I concur it is sad that Marc is not here at the moment to take place - we did suggest he should continue with the calendar but use the "painting style" AI images while the debate took place. And hopefully his break will be short. But if anyone can voice an argument for the use of AI photographs then maybe Marc should be that person. And RnR are right, his input on so many things have been of great value. 

I would like to share another personal thing here that is something Steve and I have long taken very seriously. 

We are not naturally people who like attention, we have no specific want to be seen naked and placing ourselves in the "limelight" is not a thing we naturally craved. An irony is that with AI imagining we could write about naturism and never show our nudity again, but that would be missing the point. We realised that to promote and show naturism in reality we had to be as open about our nudity on the internet and magazines as we would be on a beach or at a club. Yes non-naturists can see us naked and at times make unsuitable and unwanted remarks (sickening at times and very disturbed). But if we acted in a way that showed that our nudity was a big deal then we wouldn't be acting truthful to naturism. We should not care if people see my breasts or our genitals on the internet (in suitable websites) just as we do not care if others see them in real life. Being naked on the internet is not for everyone, but if you opt to promote naturism on the internet and write about it then a real attitude towards nudity has to be conveyed in the accompanying photographs of you. Anything else simply isn't naturism. 

If AI images create an idea that we can show real naturism without real nudity, then we will never be able to show real naturism. Naturism has to show that people are not hung up with their own nudity - if they opt to show photos. If people are, then they should opt to not write or promote naturism. Naturism is best understood when people realise that naturists don't put any more concern or interest on people seeing their breasts and genitalia, it is that light bulb moment gosh naturists don't want to expose, they don't want to flash, they simply don't find a need to hide. It is something Steve and I have been driven by from day one and want to see better understood by all non-naturists and also some naturists!  


 

I have been trying to formulate a response to this issue for some hours, much of what I believe has already been covered by the responses in this thread , but here is my bit.

The world is changing in many different ways , as it always has. When photography came along , artists ( those with brushes and canvas) feared that their existance was being threatened . We still have those artists , well , their descendants anyway. When digital photography really took off I am sure that some ' proper' photographers felt that their livelyhood was threatened as anyone could now do what they do. We still have professionals that earn a living from their skill. Progress does not always mean better in the eyes of everyone.

In the world of cars and motorcycles , there is a current trend to create something called a rendering. Its a computer created image of some old classic with bulges in the bodywork and funky wheels. Its often something that you could create yourself in the real world with enough time / money / talent. Personally they dont do anything for me. I have met people with the skills to do it for real, spending years crafting incredible things . I dont have a problem with people creating renderings as long as they are not giving the impression these things are real.

As far as I can see , the use of ai in some ways mirrors questions that go to the heart of naturism itself. Those questions are all raised by one thing, intent. It would be a marvellous world if all naturists had honourable intentions but,  as much as we would like this to be the case, it isn't. Just as in all walks of life there are those with less than honest intentions. In this case , at no time did Marc try to pass of the ai images as anything other than what they were. Whether or not you think this is art is entirely a matter of your own opinion. 

Would it help to confine ai images to the art section ? Would this help in differentiating between what is real and what is not? You may not think it is art in the same way I am not terribly impressed by cutting cows in half. Its not for me but some folks think its fabulous. The only thing that cannot be disputed is that with the constant developments in technology , this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Lets hope that we can resolve it in a way that we can all live with. Naturism doesnt need to be divided , especially not from within .

We are quite sure there is no finger pointing going on here, that is not how ANW as a community do things, but this is an important issue that should be debated by all of us, as it can directly impact us all. 

Edward rightly points out the ethics, we pointed to the sourcing of these images, and we feel both of us and Edward have raised what should be the primary concern. From an artist/publisher/writer point of view, the source of an image is an ethical question, because ownership is very important to those who own the interlectual property rights, and if any of the AI programs cannot fully substantiate the IPR source, then AI is indeed guilty of theft. 

One of the fundermental rules of naturism is consent, especially in regrad to the capture of images, and so with that in mind, we feel it is fair to say that rules should apply to images used on this site. If an AI prgram cannot clarify the consent of the person's image, it should not be used in a realistic sense to create artificial life like images on any web site.

