If AI overtakes photography in the future...

will you give up photography and call it quits? Any diehards here?

Taking shots well before AI and the internet, so I'll keep using manual focus teles and keep going until I drop 😉 I have to take photos, it feels right.

I‘ll likely give up sharing any of my images, I‘ll likely stop sharing my music. I‘ll probably never stop creating for myself though.

You mean give up the need to be competitive or just become self serving?

Do you mean in the sense of 'collectors need to collect' kind of thingy?

I'm not fully sure what you imagine, when you use that expression... but I guess, I'd view photography and music as something I'd keep doing for myself, yes! Because I've never had to be competitive (in a sense that I was relying on making money with either photography or music), I won't have to change anything as far as this is concerned. However I probably won't continue participating on platforms like flickr or here for the most part.

I love Manual focus teles for the challenge. I finally do have 1 AF tele but it misses the feel and challenge of MF. AI doesn't change anything personally, but taking away the challenge sure would.

Since I do photography for the fun of it, I would keep right on doing it as I please. I doubt AI could replace many of the photos I take. It sure couldn't have documented my grandson's 5K race this morning. And finding/photographing a little blue heron here yesterday, far out of its usual range, is way more fun than telling a computer to replicate one someone else found where they're common.

Part of my pleasure in photography is having discussions with other people about the images I and they create, and I'm sure there will continue to be venues for such discussions, though they may not take the same forms they do now. I'll be there for that too.

I have no beef with AI. I have played with it myself and intend to play more in the future as I have time to spare for it. Right now I still get rabbits with 3 ears, humans with 6 fingers on a hand, and other anomalies, and my results often look like they've been run through some renegade Topaz filter. But I have friends who have been integrating their photography with AI for a couple of years now, creating fantastical images. Like most everything else AI has potential for abuse, and will be less trouble if people are honest about what they are doing. We shall see where it takes us.

Do you believe folks will tire of having to second guess images when images produced by AI improve to the point where it will fool the majority. Will folks view every image with a jaundiced eye? If you took a stonker shot, and others viewed it not believing it was done by you, but instead by Ai, wouldn't you be a bit peeved off?

Personal memories are one thing, but art would be another. AI could well replace art in the future which could very well displace many photographers, making them feel redundant. Many could give up the game completely...

So you wouldn't feel the same way as Wim here?

Wenders, too, now regards photography as a thing of the past. “It’s not just the meaning of the image that has changed – the act of looking does not have the same meaning. Now, it’s about showing, sending and maybe remembering. It is no longer essentially about the image. The image for me was always linked to the idea of uniqueness, to a frame and to composition. You produced something that was, in itself, a singular moment. As such, it had a certain sacredness. That whole notion is gone.”

www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/oct/12/wim-wenders-interview-polaroids-instant-stories-photographers-gallery

You could still participate by using a disclaimer that your images are not AI.

Upon seeing the first daguerreotype around 1840, the influential French painter Paul Delaroche (1797-1856), declared: “From today, painting is dead.”

LMAO

The Temptation of Saint Anthony. - - The Wallace Collection.

The author died in 1856, so this work is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 100 years or fewer.

The thing is I take photos for me. If people want to type in and produce an image, that's fine, as long as it looks real. AI doesn't change why I personally take photos.

People view images with a jaundiced eye now, even without AI and have for a while. Think of all the suspicions/accusations over HDR, and over whether/how photoshop was used. AI is just the latest suspicion for us to deal with.

I was once second guessed about whether some of my images in an exhibit were photographs or paintings. A couple of the second guessers were sort of belligerent that they simply had to be paintings. I took it as a compliment. I won't be shocked if I get falsely accused of using AI but AI would have to be better than it is now and I'd have to be more skilled at it than I am now or it definitely would not be a compliment.

Skepticism will be heightened with the further advances of AI. Probably to the point where many photographers will give up in frustration. Photoshop will pale in comparison with what AI will be able to do in the future.

"Upon seeing the first daguerreotype around 1840, the French painter Paul Delaroche (1797-1856), declared: “From today, painting is dead.” Painting did not die that day, but photography was born, disrupting the world and its social order "
www.artandobject.com/news/today-painting-dead-photographys-revolutionary-effect
It remains to be seen if folks adapt well to AI and work with it.