The problem—in my opinion—with arguing "an AI could never do X" is that your argument generally ends up working against you, by creating a well-bounded problem space, which is the first step to solving any problem (in this case, with AI.) I find it hard to create an argument against AI that isn't self defeating.
I personally don't see why a group of smart and soulful people couldn't assemble a database of cultural input data and train an AI to create some meaningful expressions that fundamentally change our human perspective, or change culture, or whatever heuristic you'd like to set for what makes an artist. Particularly as humanity comes to grips with what it means to be human in a post-AI world, this maybe the exact thing that becomes interesting from an artistic perspective.
I guess you could debate about attribution in that case, and a whole bunch about semantics in any case.
What about drone selfies? That's definitely a term, and it breaks your criteria. Could we call this a timed tripod selfie?
I propose that photographer must a) be the primary subject of the photo, b) be engaged with the camera in some way, in order to categorize as a selfie.
So yeah, pretty sure this isn't a selfie. Also this makes me want to play the new Metro.
Well, he did put himself in the photo, which wasn't at all necessary for documentation. And doing so arguably increased his radiation exposure. So I think that "selfie" fits.
It does not. The amount of risk involved is not a factor. The term "selfie" refers to the inherent narcissism of the focus of the shot.
In a traditional selfie, when you move, your arm moves with you and your self remains the center focus of the shot. A drone selfie acts in a similar way. A timed shot on the other hand will always capture a specific scene, whether you are in it or not.
Arguably Eschers lithograph "Hand with Reflecting Sphere" does qualify, but Korneyevs picture doesn't.
I can't help but think about the decline of the church and the role that it played in supporting morality and social cohesion. Obviously the church is not the only or even the primary source thereof, but in America it was a very prominent source.
1) I think you'd be surprised at what some people will believe. 2) the more likely threat is botnet comments and fake social media accounts than publishing.
