Adobe is selling fake AI images of the war in Israel-Gaza | Hacker News Reader

Adobe is selling fake AI images of the war in Israel-Gaza

crikey.com.au

76 pointsdoener10 comments

> Adobe requires submitters to disclose whether they were generated with AI and clearly marks the image within its platform as “generated with AI”.

There's no story here. If publications use the photos without indicating they're fake then write a story about the publication.

There is a story and they are reporting it. One, Adobe Stock allows fake images of the war. Two, publications are using those fake images of the war as real images of the war.

Headline: Adobe is selling fake AI images of the war in Israel-Gaza

Subheadline: Online publications have used a photorealistic image of a missile attack from Adobe Stock without marking it as fake.

"A handful of small online news outlets, blogs and newsletters"

Ie unprofessional places, none of which are worth mentioning by name.

Those same “unprofessional” places get picked up by the social media outlets which then generate overwhelming reactions to the point they’re picked up by the more typical news media outlets.

Still doesn’t stop the impact it causes, that’s the concern here, and we as a society should be taking this very seriously.

We’ve done this dance before with other situations, but not at this level.

"unprofessional" Telegram channels can have millions of subscribers.

Then go upvote the story I submitted about the IDF using virtual polyglot diplomat avatars in the meta verse.

What's the difference between using Stock images (generic photographs / graphics) vs Fake Ai images in a news story? Traditionally stock images have been used to add more "impact" to a story. If the Fake AI image can do that better, obviously they will be preferred.

I understand that readers need to be informed. But to be fair, (c) Gettys (or some other stock photo dealers) below a photo never made me aware that the photo used was a stock photo until I learnt about stock photos one day. Also, would marking a photo as AI really reduce the impact of a well-written news story?

> What's the difference between using Stock images (generic photographs / graphics) vs Fake Ai images in a news story? Traditionally stock images have been used to add more "impact" to a story. If the Fake AI image can do that better, obviously they will be preferred.

That's a good question. I think that at the end of the day, it comes down to journalism ethics. Here's a pretty cool article on the ethics of the usage of stock photography in news articles:

https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2019/04/09/when-news-orgs...

Without having a clue myself on this topic, I do think it is inappropriate to create imagery which is not real and demeaning to the victims of that which is actually taking place.

I think there's a difference between the use of stock images in an article about, say "iPhone screens are shattering in cold weather" (with a stock image of a cracked iPhone screen) and "here's what's happening on the ground" (AI-generated image of all kinds of carnage).

I guess this is a good strategy to take the bite out of propaganda by saturating the image space with known fakes.

Sounds like it could backfire though, as it would also make it hard to find the truth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com