Artistic interpretations are exactly that, they are not a captured image, but the artists own interpretation of how that person appears to them, and it is in that sense, be it a sketch, water colour, arcrylic or oil painting, we feel does not violate the true identiy of the subject. Within that mind set, we feel Marc's images on ANW have offered us all a good representative example of naturtism in an artistic sense, with the more painted looking images he has displayed, we do feel are pictures that have enhanced his posts here, and not be deemed bad for the site. 

We would suggest that Anna and Steve consider this, as do the members, and that some agreement is reached that disallows life like images in favour of more hand sketched/hand drawn or painted images generated via AI.

As much as I detest CNN, I saw that there was going to be an hour-long program interviewing some of the top developers of AI, from educators, to scientists looking for ways to feed the world and advance medical health, to those developing for military use.  So, I watched it and I wish I had taken notes; but I didn't. I'll just have to make a few comments based on what I remember of the hour.

I really only have a couple of observations. The one that struck me the most, was the fact that without exception, each one interviewed confessed (very willingly) that they fully expect in the near future, AI will be used with nefarious motives and some will have catastrophic results. They also each agreed that if care is not taken immediately to build stop gaps to keep AI under control, it will indeed, outgrow mankind in intelligence. One of them said that the only thing AI cannot understand or duplicate, is inner feeling and deepest thoughts. In other words, it will never be compassionate  or question its own end logic in any decision-making situation. I'll repeat here what I said in a private message a while ago.  These scientists are like Frankenstein, wanting to control their creation while regretting they ever pulled the switch. The interviewer asked one of them if he ever regrets his role in it, and the reply was, "Every day, as soon as I wake up."

They played a short clip of some member of the UN at his microphone, calling for a world wide ban on any development of AI that would contradict the universal understanding of fairness and humanitarianism. What? The scary thing about that, to my thinking, is that there are many who would agree with that man, and I'm sure it will be part of the great debate that is arising over AI. What makes it scary, is that many of the most powerful people in the world are psychopaths, who would be ready and willing to mass-massacre whole societies, just to get the wealth and power they crave.  Are they going to be restrained by bans or sanctions?  The worst of them have nuclear weapon and/or are trying to get them, and we're all concerned about that.  AI is going to eventally represent danger that nuclear weapons and the deliberate spread of pandemic disease cannot begin to touch.
  
The program opened, with Anderson Cooper standing in front of a backdrop in an otherwise black room, introducing the show. After he talked for a couple of paragraphs, the camera angle shifted slightly and he said, "Everything I've said so far, never came out of my mouth. You were watching an AI version of me, who was fed the lines to say," then the angle shifted again and he said, "As an AI reproduction, I have the ability to look, sound and move just like the real, human Anderson Cooper..."  This is not an exact quote; remember, I said I didn't record or take notes. But you get the message. It flipped back and forth several times, and if we hadn't been told what they were doing we never would have noticed a difference.  Think about the implications of that. As one of the scientists said, "We can no longer believe anything we see or hear." As he said that, they were showing scenes of Donald Trump in a violent fight with police officers on the streets of NY.

Those of you who know me from this site, will not be surprised when I say that if I did not believe the one true God is still on His throne, in control, knowing the end from the beginning, this stuff would have me grieving for what might be the last generation of life on the planet.  This isn't just about art and reputations, folks. I'll finish with my final thought to the person I was messaging earlier. I was left with the impression from these geniuses, that the rice is pouring from the sack and the hole is growing quickly.

[I should explain here, that although I did not directly address the issue of AI being used on ANW or in naturism, I had mentioned to Anna that I was going to watch that program and she suggested I share my thoughts on it later.  I hope this wasn't the wrong place to do so.]

 

Valid thoughts, Anna. 
Usually in these cases, the layman interviewer says something like, "I grew up watching 2001 A Space Odyssey and Terminator. Is that what's coming here?" and the knowing scientist chuckles and replies, "Oh, no. That sort of scenario is avoidable with the right programming."  or, "We have plenty of time to develop safeguards against anything like that ever happening."  But no.  In every case, these brilliant scientists said, "That is very likely what we're up against, and we honestly don't know how to avoid it.  We can only hope."  It's like they have collectively given birth to it, nurtured it and released it into the wild; and now they are ALL saying, "oops..."