Simple question: why? How is this easier than picking a real recent photograph from a folder (from which I assume the WTA has an abundance to choose). What advantage is the photo editor reaching for by using AI?
This was exactly my question. The WTA must have an inexhaustible collection of Iga photos and many tens of Eala. I don’t understand why they would need to use AI for this purpose.
This is wild! Well done you for spotting this faux pas. Why on earth though? Surely they have a robust deal with the images providers, so it cannot be a way of avoiding payment for the images by "generating them by themselves". (If so they are too similar to the originals so the copyright is being breached anyways.) Looking forward to hear what the WTA comes back with.
Really struggling to understand why this was done at all, and especially bothered by altering of the players' faces and otherwise physical appearance. That photo really isn't identifiable as Alex. I'm so sick of having AI slop shoved in my face everywhere I go. I'm a software engineer and the amount of pressure I've gotten at work over the last 1-2 years to adopt these tools without a specific reason to do so or problem to solve has been incredibly frustrating.
There are a lot of things that bother me about the way we've embraced generative AI without equivocation, and I'll limit my comment to only 2. One of them is the way it devalues writers and other creatives (and is related to why I'm a subscriber here). Another is the environmental impact. A huge amount of computing power and demand on the electrical grid was used to morph these preexisting photographs into the uncanny valley for no good reason. I'm sure it seems like I'm overreacting, but I see something like this and I'm absolutely furious at the waste and the pointlessness of it. It fills me with an ennui that I struggle to shake. You've struck a chord with me today. Whether the WTA did this intentionally or it was a baked-in feature that they didn't ask for within an existing tool that they use, I'm so troubled that this is our new normal.
It seems there will soon be a market for images that are certified to be “unmodified” or “unadulterated” for people who have a taste for such things. It’s the nature of technical advances that they are developed to solve one problem and in the process cause another problem and the pendulum swings back-and-forth.
This is highly negligent but easily could have been an error and should have been admitted. Vendors of photo software are increasingly not only introducing AI features but making them default when you try to 'clean up' photos (remove red eye, artifacts, etc.). So it's entirely possible since this seems an isolated instance that it was an unintentional mistake. Time will tell.
I couldn't agree more. I make my living as a writer (of romance novels), and I despise generative AI. Along with writing my own words, I'll only use human narrators for audiobooks and human artists for covers. The billionaire/corporate push to use generative AI slop for everything is maddening and demoralizing. We need humanity more than ever in this world.
Great article, Ben! I love the way you pointed out all the differences with before and after pictures. Can we really be surprised that an organization that regularly manipulates its tournament draws also doctors photos on its website? You said you are working on a statistics piece - well I, for one, am getting increasingly annoyed with the statistical improbabilities in the "random" WTA tournament draws.
Simple question: why? How is this easier than picking a real recent photograph from a folder (from which I assume the WTA has an abundance to choose). What advantage is the photo editor reaching for by using AI?
This was exactly my question. The WTA must have an inexhaustible collection of Iga photos and many tens of Eala. I don’t understand why they would need to use AI for this purpose.
This is wild! Well done you for spotting this faux pas. Why on earth though? Surely they have a robust deal with the images providers, so it cannot be a way of avoiding payment for the images by "generating them by themselves". (If so they are too similar to the originals so the copyright is being breached anyways.) Looking forward to hear what the WTA comes back with.
Really struggling to understand why this was done at all, and especially bothered by altering of the players' faces and otherwise physical appearance. That photo really isn't identifiable as Alex. I'm so sick of having AI slop shoved in my face everywhere I go. I'm a software engineer and the amount of pressure I've gotten at work over the last 1-2 years to adopt these tools without a specific reason to do so or problem to solve has been incredibly frustrating.
There are a lot of things that bother me about the way we've embraced generative AI without equivocation, and I'll limit my comment to only 2. One of them is the way it devalues writers and other creatives (and is related to why I'm a subscriber here). Another is the environmental impact. A huge amount of computing power and demand on the electrical grid was used to morph these preexisting photographs into the uncanny valley for no good reason. I'm sure it seems like I'm overreacting, but I see something like this and I'm absolutely furious at the waste and the pointlessness of it. It fills me with an ennui that I struggle to shake. You've struck a chord with me today. Whether the WTA did this intentionally or it was a baked-in feature that they didn't ask for within an existing tool that they use, I'm so troubled that this is our new normal.
The sponsors are surely very happy about the fate of their logo here... Like, please let me be a fly on the wall when they start yelling.
It seems there will soon be a market for images that are certified to be “unmodified” or “unadulterated” for people who have a taste for such things. It’s the nature of technical advances that they are developed to solve one problem and in the process cause another problem and the pendulum swings back-and-forth.
This is highly negligent but easily could have been an error and should have been admitted. Vendors of photo software are increasingly not only introducing AI features but making them default when you try to 'clean up' photos (remove red eye, artifacts, etc.). So it's entirely possible since this seems an isolated instance that it was an unintentional mistake. Time will tell.
Good story, Ben. Looking forward to the WTA's response, if there is one.
Also, the subtle shade in this made me giggle:
"...as a writer who writes all my own words"
I couldn't agree more. I make my living as a writer (of romance novels), and I despise generative AI. Along with writing my own words, I'll only use human narrators for audiobooks and human artists for covers. The billionaire/corporate push to use generative AI slop for everything is maddening and demoralizing. We need humanity more than ever in this world.
Great article, Ben! I love the way you pointed out all the differences with before and after pictures. Can we really be surprised that an organization that regularly manipulates its tournament draws also doctors photos on its website? You said you are working on a statistics piece - well I, for one, am getting increasingly annoyed with the statistical improbabilities in the "random" WTA tournament draws.
Surely there’s a potential bunfight looming of the WTA (or whomever) continues to mess with logos. Athletes are contracted to wear/use certain gear.
If they’re found in breach of that contract, what happens next? Athlete sues organisation/publication etc etc on the legal roundabout goes …
Sigh.