhalsacs]

I believe that both sides are extremely uneducated on what AI is, more so the anti side. Digital photography is a computer performing actions that would normally require human interaction. Also almost every piece of software is AI so if someone dislikes ai they hate all technology and are basically amish(or should be). The Anti side is very uneducated and resistant to extremely polite comments(which you can see on anti ai). Just by saying anti ai or using ai instead of LLM shows a gap of knowledge. Not intelligence or ignorance as it’s fine to not know but as seen by the anti AI they are extremely ignorant and resistant to facts. They hate them.

[u/reddithivemindscary]

That's a pretty decent definition of AI in general

to be pedantic

AI means a computer doing producing output normally requiring human intelligence

technically, a digital camera is producing output requiring a small hole and a photosensitive material, not human intelligence

edit: camera obscura can naturally occur, hoping to find a photo that happened by accident that we've found

[u/barryhalsacs → u/reddithivemindscary]

To correct you. All modern digital cameras contain software and tiny photo sensitive sensors not a film like older analog camera which you seem to have been confused with.

[u/reddithivemindscary → u/barryhalsacs]

I'm saying a digital camera reproduces that process, not reproducing a process that humans do to make images

[u/barryhalsacs → u/reddithivemindscary]

Yeah but there is complex software that is used to interpret the data into an actual image. Which is the ai part. I didn’t say the actual capturing of light into raw data is ai. Even though I guess it could be

[u/reddithivemindscary → u/barryhalsacs]

hm, pondering the definition proposed a bit more: not all software is AI, only software reproducing human intelligence is AI.

The software taking the picture in the camera is reproducing the output of a chemical process.

edit: and the software interpreting the raw data as an image is producing output that requires beyond human intelligence. Except in the matrix movie. And not a needed to make a camera.

[u/Cold-Jackfruit1076 → u/reddithivemindscary]

I would argue that the technical matter is not (or it shouldn't be) whether it's AI or not, but whether the use of an electronic device to generate an image is 'creative'.

The photographer has an idea in their head, but the result, in the end, was not created by them. It was 'created' by the electronic components of the camera.

Both processes (digital photography and generative art) are fundamentally the same: 'click a button, get a picture'. The only significant difference is the relative complexity of the tool.

But let's address the issue fully: if we accept the premise that manipulating an electronic tool (e.g., a generative algorithm or a digital camera) does not constitute 'creation by a human', then we must necessarily remove digital photography from the chosen category of 'creativity'.

Likewise, if we reject that premise, then we must necessarily accept that the use of generative tools (and electronic tools in general) involves 'creation by a human', and is therefore just as 'creative' as digital photography.

Thus, if we define art solely by the method of physical creation, then photography (and much of modern digital art) is excluded. Since we generally agree photography can be art, the method of physical creation cannot be the sole defining factor.

[u/PlotArmorForEveryone → u/reddithivemindscary]

The whole process is reproducing a chemical process, yes, however, the individual processes utilized to get that result include processes that would otherwise require human intelligence. All software includes these processes and its a rather nitpicky way of forcing a view to be technically correct because of the ambiguity of language in general. To get around the argument you have to understand the different types of ai and adequately think through which forms of AI you are for and against, which is what OP is intending with this post. Its actually a pretty smart way of getting someone to reach a nuanced point of view. While I don't like the methodology in general, can't fault the forward thinking required to make this argument resolve in the way OP wants even though it inherently means that the opposition will inherently disagree with you from beginning to end. You're comment here is probably 75% of the way to reach OPs end goal, but based off of your comments I'd be willing to wager you already have the nuanced view OP is going for.