While I am a proponent of the thoughtful use of “artificial intelligence” (AI), I understand and fully appreciate the concerns many have voiced regarding the training of AI on existing creative works. Critics of AI often raise charges of plagiarism and copyright violation because of the way in which AI integrates existing text, graphics, and art into its generative efforts.
All current AI is derivative, trained to re-arrange the materials of the real world into new and sometimes surprising patterns. The process is not unlike that used by human researchers who review and study current events, processes, models, and creative works in any given discipline to understand the status quo better and then create new works. The legal frameworks of copyright law and fair use are evolving to recognize the nuances of AI, acknowledging the distinction between directly copying someone else’s creations and crafting something new influenced by existing styles or patterns.
However, there is a disturbing new trend, as reported in The Washington Post. Journalists discovered a large number of AI-generated images depicting real-world events as on-the-scene photography on Adobe Stock. In response, Adobe has begun reviewing its photographic inventory and strengthening its policies concerning AI.
It is important at this juncture for travel professionals to consider the appropriate use of AI-generated images in our travel practices. The technology has come to a point where it can be very difficult to discern between an image made by a photographer and one generated by AI. This presents all of us using AI in our efforts with a dilemma and some choices to make.
One solution is to refuse all AI-generated text and image generation. However, AI is here to stay and will be widely adopted in the travel industry. The technologies will enable travel companies and professionals to better serve their clients efficiently. An absolute refusal to adopt any use of AI does not seem to me to be a viable choice.
Nevertheless, as with all tools and technologies, appropriate and ethical guidelines should be adopted. Generating images that are “realistic” and passing them off as such will erode the public’s confidence in our technologies and in the honesty of our corporate personas.
I suggest that the images we use to promote our companies be whimsical, fun, and pointedly AI-generated or marked as AI-Generated. Feigning realism with AI will chip away at the public’s trust. We recommend steering clear of using AI to replicate real-world scenes to preserve the authenticity that only true photography can convey.
Nobody likes being tricked. To maintain the integrity of our work, it is the position of TRO and Voyager Social that we should never attempt to pass off an AI-generated image as a depiction of reality. It’s about being transparent and fostering trust. Most viewers will not care that the memes and advertisements they see are artificially generated. News events, however, depictions of destinations and points of interest should be left to photographers and photojournalists.
I would appreciate your studied and well-reasoned comments on this issue.
