So I saw this reddit post comparing an analog photograph and an AI generated image. Both images are very similar and typically you could tell which was AI (more on that in a bit). But next to each image in the post was a spectrogram thing of the light in each photo. The AI image had a smooth spread across this spectrogram, (I wish I could find the post because I couldn't exactly remember what the spectrogram was measuring) and the analog photograph had an inconsistent spread. Basically: the analog photograph, the real one, was full of imperfections when it was measured this way. I think the point of the post was that AI photographs could trick the eye but that measuring the images through this spectro-thingy-majiggy could reveal what is real and what is not. Now of course, the reddit crowd is pretty cynical and were quick to point out that this type of thing could easily be mimicked by training a new model and will probably, in a few months, be a redundant way of distinguishing a real photo from an AI generated one. But, despite this, it got me thinking about the fact that even without the spectrogram stuff, I am able to, pretty easily _still feel when an image is AI generated_. I'm not talking about being a super sleuth, I'm talking about a feeling, much like uncanny valley, that you get when you're looking at AI generated images, or feel when you hear the AI generated voice or podcasts, or music. I also want to talk about the fact that, even if I initially cannot tell if an image is AI - the thing that usually gives it away is the fact that it doesn't capture my attention as easily as a real photograph does. I've never been enamored by an AI photo, but as a photography fan, I have found beauty in many photos, and I've had moments of wonder looking at them. The only time I've ever stopped to really look at an AI photo, was the process of figuring out why it felt wrong. I want to know if those two things are connected somehow. ## Analog things I think the resurgence of analog media - or pushback against digital things - using analog cameras, listening to vinyl records, reading paper books, writing in notebooks etc etc - is related to this whole thing I want to talk about - this weird _aversion_ and _lack of attention_ for AI generated media. I love taking photos on my old analog cameras. I have done for years. It is a challenging thing to use versus the convenience of a modern digital camera, or even my phone. I don't get the photos back immediately - so I don't know what I'll get, or even if the photo was in focus or the exposure set right. So sometimes I can take a photo and then, after spending money to get it developed, and waiting a few weeks (if I am organised enough to go down to the lab), I can discover that half the roll of shots I took are bad, and arguably a waste of money. I also love playing vinyl records. I've painstakingly set up a record player with an amp, sought out specific speakers, positioned them properly in a room and then debated about what music to play with my partner. Then ultimately we put on an album that I have downloaded and is readily accessible on my phone - and probably at a much higher quality, than the vinyl version. Despite all this: I love it. So what's up with that? Why are we seeking out this difficult version of things when there are more convenient methods? It feels like we have a need to have this interference or impedance in our pursuit of pleasurable things. I put my thoughts together for this article originally as a long voice memo on my phone. The thoughts in my head weren't consistent so I just blurted out my feelings. Through those thoughts I formulated this idea that the reason those AI things _feel wrong_ isn't because of their misguided pursuit of perfection, or their homogenised generalised version of perfection, it is because of their _absence of imperfection_. A good photo, or a good song or story, will have a human touch to it that AI still struggles to replicate - it can't account for the human level of chaos put in by the human creating it. The amount of imperfection, even in beautiful things, is entirely absent in AI generated content. It is too smoothed out, too generic, never risky, and always too perfect. This feeling was one I had before AI and LLMs got popular, with digital versions of the same thing. Like digital cameras, photoshop, digital music and autotune et cetera. The difference is at the time I couldn't notice what put me off about those tools and their creations. For a lot of people there was still an inherent amount of imperfection in the creation of art with those tools, so they still liked them. And it is true - even if I am a bit of an analog snob I can comfortably say that great art, real human art, can be created with digital versions of tools. But AI media? Man, it's eliminating, entirely, the time and effort put in by a human to create things. And you can feel it. It is tangible, that imperfection. I can't point it out and say "there it is!" - it is a feeling, like a texture. I can go to a museum and look at or listen to things and really appreciate the effort. AI media is thrown away as quickly as it is generated. ## Capitalism things It reminds me of this concept that I heard about a while back. Years ago people weren't artists in their spare time, it _was_ their time. Nowadays the capitalist mindset encourages you to produce value with your time, and then with your free time produce more value - even those leisurely pursuits. And you don't have much free time, so here are tools that shortcut the effort, the value of things, entirely. Because that is all capitalism thinks our time is for: producing value. It's very misguided. But it is misses what is really valuable about those things. The uniqueness of media that is hand crafted. It is also missing what is really valuable about being human: the pursuit of things, the effort involved getting to the end. You know, _it is about the journey not the destination_. So what are we gonna do going forward? I don't know. I don't even know how to end this article, I just wanted to share how I'm feeling about it all. I don't think in 100 years time we'll go to a museum and be like "ooo look, a GPT 4.0 art piece!". But we still will marvel and gawp at Van Gogh's work. Still admire the beauty of Vivian Maier's work. When everyone can be an artist, then are we really artists anymore? Are we losing some part of humanity, some intrinsic creativity, a worthy use of our short time on the earth? --- Thanks for reading this article, if you'd like to get in touch you can reach me through: - [Bluesky](https://bsky.app/profile/paulwrites.software) - [Email](mailto:[email protected]) - [GitHub](https://github.com/phalt) Paul