Shereen Wu says leading designer uploaded altered picture, amid fears AI could ‘turn back the clock’ on progress in the industry

  • hyperhopper@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    This looks like a bad 15 minute Photoshop job. Why does she think it was AI? Where is the proof AI was used?

    Or is this just more news cycle bullshit trying to throw in the latest controversial keywords 🤔

    • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      You say “Photoshop” as a generic term for “image editor”, even when there’s no reason to think it was that editor in particular.

      Maybe “AI” is just replacing “Photoshop” as a generic term for any digital image manipulation.

      • doublejay1999@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well read.

        It used to be air brushing.

        A totally formulaic article from deteriorating media.

        They wonder why journalism died .

      • hyperhopper@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Air brushing, Photoshop, and AI are specific methodologies, you can’t just use that as a generic term when that will just create more confusion and hide the meaning, especially when the difference is important due to legislation.

        I never put out an article saying it was one of them definitively. I just said the style looked similar to another method.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “AI” is not a term for photo editing at all, much less a generic term for it. Using totally wrong words to refer to things doesn’t make you innovative, it makes you a crackpot or a liar.

        This is seriously the dumbest take I’ve seen all week and I can’t believe how many people upvoted it.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Or is this just more news cycle bullshit trying to throw in the latest controversial keywords

      No, you’re just focusing on the wrong part - this article is about racism, not your favourite new tech…

      • hyperhopper@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then why did they put the name of the latest tech in the title when it’s not even relevant

        • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because the headline is about what the model said, and the model said that it was AI. Neither the headline nor the article says that she’s right about it, just that her face was altered dramatically, which is absolutely relevant when you consider some of the most widespread uses for visual AI right now. This might have just been photoshop, but it looks a lot like some of the AI-powered TikTok filters, so it’s worth a conversation as to why we feel the need to do this to people’s faces at all.

    • Patch@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      AI image processing could do the job in two minutes with no skill, whereas manual image editing (even crappily) takes skill and time.

      Why assume someone handcrafted it when there’s no evidence?

      • hyperhopper@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because the article specifically said “AI”. It could have just said “edited” and left it at that is the methodology was unknown. But when the methodology is both unknown and doesn’t affect the story at all, it’s bullshit to put a potential lie in the headline just to act relevant to a different hot topic issue.