The photo above was entered into a photography competition but disqualified because the judges “suspected” that it was generated by artificial intelligence. As it turned out, the photograph was taken legitimately, but by the time the contest entrant learned about her disqualification, the competition had been settled. Suzi Dougherty used a high-level iPhone to createn the unsettling photo of her son standing near two mannequins while visiting a Gucci exhibition.
The photo competition was sponsored by Charing Cross Photo in Australia. Disqualifying Dougherty’s photo via Instagram post, the judges said they were “intrigued” by the photograph, but “suspicion set in.”
Oh. Well that’s OK then!
This is one more unanticipated problem with this new technology and its kin, like CGI imagery and deep-faking. When it is possible to fake a product seemingly beyond detection, how can judges, critics, evaluators and others manage reasonable suspicion ethically?
Whatever the ethical answer is, the presumption of cheating isn’t it. The dilemma is a difficult one, though: the bias against a photo that arouses suspicion will almost always be enough to push judges toward a decision that will not involve controversy, investigations and lawsuits. Eventually even the most convincing photos will be achievable using A.I. Then what? At that point, every entry will have to be examined, tested and investigated, perhaps making such contests prohibitively expensive and complicated. Next, if baseball’s experience with steroid cheating is any guide, the proposed solution will be that the way to eliminated cheating is to make it permissible for everyone to cheat.
For its part, Charing Cross Photo’s comments demonstrated at least as much ethics ignorance as technology confusion.
“We want the images to come from your real-life experience, and not sourced from cyberspace,” it said on Instagram.“There is no way we can be completely sure the image submitted was made by AI but you really can’t ignore the gut instincts of four judges.”
Who says? Judges are nor supposed to operate on “gut,” they are supposed to make decisions based on facts. The company’s spin now is that the episode “gave us an opportunity to reinforce that this is about taking the image yourself, being present in the environment.”
That’s quite a theory: punishing someone unjustly for what she did not do is a good thing because it will discourage others from really doing what she was falsely accused of.
It’s all right, though. Charing Cross Photo has offered to waive Suzy Dougherty’s entry fee for its next photo competition.
If ever a curt “Bite me!” was called for, this is it.
Ethics Alarms 
This is an interesting conundrum, because “high-level” I-Phones and Google phones do use AI to process the images. So the subject, the son and two maniquins, are real. However, the lighting and composition are likely AI, giving the photo that haunting, unsettling feeling. The software may even be compositing several individual frames, so that there are multiple focal points. My phone is made by Google, and I can get similar photos using its “night sense” that composits roughly a dozen individual frames taken when the shutter button is pressed to produce a hauntingly clear image. This process bypasses manually adjusting for lighting and composition.
I suspect rules will have to clarified regarding use such built in photos. The raw data taken by the camera may also be required in the future. This may also disqualify many spontaneous photos that are taken with the raw data not being properly saved.
Don’t “high-level” digital cameras do that as well?