Disqualification seems appropriate. If it is against the rules to use AI photos in a normal photo category and the winner gets disqualified for that, which has happened, and it is against the rules to use a non-AI photo in this category, then the person should similarly be disqualified.
Not sure if the person behind this actually made the point they thought they were? Because it just shows that being consistent in rules and disqualification is good and the contest was consistent.
The stated point listed in the article was to prove that manual photography has merit and that ‘nothing is more fascinating than Mother Nature herself’, which he proved by winning the people’s choice award. He didn’t say the disqualification was inappropriate nor did he criticize the contest for inconsistent rules? It seems quite clear that he expected to be removed from the contest after making his statement, actually.
Personally I hope this doesn’t become a trend of machine generation and manually shot/created work spoiling each other’s contests.
Did you even read the article?
It’d be nice if you actually pointed out what in the article contradicts their statement.
his entry has been disqualified in consideration for the other artists.
What artists? The ones who’s photographs have been scraped from the Internet with no consideration or credit to provide free artistic labour to techbros and companies?
Or the talentless hacks who think asking a machine to draw them a picture holds the same merits as creating the image themselves?
who’s photographs
‘who is photographs’ makes no sense.
Gottem!
That’s what you’ve taken away from this thread? A spelling error? You’ve got nothing to say on so many topics, except for the pedantic correction of minor spelling errors or word choice.
Argue my point, not my grammar.
nuance matters. brute
“Nuance matters. Brute.”
If we are playing that game.
The turns! They tabled.
Just let the AI be the judges. I think it’s bullshit that’s not how it works
… do you think AI is…?
