Picturing Unfairly

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE is so advanced and clever that the visual images it produces are often extraordinary. Extraordinarily artistic, or extraordinarily realistic. Often it is impossible to determine whether it is an AI image, or an actual photograph. People seem to fairly often publish images on social media which are generated by artificial intelligence,but not labeled as such, leaving the poor hapless beholder to wonder whether it is an actual photograph. There are always experienced, observant people ready to pounce, however. Sometimes one of them will post a comment, to the effect that the image is obviously artificial, and that the person who posted it without so informing the public is guilty of a huge deception, and should be punished, or whatever. Sometimes the anger is palpable. One of my few true Facebook "friends" expressed anger at the angry people who detect the artificial intelligence. She thinks they are needlessly, inappropriately excoriating folks who post artificial pictures. What real harm are they doing, she asked? They are only sharing something they think is beautiful, or interesting, and nothing else. Whereas I can understand this reaction, I tend to side with the critics of artificial pictures. It amost seems that there should be a law requiring that anybody producing and presenting an image to the public must specify that the apparent photograph is not real, but instead, is a fabrication of artificial intelligence. Mainly, because there is a difference, a big difference, and the difference is important. If there is clearly a reason to assume that a photograph is real, but in fact it is not, and there is no way to tell the difference.....it seems unfair, deceitful, fraudulant to show such an image without properly identifying it. On my Facebook feed there was a "photo" of two cats, standing in a torrential downpour, the large cat trying to shield the little kitten, both of whom are screaming in agony, discomfort, and terror. The "photo" looked entirely real. Too real. I finally realized that it could be nothing other than an AI image. For one thing, the cats were standing on their hind legs, on a sidewalk. This terribly realistic, lifelike image broke my heart, and I am sure it had the same effect on other people, maybe many other people. Why? For what purpose? I don't recall reading any accompanying message about rescuing homeless animals. Maybe I just didn't see it. Where were the cars? Why weren't they under one? There are millions of places cats can hide from the rain. How on Earth did a photographer with a camera, smart phone or otherwise, get close enough to these two cats in the driving rain to get this picture? I mean, what was the point of the picture? To break people's hearts? Now that some time as gone by I still wish I hand't seen that picture. I wish I had not been exposed to it. It was, and remains, too painful for me. But I am almost damned sure that it was a fake, and, honestly, I rather resent being emotionally manipulated by a fake photo. And the manipulator didn't even have the courtesy nor decency to tell me that the picture is not real. I suppose it is possible to generate artificial images depicting unthinkable,ghastly images of intense suffering, by people,and other animals. Much easier than actually finding such suffering in the real world, and photographing it. But is it really fair to do that? I keep reminding myself that the picture of two rain soaked cats was not real.