This is an apposite article for we here in Australia. An MP has been AI-altered to modify her body and dress. For the record, Ms Georgie Purcell MP is a member of the Animal Justice Party, a progressive party focused on animal welfare, but generally to the Left of political thinking. The uproar has been instant and the media outlet which altered her image has been forced to give an apology of sorts, saying the image had been altered to fit their format. Astoundingly, Adobe (who makes Photoshop) has come out denying the AI could do anything like what happened without human intervention and choice selection from a visual menu which appears, showing variations. Perpetrator Channel 9 has nowhere to go.

As a commercial photographer, I am aware of what I can and cannot do. While porn is not the question here, altering images for harm is not new, but the method and flawless execution of those fake images is frightening. Naturally I have been altering images for years, from sunny skies to changing the colour of a tie or dress.

Obviously for me, it is the motive which is paramount - do I wish to deceive or pervert the conception of a person's image, or is the enhancement benign or practical (e.g. changing the colours of shirts in a catalogue by Photoshop so I don't need to shoot each differently-coloured shirt)?

Ultimately, this is a moral question which has been ever-present for creative people, but now made far easier to change or create credible but false images. There should be urgent debate around how to limit such misuse of tech and AI for questionable or plain immoral purposes. Sadly, with so much money involved on behalf of those with vested interests, I fear "self-regulation" will be a toothless exercise in virtue signalling and outright bullshit. I have no instant-fix solution, but industries-wide discussions must take place. The law alone is no answer.

As a professional, I despair.