We’re Already Approaching Peak AI
When it seems too good too be true . . .
Could it just be me, or are the signs ominous? Is the Godzilla AI menace actually a paper tiger, doomed to fade as suddenly as it appeared, after having thrown professional creatives into spasms of despondency?
To be clear, even if the backlash is gaining momentum, that doesn’t necessarily mean AI will go away. The genie does not return to the lamp. But there is reason to believe that the blanketing of digitally-fabricated content is losing its sparkle as the public’s collective sugar high wears off. Inevitably, it seems reasonable that we will tire of puerile deep-fakes as our tolerance for insipid distractions fade like a narcotic that requires ever-increasing doses for the same dopamine hit. How many improbably perfect Instagram reels can we endure before ennui calcifies? Faux fatigue is bound to trigger the opposite response — an overwhelming desire for human validation. Assuming trustworthy validators can be validated.
Whether with imagery or text, AI is increasingly easy to spot and to mock. Naturally, South Park perfectly encapsulated the moment with its hilarious take on ChatGPT’s patronizing one-note response to inputs, leading the gullible among us to adverse outcomes. Similarly, outrage has boiled over at the way AI has compromised platforms from prosaic stock photography to Pinterest, of which the latter had been revered as a trove of worthy aesthetic achievement by talented contributors. Having devolved into a pastiche nourished by those same works, the question is, what purpose does Pinterest fulfill anymore? Pinterest’s desperation to reverse the damage that AI grift has inflicted may be too little, too late, just as their attempts to parse the authentic from the fraudulent become an increasingly Sisyphean task. And just as the cesspool of rage-bait known as X begat alternative platforms, a viable Pinterest substitute promising rigorous gatekeeping could emerge from the rubble.
None of which is to say that AI doesn’t serve a useful role in the creative process. The power to prototype concepts or scripts at no cost, for example, cannot be overstated. Though, in other realms, such as fashion, it remains to be seen whether AI acceptance can replace the actual craft of photography. Recently, several European Vogue editions have floated a trial balloon in the form of an AI-generated editorial feature (to predictably wide scorn). At the same time, the fashion brand Guess is first to employ Generative AI for an ad campaign. I suspect the thrill of the new will soon deflate from the gravitational pull of a revivified embrace of authentic craft, much like the advent of digital watches in the tech-obsessed 1970s heightened demand — and status — for its analog rival. Virtual photo shoots using model likenesses in imagined exotic locales will likely be tolerated for commodity fashion retailers like H&M. But it’s difficult to imagine luxury brands espousing the ersatz over the extant without negatively destroying hard-won legacies based on the artisanal. Faux imagery equates to faux merch, already an endless unwinnable struggle for high street fashion brands.
Taking the optimistic view that the novelty of AI and its impossible, weary perfection will soon wear thin, the externalities may further an erosion of confidence in a business already tarnished with unrealistic embellishment. Photographers whose workflow relies on excessive post-production risk being caught in the undertow of an AI fallout against the plastification of humanity.
Predictably, image validation is certain to become standard and, as an authenticator, elevate the value and prestige of actual photographs. Bargain-level headshots will expire, while bespoke photographs made by accomplished artisans will grow in demand and value.
Agree, disagree? What’s your take on where AI is — or is taking us — the collective creative industry?
